Hi, all.
INTERACTION ON THE NET
Before feelings are permanently hurt all around, allow me to point out
that communications on the net are restricted in bandwidth. Expression,
tone, gestures, attetion levels - all missing. Ben, you may tell me that
typing feels just like other forms of communications - and that's an
important point in some ways - but the reality is, we're missing a lot
this way.
So, any comments, reactions, etc. that come through the net should be
taken with a thick skin and a large helping of salt. Often, what you think
was said isn't exactly what was meant.
My approach is to save myself the aggro up front and not take e-mail at
face value. If it is one of the rare occasions when someone really is out
to get me, they'll let me know through their persistence. If not, I
haven't gotten upset or wasted energy worrying over nothing. Looking at
this exchange, I'd say it falls closer to the "nothing" category.
MANIC DEPRESSION'S A FRUSTRATING MESS...
> For some reason -- I don't really know why -- but I don't think this
> thread will hurt anyone. People have written their own stories which
> ARE sad. But there are other threads and postings which can also
> generate a lot of emotion. Do we start worrying about all of the things
> that are written? We cannot say what will or will not cause someone to
> become more depressed. For all we know the thread about insecurity could
> set someone off. I just wonder why all the concern about this one being
> the only one capable of achieving that end.
Hmm...well, you're both right here, Sheri. Robert and others are not
incorrect when they warn that subjects like this can "playing with fire."
But sometimes support is really important, even electronically. To
acknowledge one is not to deny the other.
IMPLICATIONS FOR THE LO LIST
What jumps out at me most clearly is how much Chris Argyris would just
looove this whole exchange. Slight misinterpretations, which evoke
defensive responses, which cause a feedback cycle of same, which inhibits
further learning and exploration of a subject. Not because of Rob's post,
but because of the dynamic of the response set up around it.
Read the thread again...it really is a marvellous example, and for that
reason alone I'm sort of glad it happened.
My take: Discussing this issue can be a good thing, and the urge to offer
support to others is not wrong. But Rob's "double-loop" question regarding
the potential pitfalls is equally valid. Most of us are NOT professionals
in this field. We should keep his cautions in mind and attempt to
incorprate them into our thinking and actions when discussing this
subject.
After all,if we can't raise "double-loop" questions on the LO list, where
can we?
----------------------------------------------------
Joe Katzman, MBA kat@pathcom.com
Communications And Technology (C.A.T.) Consulting
Business Consulting, Internet Training, & Web Design
"The more you know, the more you can imagine."
http://www.pathcom.com/~kat/
----------------------------------------------------
--kat@pathcom.com (Joe Katzman)
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>