|
|  |
|
|
|
| |
| Jan 19, 2010 8:49 am |
|
re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: The ART of ARGUMENT, or I love a good fight on networks? |
John Stephen Veitch
| |
The process of how to engage in a productive discussion is an important issue. In the NZ Green Party, they have an internal objective of reaching agreement by consensus.
They start by openly sharing ideas, and building a table of facts and opinions, and the assumptions they are making. Then they seek to come to some agreed conclusion which is stated as an agreed policy position.
When they find they can't agree, those who oppose the stated position are asked to re-write the position in a manner that is acceptable to them. Then they negotiate a suitable text, eliminating all the strong objections, and encouraging people who have minor objections to live with the group process.
This is possible because people SHARE a group membership that is important to them. That does not apply in the case of debates on this network, nor to the dispute that Kenneth speaks about above.
I've been reading, "The Necessary Revolution" by Dr Peter Senge. He has several recommendations to make. I'll mention two of those here, both adapted quite a lot from the original.
The Inference Ladder:
7. Acting on the basis of my belief.
6. Having a belief that I can clearly state.
5. Drawing conclusions on which to base my beliefs.
4. Adding assumptions to the understanding I have developed.
3. Understanding the meaning combining the data I have and my life knowledge.
2. Finding the data and processing it to make sensible patterns.
1. Understanding who I am - My life experience.
Senge says that if we can identify how far up this ladder the person we are talking to has climbed, we can see how best to address the issues being discussed. For instance, the spokesman "acted on his belief" he walked out of the meeting to demonstrate his contempt.
The Council, if they want resolution, need to invite him back to make a clear statement about what he believes. (One step down the ladder.)
They are likely to still be strongly at odds with each other. Therefore, you come down the ladder one more step. What conclusions led to this belief. When did you draw that conclusion? What events, discussions or communications led you to that point of view?
And so on until the key values the spokesman is trying to protect are exposed. So the reason behind the strong feelings expressed are clear to everyone.
Four Parties Participation Model:
Senge suggests that in a discussion forum like this one; members can be trained to understand that they ALL have a role to play in every topic under discussion.
Advocate Leader: This is usually the person who opened the discussion. Certainly, the person taking the lead in making a discussion at the moment. (There may, possibly, be more than one leader.)
Opposing Leader: This person may or may not exist. If there is an opposing leader, a discussion is likely to develop. The point about any discussion is that nobody can control it's direction. Whatever is said next can change the topic for the following speakers.
Followers: These are people who generally agree with the Advocate Leader. They first of all offer support, but they may also contribute, and they may have questions for the Opposing Leader.
Bystanders: (This is what's missing on Ryze, as I see it.) These people are the disinterested referees. They observe. They hold an outsiders' point of view. They may at any time enter the debate, usually ask a question, sometimes to hold one of the leaders to account for something they have said. They may ask questions of either side. They may offer examples that they invite the leaders to discuss.
Senge claims that when all four types of participants are engaged in a discussion, the result is likely to keep the discussion moving towards a useful outcome.
John Stephen Veitch; The Network Ambassador
Open Future Limited - http://www.openfuture.co.nz/
Innovation Network - http://veech-network.ryze.com/
Building an Open Future - http://openfuture-network.ryze.com/Private Reply to John Stephen Veitch (new win) |
|
| |
|
