Hi Doc--
>happy holidays to you!
And to you! Even if it comes after the fact!
>I've used the microphone prop successfully many times. It's not about
>controlling conversation. It is about slowing conversation.
To some people the impact of slowing the conversation is controlling it.
>When we all
>get a turn to speak; when we must wait to speak with the microphone--then
>we are more likely to listen. Our speech patterns slow down and we have a
>chance to be deliberate about what we say. I've found that conversations
>started this way will continue after a break without the prop. What this
>signifies is that we've developed a capacity among the participants for
>deep conversation.
It is not that I am averse to this happening -- I delight in a good deep
conversation. But not everybody does.
>There are certainly times and topics for dialectic and debate...and these
>can be quite fun (competitive, defined winners and losers, etc). They
>also sharpen the wit...but don't necessarily develop wisdom.
Well -- if I know my academic brothers and sisters -- they would disagree
with you. I however tend to agree. I have never seen competitive
conversation develop wisdom in the moment but sometimes the bashed ego
goes away and comes up with a new insight for the next round of battle.
But just think of the potential loss of insight because the drive is to
compete -- not learn.
>By the way, I don't believe that these are "natural tendencies" that we
>interrupt with the use of a prop such as I've described. These are
>"learned tendencies," along with the interesting characteristic of people
>raising their hand to speak (I always get a kick out of that one!).
>School, home and church are wonderful places to establish rules and
>protocols for speaking that are taken into the workplace.
The competitive way is a learned way -- I do agree. If I called it
natural tendency -- I meant in the context of our culture. What is
learned becomes so natural a way of reasponding that it has that impact.
Plus it is very widespread across cultures, languages, etc... Not all --
but many.
>At any rate, it's not a method that should be used without careful
>consideration of the time, place and participants. I would never use it
>with people who aren't interested in hearing what other people have to
>say, for instance.
Well -- I think I know what you mean but it does sound harsh. I almost
took you to mean that only through the use of the tool will people be
willing to listen to others. I know that is not what you meant though.
Your saying that it is crazy to use the tool in a group of people who have
no desire to listen to others to begin with.
Sherri
sherri@maloufinc.com Tel:603-672-0355
LMA, Inc Fax:603-673-7120
--Sherri Malouf <sherri@maloufinc.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>