Max,
Thanks for the kind words. I noticed that you admitted:
>noticing how my own experiences are less
>disciplined, meaning going back and forth between divergent and
>convergent.
Mine do, also. However, I was also taught (about creativity) that: In
order to be creative one needs to do two things -- and it is impossible to
do both well at the same time. (Of course, the two things are divergent
and convergent thinking.)
The discipline required is to put oneself solidly in one mode or the other
and use the appropriate skills -- then shift to the other mode and use
another set of skills. Attempting to cast a wide net while being
judgmental about what gets in results, at best, in a mediocre (not very
innovative) outcome. And carefully screening the candidate ideas for the
few that you wish to pursue while at the same time avoiding being
"critical" results in a lot of energy wasted on doomed-to-fail projects.
Again, this is a bit simplistic. One does shift back and forth between
modes -- e.g., after evaluating what's in the net, it is often a good idea
to go back to divergent thinking about ways to combine or modify the
"best" ideas so as to create a hybrid that is better than any of its
components. But then, of course, one must put the hybrid through the
fine-meshed screen to make sure you were right about it when creating it.
To answer a minor language question: "rigor" is just the right word for
"rigeur." And, yes, I love rigor as much as I love freedom. They each
enhance the value of the other. I discovered a long time ago that boldly
declaring "this is what I think" then waiting for the rigorous "here's why
that's so stupid" responses is the most efficient way for me to learn. I
learned from my own experience how delightful it is to be shown to be
wrong. But I'm not about to accept that conclusion without putting up a
helluva fight! and certainly not just because someone says so. My father
accuses me, and himself, of being "OWNID": Often Wrong, Never In Doubt.
Actually that's not quite fair. I am always in doubt, but I choose to
present my ideas positively and with assurance so only strong countering
can knock them down. That's because I have more trust in conclusions
arrived at by a rigorous dialogue, when all "sides" do their utmost to
persuade -- pull out all the (legitimate) stops and fight vigorously for
their points of view. Then, when one side wins me over, I feel more
confident it was because the ideas were better, not just the presentation
of them or that one side was more skillful in the use of rhetorical tricks
or obfuscation.
So, you all have my permission to question my ideas, add facts not
previously put into evidence, argue for your conclusions, point out errors
or omissions in my arguments, and hoist me by my own petard if I commit a
logical gaff. I'll get over the embarrassment soon enough (I've been
wrong before) -- and thank you for either strengthening my beliefs or
correcting them.
As you can probably tell, insecurity has not been one of my life's
problems. If I had a magic wand and could do just one good for humankind,
I think I would wipe out all feelings of insecurity. Insecurity (or its
cousins: self-doubt, self-pity, and self-loathing) lies at the heart of
so many societal problems. I never cease to be amazed at how many times,
in my consulting work, I dig underneath some organizational problem and
find insecurity at its heart. I admit I laughed when Woody Allen (the
poster child for insecurity!) said, "I wouldn't want to be a member of any
club that would have me as a member." But how awful it must be to walk
through life worrying, every day, that "people will find me out" -- i.e.,
find out that I'm "not as good as I pretend to be." Of course you aren't
-- you're actually better! Once you understand this, the challenge is to
"act as if" it's true.
--"John Gunkler" <jgunkler@sprintmail.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>