Steve --
>>I do coaching work. In that area I find a large population of people who
>>are into understanding self growth theories far more than they are into
>>self growth application.
>
>Do you think we on this LO list are such people: more interested in
>verbalizing about theories than in applying them?
Steve, from your tone, prior msgs, and off-list communication, I think you
are not just asking... I think you believe the LO list is guilty as
charged. Am I right in this interpretation? That's what comes through.
And, what do you believe most readers do when they are not reading this
medium? You seem to be suggesting that we ignore the theories we claim to
believe and just carry on blindly, dumbly executing by rote the routines
of life. I don't think that's the case at all. I think many of us are
conducting experiments day by day in our work, trying to put some of our
theories to practice.
And, I'm personally offended since I think you include me in your charge.
It is more difficult to discuss practice in this open (public) forum for
many reasons. In particular, discussing practice requires mentioning
specifics and that raises the problem of confidentiality. This LO
discussion is a very public medium.
I would like to see forums appear for discussing practice in a way that
supports increased learning... I participate in one such forum in the
Society for Org Learning and it is remarkably productive. I hesitate even
to mention it, because that particular forum is not open to additional
participants. The best formula I can offer for discussion of practice is
to create a small private group with sufficient mutual trust.
>>Theories have a dissociated quality to them. They are mental
>>constructs/models that aren't integrated into experience.
>
>Glen, doesn't every theory imply a practice, demand it?
>
>For example, the theory of relativity, or the theory that the world is
>round, or the theory that our universe is helio rather than
>anthropocentric: each theory implies a confirming or disconfirming
>practice.
Every theory *demands" a practice? This is an interesting possibility, but
I not sure I get it.
What practice is *demanded* by the theory of relativity?
Of the theory of a heliocentric (vs. anthropocentric) universe?
Of Theory X? or Theory Y?
I can see two different kinds of actions that flow from theories:
1. Actions to test proposed theories -- For a proposed theory, we can
look for ways to test it. If there's a good test available, it would be
helpful to perform that test.
But, some theories are remarkably difficult to test.I think MacGregor's
famous Theory X and Theory Y are very important and valuable. Testable?
That question doesn't seem to me to be the right question. I admit some
personal confusion on this point... What do we say about theories that
don't appear to be amenable to testing. Steve says we should discard any
theory we cannot test (Steve, do I understand your point correctly?). I
don't think we should discard Theory X and Y.
2. Implications for actions in day to day living -- Some theories
have implications for living. If we believe the theory, we should act
a certain way.
When you say "each theory demands a practice" are you talking about
1) actions for testing and 2) implications for living? Or what?
>Premise, proposition: any theory that doesn't suggest appropriate practice
>is merely language, a language game, rather than the possibility of a
>guide to new directions, new work, new ways of organizing human life.
...snip quote of Glen's...
>Which theories that we've discussed here can't be validated, verified?
>
>Entropy? Linear vs global thinking? Learning styles? Hierarchical vs non
>hierarchical organiztion?
>
>How would we find out if, say, the theory of "entropy" as usefully
>explaining phenomena of human organizations can be tested in practice, in
>the world in which we live?
Steve, I think you are being covert here. I think for you it's not
"entropy" for example, but entropy specifically.
At's off in the desert and is not here to answer. Your question is very
ligitimate... We have theories; how do we test them?
Do you want an answer? or are you just repeating your (negative) point? We
do understand from your prior messages that you don't buy At's entropy
theories and don't like his exposition.
Steve, are you also being covert about your judgments about the whole
field of organizational learning? Your writing makes me wonder.
Scepticism is welcome here. Cynicism, especially veiled cynicism is not.
The difference? One is open to learning and contributes to learning, the
other not.
-=- Rick
--Richard Karash ("Rick") | <http://world.std.com/~rkarash> Speaker, Facilitator, Trainer | mailto:Richard@Karash.com "Towards learning organizations" | Host for Learning-Org Discussion (617)227-0106, fax (617)523-3839 | <http://www.learning-org.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>