Rick,
A few substantive remarks on your message:
>>>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.
Rick, note the structure of this exchange. Glen made the generalization: I
asked him if he thought his comments applied to the folks on this list.
You now "read" me, and my motives, and decide that I am making a "charge,"
and that the LO "list" is "guilty." You've turned what might be a useful
critique and question into a semicriminal "charge."
Why?
Here's what I believe.
I believe it would be useful to discuss here the "theory-practice"
relationship.
That includes thinking and talking about "theories" that are couched in
linguistic forms that can affect practice, and those that could not be
tried in practice because they are not in testable form.
And: I think some of the "ideas" discussed at great length here are not
able to affect practice,but lead to endless and intricate variations and
complications that go nowhere.
If that is a "charge," that's about the extent of my charge.
>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.
This, Rick, seems to me to be all passion and no substance, and without
any evidence. I neither said any such thing, or things, nor do I believe
it. Or them. I believe the opposite: I believe we all have day to day
lives, and hope to find here theories we can test and practices we can
emulate.
(When the leader of an LO, one who has to power to punish by exclusion,
gets as angry as you clearly are, there is the danger that he or she will
use her power to punish.)
>And, I'm personally offended since I think you include me in your
>charge.
I think you are a consultant and speaker positioned nationally and
internationally as an expert on LO's, and the issues I am raising are
matters of daily concern to you.
I think this list needs you, and you learn things here, and I'd like to
contribute to your learning, as you have to mine.
But: for you to learn, for me to learn, you have to willing to look at
your "rules" as they appear to others, and accept the possibility that
"learning" means change: changing the "rules."
>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.
This does not seem accurate to me, or useful: indeed, it is, I think, a
serious mistake.
If someone here believes in a theory of education--say, that dividing a
"class" into small "learning communities" will improve learning, one can
discuss how such a theory can be tested in practice without
confidentiality.
Same for any theory that affects any kind of human organization.
...snip...
>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?>>
Interesting that you should illustrate with relativity.
Einstein himself warned that his "theory" should NOT be accepted until it
was confirmed in practice. He and others designed such an experimental
verification, which involved close observations of the perihelion of
Mercury, which Einstein predicted would depart from earlier predictions if
he was right. As I recall it took 18 years before his predictions were
confirmed by testing.
If the word "demands" distresses you, pick another. The intent was to
suggest that the meaning of a theory is not a verbal definition, another
theory, but a practical outworking in the real world.
I think it was Whitehead who said there was no such thing as a good theory
that didn't work in practice: the "goodness" of a theory is determined by
its success in practice.
I'm puzzled by your comment about the theory of a heliocentric vs
anthropcetrism: heliocentrism was accepted because it proved more accurate
in practice than Ptolemaic anthropocentrism, despite attempts to muzzle
Galileo and others who said humankind was not the center of the universe.
>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.
Why, Rick, are Theory X and Y difficult to test?
> 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?
What would be an example of a "theory" of your second kind?
I suspect that what you are talking about in your second category might
better be called something other than "theories": they are , perhaps,
"world views."
Belief in a God who creates and rules the universe might better be called
something other than a theory: and, as you say, such a "belief" has great
implications for how we live.
To be continued, Rick. Clearly you've got me thinking.
And perhaps you're learning too.
Cheers.
Steve
--Steve Eskow <dreskow@corp.webb.net>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>