On Monday, Robert Bacal wrote, in part,
>Putting aside the issue of civility (well, that's a cultural thing, but
>anyway), I benefit most, NOT from polemics or long explanations, but by
>the point/counter-point, or thesis-antithesis forms of dialogue.
>
>I learn best through either participating in disagreeing, or observing
>disagreeing. It seems to me that dialogue can only occur when both
>agreement and disagreement can occur freely, and I have a concern about
>your use of the word cynicism.
Robert (and others), I'm coming to the conclusion through my experience
with this conversation, and with that in my work setting, that it almost
seems there's a fundamental preference dichotomy between those who gain
and benefit (as apparently you do) from a "point/counterpoint" and debate
approach to considering disparate ideas, and those who learn better from a
more inquiry-focused approach. I find myself to function best in the
latter. (And before anyone responds too quickly, I do not mean to suggest
a mutually exclusive approach, but rather a preference continuum).
If this "theory" is correct, what does it imply for our practice? In
particular, how can we facilitate exchanges which allow both learning
preferences to operate?
Waiting with bated breath.....
Malcolm Burson
--Malcolm Burson Professional and Organizational Development Specialist Maine Department of Environmental Protection mburson@mint.net; malcolm.c.burson@state.me.us
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>