yak
[Top] [All Lists]

[yak@collab] Re: Dangling Threads 2003-03-17

To: yak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: John Sechrest <sechrest@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 16:07:26 -0800
Message-id: <200303240007.h2O07Qh29351@jas.peak.org>


"Garold (Gary) L. Johnson" <dynalt@dynalt.com> writes:    (01)


 % More or less what I meant. No rigid ties, but the sense of community and
 % agreement that aligns with the individual's goals and desires introduces a
 % reluctance to leave since the group is seen as being better than the
 % alternatives with similar goals.    (02)

 Ahh...    (03)



 % Mostly what I am concerned with is having too many individuals in the group
 % that are at odds with the group goals (as opposed to thinking there are
 % better methods, for example).    (04)


 Yes. I understand.    (05)

 In a philosophy 201 class that I helped put online, we had the following
 scenario:    (06)

 Basis: In each class that was taught, the professor noticed that
        10% of the students were bored. Ok.... So 10% are dolts.
        Then he noticed that the 10% that were bored changed as the
        readings changed.    (07)

 Thought: So he came to the conclusion that as the material that was
        being reviewed was relevent to the personal philosophy
        of each person, they got more interested.    (08)

 Starting point: He started with the assertion that every one has
        a philosophy. It may be unexamined, but each person has
        a personal philosophy.    (09)

 Process: He then took a set of readings for philosophers who had
        different philosophical basis. One for the theists, one for the
        hedonists, one for the egoists, one for the naturalists....
        etc.    (010)

        Wrote a paragraph for each of the philosophical models.
        He focused on 8 core philosophies.     (011)

        Then he asked each on to pick the paragraph that most
        represented what they could agree with.     (012)

        This set the students onto 8 different paths.    (013)

        We used web pages to give them material to read. And then
        exercises to do.    (014)

        And we build quizes and other tools to switch where
        they could go.    (015)

        So there are 8 different "classes" going on, all with
        different material, but the students are all 100% engaged,
        because it is related to what they think is important.    (016)

  Event: About 1/2 way thru the class, we would set each group
         going on some controversial topic. And each of the eight
         groups would naturally polarize. 1/2 of each group
         going one way or the other.    (017)

         We then would take 2 groups and merge them together into
         the same conversation.    (018)


         Now we found that while the people were disagreeing, the
         fundamental philosophical basis was distinctly different.    (019)


         This would cause people to stop and re-assess the philosophical
         points where they started.    (020)


 Question: What is the grooming method for a group to cause sub groups
           of people to realign with the main group proported 
           purpose?    (021)

           What do you do to get people to realign when the
           focus of the group has shifted?    (022)

           What happens when the group shifts its focus and beliefs
           beyond the limits of what you can follow?    (023)












 % Thanks,
 % 
 % Garold (Gary) L. Johnson
 % 
 % -----Original Message-----
 % From: John Sechrest [mailto:sechrest@peak.org]
 % Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2003 1:06 PM
 % To: yak@collab.blueoxen.net
 % Subject: [yak@collab] Re: Dangling Threads 2003-03-17
 % 
 % 
 % "Garold (Gary) L. Johnson" <dynalt@dynalt.com> writes:
 % 
 %  % There is a concept I encountered years ago that works well for me, called
 % a
 %  % "covenanting group". This term has been co-opted by various religious
 %  % organizations recently, but it is an observable, general phenomenon.
 % 
 %  Interesting. These are the current focus of the church that I am
 %  currently going to....
 % 
 %  % * Make it easy for individuals to leave, and possible to ask individuals
 % who
 %  % are destructive of the covenant to be asked to leave.
 % 
 % 
 %  the thing that makes a "group" is the boundry that identifies
 %  "us" vs "them"...   Some how people need to be able to identify
 %  as a group. They need to be able to distinquish. that is why we
 %  see mechanisms for group forming where people adopt common
 %  markers. Similar clothes, Same hair cut, Uniforms, Similar patterns
 %  of speach. These are used as markers.
 % 
 %  If a group is going to engage deeply, then there has to be
 %  some bonds on people. If you have a totally permiable boundry
 %  between "us" and "them", then it becomes too easy for people
 %  to avoid things that cause discomfort. And so some types
 %  of intimate conversation become impossible.
 % 
 %  So, instead of saying "easy to leave", I think that in reality,
 %  you need to have some semi-permiable boundries, where it is possible
 %  to leave, but there are strings or ties or insentives not to leave.
 % 
 %  This is what can lead you into doing more when the going gets
 %  hard.
 % 
 %  My wife and I have been discussing on and off the last 2 years about
 %  the difference between groups that focus on the individual as the
 %  center of things vs groups that focus on the group as the center of things.
 % 
 %  It is an ongoing conversation.
 % 
 %  In my classes, I use a set of Books from Oxford University about
 %  forming groups.
 % 
 %  I have been looking at using a different book:
 % 
 % The Team Handbook  by Peter R. Scholtes, Brian L Joiner, Barbara J. Streibel
 % Oriel Incorporated http://www.orielinc.com
 % ISBN 1-884731-11-2
 % 
 % 
 % I am finding it a bit too business oriented, that I think it will
 % not work well in my class. But it might be a good place for us
 % to start in our discussion about people dynamics.
 % 
 % 
 % 
 % 
 % 
 % -----
 % John Sechrest          .         Helping people use
 % CTO PEAK -              .           computers and the Internet
 % Public Electronic         .            more effectively
 % Access to Knowledge,Inc       .
 % 1600 SW Western, Suite 180       .            Internet: sechrest@peak.org
 % Corvallis Oregon 97333               .                  (541) 754-7325
 %                                             . http://www.peak.org/~sechrest
 % 
 % --
 % This message is archived at:
 % 
 % http://collab.blueoxen.net/forums/cgi-bin/mesg.cgi?a=yak&i=200303222105.h2ML
 % 5kr05887@jas.peak.org
 % 
 % 
 % -- 
 % This message is archived at:
 % 
 % 
http://collab.blueoxen.net/forums/cgi-bin/mesg.cgi?a=yak&i=MIEJJJFBHJEBDEKGPHOPAEJGEAAA.dynalt@dynalt.com
 %     (024)

-----
John Sechrest          .         Helping people use
CTO PEAK -              .           computers and the Internet
Public Electronic         .            more effectively
Access to Knowledge,Inc       .                      
1600 SW Western, Suite 180       .            Internet: sechrest@peak.org
Corvallis Oregon 97333               .                  (541) 754-7325
                                            . http://www.peak.org/~sechrest    (025)

-- 
This message is archived at:    (026)

http://collab.blueoxen.net/forums/cgi-bin/mesg.cgi?a=yak&i=200303240007.h2O07Qh29351@jas.peak.org    (027)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>