A thought: How can we not occasionally step on each other's values -
especially as we communicate with more and more people over longer and
longer distances? Are there groundrules that would help such as "clarify
the intent of comments made before responding?" Hmmm -Maybe not. I would
hate to see any one develop a tarnished image as a result of sharing in an
electronic discussion group. People's values are often hard to determine.
For example (an extreme to be sure): Jeffrey Daumer was considered a fine
fellow by teachers, neighbors, etc. who were most surprised to find out
that he was a serial killer. Usually, candid(even cryptic) people are
honest. What works for me is to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. It
is simply easier to do so. I hope others will do the same for me. :-))
Rol Fessenden wrote:
> Keith --
>
> Like many others on the LO I jumped to the conclusion that you were
> condemning lurkers in that posting that caused such a stir. The
> interesting thing is, I thought I knew what you meant in that posting, and
> in my mind I condemned you for it. At the same time, I was quite aware
> that it did not fit with the view of you that I had developed from reading
> your thoughtful, and sometimes caring postings.
>
> Your most recent statement (below) clarifies everything for me, and makes
> it clear that I had in fact really judged you harshly and incorrectly
> because of your words. Now I can see that the words were not badly
> intentioned.
>
> Of course, aside from sincerely apologizing to you, I have a not-so-hidden
> agenda. This example really ties together a number of threads.
>
> First of all, apparently there is a shared set of self-evident truths that
> many people on the list have, and which caused a pretty uniform negative
> reaction. It is interesting to me -- still -- that we use our SETs without
> taking the time to actually, explicitly figure out what they are. Some of
> us even continue to claim that they don't exist.
>
> To clarify, I would guess that the value we all felt revolved around
> unjust criticism. Someone else may wish to put it into better words than
> I have. We responded by being angry, and interestingly, the feeling of
> anger precipitated a lot of responses to the list from people who normally
> do not participate. No criticism intended here. I just suspect that this
> violation of our implicit values had a very powerful impact. The learning
> for me is that values are strong, potent feelings. they will cause a
> reaction when many other things will not. Another good friend -- lurker
> on this list -- just wrote me to say they exist in the belly, not the
> head.
>
> Second, it dramatically illustrates how our actions are used by others to
> determine who we really are -- what our values are -- despite our
> intentions. Keith, you were well-intentioned, but you still got hammered.
> Your image suffered greatly. It is now 80% repaired. There is probably
> some lingering suspicion that your apology was not honest. This, probably
> from someone who was very willing to believe your first post was an
> accurate representation of your values, but is unwilling to believe your
> second post. The lesson is that it is very hard -- very, very hard -- to
> completely correct for a mistake when you have violated someone's values.
>
> This dramatizes for me the importance of thinking through what it is you
> are trying to share and ensuring what you communicate is an accurate
> representation. As a communicator you have some responsibility.
>
> Not to let myself off the hook, however, as a responsible listener, I too
> have to invest some effort in ensuring that I am understanding what you
> intend for me to understand, and that I have not 'received' a different
> message than you intended to send. This is particularly the case when you
> have stepped on my values toes.
[...snip by your host...]
-- Carol Sager, Sager Educational Enterprises Critical Linkages II Newsletter 21 Wallis Road, Chestnut Hill, MA 02167 V(617)469-9644;Fx(617)469-9639;sagerent@world.std.com
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>