"John O'Neill" <jao@cook.dsto.gov.au> concludes his insightful
contribution with the following:
>... I tend to think that "experience" is more
>important than "lists", the challenge is, how do we enable people to
>"experience" and learn without the "dangerous" side-effects that Roy
>illustrates in his story.
I agree with the experience conclusion. If one cannot perform in the real
world then one is a theorist who plays in their brain. For me, I can learn
by getting an idea from the LO list, then by trying it in some real
situations, then by adapting it based on that experience, finally writing
back to the list or teaching someone else the technique.
I prefer to learn from a master at their craft because a list is sterile,
lacks detail and usually only deals with the "easy" 20% of the world. My
swimming pool heater has a list so that anyone can light it. But alas, it
has aged during its time in use and now the list does not reflect its
current reality. AND the process has become too complex to be easily
LISTed. Because I spend much time on the road, several people tried to use
the old list to fire it up. I would suggest that they would have had a
better chance of success if there had been no list. The list limits their
thinking because they assume MY list will work!
Now if only people would treat the list as a starter kit of the obvious
20%, then it would add value and not interfere with people using their
inherent initiative to get the results they deserve...Keith
--Keith Cowan <72212.51@CompuServe.COM>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>