I found myself very drawn to Joe's description of how he learns and
follows different conversations. What I find myself doing is being drawn
in by an initial posting by someone -- I read all of the initial postings
-- and then when it appears to me to be turning into "debate" I get bored
with the thread and stop reading it. I also don't really read those that
are not of current interest to me. So my belief test would be two-fold --
what in the subject matter is challenging or pushing on my comfortable
beliefs, assumptions, etc. But also, what is it about the written
conversational style to which I also shut down?
I attended a Dialogue workshop run by Bill Isaacs and Micheal Jones which
was a fascinating experience because there were 30+ people in the room
attempting to create a "container" so that as a group we could *inquire*
of each other as opposed to constantly *advocating* to each other. (This
is a very basic description). I guess what happens to me is that when I
sense -- through my own beliefs and interpertations -- that a particular
thread is turning into advocacy and counter-advocacy -- I feel bored
because for me we are not using the medium on-line to create something new
together. For the people involved -- it could be a very different
experience! They could be feeling that they are creating a new connection
or understanding or whatever.
So I wonder is it possible to feel the trust enough -- using this
technology -- to really risk communicating in new ways? To be vulnerable
or wrong and not have it matter? Really because we all need to learn new
ways to connect -- not just communicate but to really connect with each
other.
Sherri Malouf
LMA, Inc.
lma@ma.ultranet.com
--lma@ma.ultranet.com (Sherri Malouf)
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>