From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Sun Apr 21 2002 - 10:23:33 MDT
On Saturday, April 20, 2002, at 07:05 pm, David Lubkin wrote:
> So, two important questions:
>
> (1) What has/hasn't worked for you in behavioral transformation?
> (2) What can we do as a group or individually to improve the
> tenor of discussion on the list?
The direct approach of "being good" doesn't work. it does not work for
me, and I don't think it works for anyone. The human mind tends to
judge itself good. Our ideas are always good. Our suppositions are
always correct. Our causes are always just. Our actions are always
defensible. We must learn to fairly allow that our "obvious" idea might
be wrong.
Therefore, my experience is unique to me, but I can't call other people
liars if the have differing experiences. My data is just my unique
collection of information. Other people will present different data
which may not lead to the same conclusions as mine. As soon as we avoid
the ego embarrassment of being wrong, and freely admit that we are all
travellers along the same road, we learn to value other people's
observations. They provide additional data, not less. They should add
to our knowledge, not counter it.
Like the archetypal yin-yang symbol, there is a little flaw in every
theory, and there is a little truth in every fallacy. We can nit-pick
the best answers by pointing out their flaws, and we and support the
most irrational theories by pointing out key truths within them. We
must realize that there is no complete winner and loser in an argument,
that each side makes many little points, some which are good and some
which are not. Most of our big questions here are unanswerable. We try
to evaluate things with too broad of a brush to be accurate. We try to
"prove" which course of action is best, when there are so many unknown
variables that there is no single answer.
This doesn't mean that we should be wishy-washy or unwilling to make a
stand. But it does mean that the stand is based on our current
knowledge. We think we are right, but we may be wrong. We can't
suppress wrong voices because that would merely prevent further
consideration of them. We must act in an evenhanded manner toward all
viewpoints, even those we don't support, so that the truth has a chance
to emerge. If we ever promote one side and suppress the other because
of a belief it is right, we are simply locking ourselves into a position
and suppressing any data that might prove us wrong. This is not
conducive to truth, but to dogma.
Therefore, even when we are "sure" we are right, we must allow others to
speak. We must seriously consider their positions. We must calmly
accept criticism of our position. We must seek objective ways to prove
our points beyond merely our own acceptance. We must also keep
challenging our own positions, and be open to change if we find
ourselves to be wrong. We must keep a free dialog of challenging ideas
open, and never try to squelch dissent simply in pursuit of uniformity.
We must seek truth wherever it may lead, rather than "our" goals whether
they are right or wrong.
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP <www.HarveyNewstrom.com> Principal Security Consultant <www.Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:36 MST