Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 10:08:16 -0800 Subject: Re: paralogy Smith, Donald S wrote: > > I have an example of a corporate attempt to control dicourse. It was part of > a training program that was used quite successfully to change the corporate > culture. I'm wondering if it in any way fits the notion of parology. > > It was suggested that the form of meetings should follow three > classifications: > 1. Initiating - Put ideas out for consideration, creates enthusiasm, orient > to future action. Examples: Proposing, building on others comments > 2. Reacting - Lets people know what others are thinking, helps get > information out, facilitates open communication. Examples: Supporting, > disagreeing, defending, attacking. > 3. Clarifying: Increasing mutual understanding, fosters analysis of issues, > encourages understanding. Examples: Seeking information, giving information, > summarizing, testing understanding. > > The percentages of each behavior appropriate in group discussions was even > specified. > the concept was very effective in controlling group discussions. Years later > we are still evoking phrases like "let me build on that" or "let me test my > understanding or "I support that". > > I realize that these rules of discourse do not ignore metanarratives. But > they are local and mutually agreed to. Is a group discussion that is bound > by these rules paralogical? > > Don Smith > > -AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT- Yes, this is an accepted training technique and seems to work. Hugh
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005