Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 10:08:16 -0800
From: hugh bone <hughbone-AT-worldnet.att.net>
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