Quick Update

So this week I am getting ready for traveling next week. As my next travel session will probably be very long, that means getting my tax info out of the way so I can travel with at least that much stress off my shoulders. This has been distracting, so my post this week has been delayed. I keep telling myself "I just need to finish this thing, then I will post," but the truth is, it really isn't happening. So I figured I should put up  short post to explain why my post isn't up, and probably won't be until next week.

Job accomplished.

In the meantime, I have been thinking about the terms I have been using to describe Direct Understanding. Part of the trouble I have had in explaining our ideas is that we have a lot of terms we could use, but none of them are exactly what we want. Understanding, comprehension, ideas, concepts, definitions - all of these have different concepts attached to them, but none of them quite work, since the common understanding of them tends to be 1) vague, and 2) highly overlapping. This makes precision difficult, and explanations long and somewhat tedious. I may, therefore, put together a list of terms with definitions as I use them in my explanations - a kind of Glossary of Jason. I'm not sure if/when I will do this, but given the complexity of the topic, it may be useful. Whether I do or not, I still want to spend time exploring how direct and indirect understanding impacts our personal identity, so that will probably be in the next post.

Insight Into Thinking: Comprehension

It's been a while since I talked about the theories behind the work we do at IRI, and I think it's about time to resume. Previously, I reviewed different thinking styles people use to interact with the world. Now clearly, given IRI's focus on ABC thinking, we have a preference when it comes to which style we promote, but before I get into the details of why, I want to take a moment to discuss a closely related issue—the way we learn and understand ideas. In the work we do, discussions in this area usually produce the most positive feedback and results, and I cannot understate how important it is to our work.

Onward, then.

Direct Understanding

So let's say there is an idea I want (or need) to understand (we will refer to this generic idea as “I”). There are three ways I can understand this idea. First, I can understand it directly. That is, I have a fully developed concept about the idea, understand its impact on other ideas, and feel comfortable modifying my concept to adapt to new information. Direct understanding, which I will also refer to as conceptualization, can be illustrated as follows:

 

Note the arrows go both ways; I understand the idea, and I can, in turn, do things with the idea (modify it, update, or otherwise adapt it to new circumstances). In short, I understand, and can use the idea—the idea is my idea.

Indirect Understanding

Now let's look at another scenario. In this case, I don't know the idea and need to go to another person to understand it. This other person (or institution) is someone I know and rely on for information (for this illustration, it doesn't matter if I should trust my teacher, only that I do). The teacher, understanding the idea, can communicate it to me. This can be illustrated as follows:

Now, you'll notice a couple of differences in this diagram. While the teacher has a direct understanding of the material, and I have a direct connection to the teacher, the teacher is simply imparting information to me. That is, the information I have isn't something I understand directly, but indirectly through the teacher. This means that all I understand about the idea is what the teacher has given me. I am dependent on the teacher for my idea, and I cannot modify, adapt, or change the idea, since it is not mine, but my teacher's. We call this Indirect Understanding, which we sometimes refer to as definitional understanding (as definitions in the dictionary only change slowly and with much fuss). At this point, I only know what I have been taught, and I cannot deviate from my teaching.

Direct vs. Indirect

To illustrate the difference between a direct and indirect understanding, consider the difference between normal office workers using their computers and members of the Information Technology (IT) department. The office worker probably doesn't know too much about computers, overall—he or she might be able to turn them on and make them run the required programs, but if something goes wrong, the worker is stuck and has to call IT. In the best case (let's be optimistic here), the IT worker listens to the problem, diagnoses the situation, and instructs the office worker on how to make the computer start working again. At this point, the office worker can fix the problem, but probably still doesn't understand the problem. The office worker has an indirect understanding of what to do—he or she only knows what IT said to do, and does what IT says to make things work. IT, by contrast, has a direct understanding of the computer's operations, and can identify the problem, formulate a solution specific to that problem, and instruct the office worker on how to fix it (again, best case scenario here). Direct understanding allows us to problem solve and adapt—we gain new ways of thinking; indirect understanding just gives us new things to think about. The difference between the two is the difference between how to think and what to think.

Wrapping Up

Clearly, a direct understanding of an idea is superior to an indirect understanding in terms of utility and development. Initially, we all learn about ideas indirectly—someone else tells us something new, and now we have more information than before. The goal then becomes to move from indirect understanding to direct understanding. We want to go from knowing data to comprehending concepts. Gaining a direct understanding should be the goal of every learner...and helping others acquire a direct understanding should be the goal of every teacher. It is critical that we keep this in mind when talking about the importance of ABC thinking. Next time, I hope to discuss how this idea of direct and indirect understanding relates to our identity and our sense of worth and ability.

Workshops Completed!

Last week's workshops are over, and they were very well received. We had six participants in the college workshop, and an average of 11 participants in the evening church group. In both cases, the participants found that the changes in thinking that come from reflecting on our concepts, then seeing how they apply in our lives made an impact on how they were approaching their work and home lives. There was also a lot of interest in the idea of direct vs indirect understanding, a topic I plan to review in more detail in a later post. There was some frustration, especially during the first few days, among both groups, but this was expected. The feedback by the end of the week was positive, if not enthusiastic. Both groups have indicated that they would like more training or follow-up to the seminar, and we are currently planning some additional workshops for the church that Al will be presenting later this month. We expect to have some additional work from the college, as well, though it would take longer to set up those (more formal) programs.

One point that is clear in both cases: we do not think about our ideas nearly as much as we believe we do. While we are a conceptual culture, in general, we are not often a reflective one, and this is where many of our weaknesses arise. It is very common for someone to explain a mistake (theirs or another's) with the phrase "he wasn't thinking," and this explanation is usually exactly right. Our ability to think about what we are doing - not just our actions but also our way of making decisions or problem solving - has a huge impact on what we are capable of accomplishing. These workshops are proving to be a great way to help people develop the ability to not just think about what they are doing, but also about what they are thinking. We have found that when you focus on how you think, life becomes a lot more managable.

The content of the feedback was very positive. Even the suggestions for changes were given more as "ways to improve" instead of "bad, and you must change." Some of the feedback we received:

• "It pushed us out of our comfort zone!"*
• "...I would like to take a longer course on this subject. I would change it to be more like a 4 hour class, rather than just 2."
•  "Brevity was good. [Good] discussion."
• "...with this class I will look at the 'why' in what I do so that I can broaden my effect on family and friends."
• "I liked the homework"

The last one was genuinely surprising (and, to be fair, not universal). We have found, though, that people do like to stretch their abilities, as long as they don't feel like failures when they run into trouble. This is, by far, the most difficult point of the workshop to get across--we aren't looking for "right" answers, we are trying to help people learn how to discern what the "right" answers may be. Once a person learns how to learn, there is very little that can stop him or her.

-------------------------------------
* Just to be clear, this comment was in response to the question: "What was your favorite part of the workshop?"

Workshops In Progress

IRI currently has two workshops underway in Casper, Wyoming. I am leading one at Casper College, for the custodial department, while Al is leading another for a local church.  This is the first time we have used our updated, shortened workshop format (8-10 hrs, down from 36+ hrs.) and it is working well. Feedback so far is positive, and the participants seem excited about the material.

We are hoping that this shortened format will give us more opportunities to hold workshops for other partners/supporters. In the past, the biggest hurdle for our seminar was the fact that it took an entire week's time. Now, while we still prefer a four or five day time frame, we only need around 2 hours a day, which makes it much easier for people and organizations to work into their schedule. The new format is also much more flexible, in terms of tailoring itself to its audience, than the previous seminar format. In our current case, we have one seminar focused on personnel training (the college), with no religious content, and one focused on spiritual discipleship (at the church). While it may seem difficult, it is really just a matter of focus. Both groups are learning how to think more clearly about themselves and their environment, but the former workshop focused on the practical day-to-day applications, while the latter focuses on the Biblical ties and spiritual implications of the material. It is great having a basic core that can be of benefit to all people, without losing its integrity or being dishonest about its intentions with one group or the other. We're having a blast, and hope that everyone continues to enjoy the workshops this week!