Insight Into: Education & Conceptualization

This begins a series on the difficulties with deliberate development of conceptual thinking in education. My goal is to 1) identify key issues in education and educational systems as they relate to developing conceptual thinking, 2) identify patterns in current educational processes that hinder conceptual thinking, and 3) propose solutions to improve conceptual thinking.

Before I begin, I think it is important to establish how I use certain terms, so here's a short list (I may expand on this later):

• Ideas: our thoughts about things
• Concepts: ideas we hold, where holding an idea connotes ownership and the ability to adapt said idea based on new information
• Definitions: ideas communicated to us via a 2nd person or medium
• Information/Data: ideas we receive through perception or formulate through analysis
• Conceptualization: The process of identifying, reviewing, analyzing, organizing, and generally thinking about concepts
• A, B, C aspects of thinking: refer to previous articles (link provided below)

To begin:

The Core Issue Part 1 (Education)

As I understand it, there is one primary area of conflict in education that tends to drive a wedge between teaching people "how to think" (that is, how to conceptualize and respond to ideas) and teaching "what to think" (i.e. teaching people specific instructional data they need to follow). This conflict stems from one of the primary reasons for education: to make sure people don't do stupid things, where "stupid things" include spending unnecessary effort to relearn ideas humanity has already investigated. 

For example, we have spent decades developing computer technology and programming and it would be incredibly wasteful to make anyone who wanted to work on computers have to figure out basic circuits and logic systems on their own, when we can simply impart known information to them. This way, they can add to the current body of understanding based on our previous research. In addition, we are absolutely sure we want to educate people who manage nuclear reactors on how to manage nuclear reactors - it has proven very bad when those people misunderstood their jobs, or got something wrong.

The need to impart existing information has two central areas of focus: to transfer said data to the student, and to make sure the student accurately understands this data. In short, we are interested in accurate transfer of data. This means, among other things, that error is one of our primary enemies. Let's face it - you don't want errors showing up in nuclear power management, or surgery, or waste disposal. That's really bad. Thus, we structure our education around transfer and accuracy, testing students to make sure they have acquired the data we give them as we intend them to receive it. If they pass the tests, all is well, and we can assume they understand the information.

Except that last sentence has proven to be wrong. Passing tests, it turns out, does not guarantee understanding of an idea. This is because understanding requires conceptualization. That is, the data we provide (in the form of definitions) must be converted into concepts. (I discussed this previously in my articles on direct and indirect understanding; see the link below to the relevant articles). This means that students, to successfully understand the information we are giving them, must be able to conceptualize the information they receive (i.e. transform them into concepts). This is where we run into our core issue, and to understand that issue we need to investigate what we need to do to teach people to conceptualize.

Next time: The Core Issue (Part 2: Conceptualization)

Link to articles on ABC thinking: http://incominginsight.blogspot.com/2015/03/a-review-of-reviewing-thinking.html

Insight Into Identity

So when we last left our discussion of cognitive theory, I had given an overview a review of direct and indirect understanding. This model seems to apply to all the ideas we hold. That is, for any idea we can think of, our understanding is either direct, indirect, or some blend of the two. My understanding of computers, for example, is blended - some things I understand directly (basic ideas about computer operation and function), and some I understand indirectly (router functions, networking, and how my computer interacts with my ISP).


Now one particular bit of understanding that is a major component of how we function is our understanding of ourselves - our self-concept, or self-identity. Like any other idea, we can understand ourselves directly or indirectly. Initially, we learn a lot about ourselves indirectly through our parents, friends, and general environment. Over time, however, we usually begin to form our own ideas about ourselves which are to some degree independent of our environment. These new self-concepts are understood directly - they are our ideas about ourselves, we own them, and we determine how they change. For the sake of simplicity, I will call ideas we hold about ourselves directly our direct identity, and ideas about ourselves we get from others our indirect identity.

For most of our lives, we have a blend of direct and indirect identity. We often feel it most keenly in adolescence, when we really start trying to assert a more direct identity over the indirect identity provided by our families and general culture. We never fully gain a completely direct identity, however, and for good reason - we are often wrong about ourselves. I may believe myself to be an eloquent writer or brilliant singer, only to have others contradict my understanding. At that point, I need to assess whether or not I am right about my understanding of myself - perhaps I really don't sing as well as I think I do. On the other hand, maybe those critics are just jealous of my incredible talent. It is sometimes hard to determine which understanding most closely matches up with reality, and we spend much of our lives trying to figure that out.

One aspect of identity that concerns the work we do with IRI is the relationship direct and indirect identity has to control. If you remember from last time, if I have a direct understanding of something, I am in control of that idea - the idea is mine. I can change, modify, and adapt it as I see fit in order to bring it into alignment with everything else I understand about the world (ideally, this brings it into better alignment with reality, but sometimes we get really, really confused). An indirect
understanding, however, leaves control of the idea to whoever is teaching me. I can't do any more with computer repair, for example, than what the IT specialist tells me. The IT specialist has a direct understanding, but my understanding is only indirect. Thus - and this is critical - direct understanding allows me to control an idea, while indirect understanding leaves control in the hands of others. Now, apply this principle to direct and indirect identity, and what do we get?

What we end up with is a direct correlation between direct and indirect identity and personal agency. The degree to which I have a direct identity (I understand myself directly), is the degree to which I have control over my life (barring, of course, aspects of our environment we cannot control - no matter how direct my identity, getting hit by a tornado will end badly for me). To the extent I have an indirect identity, someone else (the entity which gives me my identity) has control over my life. This is, again, exemplified well in adolescence, where teenagers struggle to not only define themselves, but also escape from their parent's control. In short, my sense of identity (direct or indirect) directly impacts my sense of agency, and the associated sense of responsibility. If I have control over something (like myself), I have a responsibility to properly manage that thing. If I do not have control over something, then I am not actually responsible for it.*

Since our goal at IRI is to help people take control of their lives so that they can improve their situation, we are constantly working to bring people from an indirect to a direct identity. This work has led us to some interesting theories about why many cultures are suffering socially and economically right now, where the problem comes from, and how it can be fixed. That's going to be quite a heavy load to cover, however, so it will have to wait for next time.
 
------------------------------------------
* As a side note, this is one reason why mismatching authority and responsibility in business is both demoralizing and dangerous. If I am given responsibility without the power to change the situation I am responsible for, I become nothing more than a scapegoat. If I am given power with no responsibility, I become a monster. Neither situation is really beneficial to anyone involved.

A Review of Reviewing Thinking

For the last year or so, I have been posting articles about some of the ideas and theories behind our work at IRI. I have recently had people point out that these articles are mixed in with many other articles and posts, and can be hard to find. I was asked to provide a way to review all the posts relating to our ideas, and so I went back to find all the posts. In the process I discovered two important things:

1) I'm terrible at keeping a consistent posting schedule

2) I am starting to repeat myself in my posts

These are things I will be working on. In the meantime, here are all the posts that are related to our theories, in order. You can click on the address of each to go to the relevant page. I hope this is helpful.

THINGS I HAVE SAID (Volume 1)

What Do the Seminars Do? 

http://incominginsight.blogspot.com/2011/09/what-do-seminars-do.html

Things We Have Learned: Terms & Concepts

http://incominginsight.blogspot.com/2012/08/things-we-have-learned-terms-concepts.html

Away Longer Than I Thought 

(includes a Discussion of Direct and Indirect Learning)

http://incominginsight.blogspot.com/2014/01/away-longer-than-i-thought.html

Incoming Insights: Direct and Indirect Identity

http://incominginsight.blogspot.com/2014/03/incoming-insights-direct-and-indirect.html

What Is ABC Thinking?

http://incominginsight.blogspot.com/2014/09/what-is-abc-thinking.html

What is ABC Thinking (2): Three Components of Thought

http://incominginsight.blogspot.com/2014/09/what-is-abc-thinking-2-three-components.html

ABC Thinking (3): Putting Thoughts Together - How A, B, and C Relate

http://incominginsight.blogspot.com/2014/09/abc-thinking-3-putting-thoughts.html

ABC Thinking and Dr. Stuart Cook

http://incominginsight.blogspot.com/2014/09/abc-thinking-and-dr-stuart-cook.html

Examples of Cognitive Systems: BCA Thinking

http://incominginsight.blogspot.com/2014/09/examples-of-cognitive-systems-bca.html

BAC Thinking: A Theoretical Cognitive System

http://incominginsight.blogspot.com/2014/09/bac-thinking-theoretical-cognitive.html

Thinking About CAB: Conceptualized Mysticism

http://incominginsight.blogspot.com/2014/10/thinking-about-cab-conceptualized.html

Thinking about CBA: Mystical Materialism

http://incominginsight.blogspot.com/2014/10/thinking-about-cba-mystical-materialism.html

Thinking About ACB: Mystical Conceptualization

http://incominginsight.blogspot.com/2014/11/thinking-about-acb-mystical.html

Thinking About ABC

http://incominginsight.blogspot.com/2014/12/thinking-about-abc.html

Insight Into Cognitive Systems: Extra Thoughts

http://incominginsight.blogspot.com/2014/12/insight-into-cognitive-systems-extra.html

Insight Into Thinking: Comprehension 

(here is where I start repeating myself a bit - consider it a review)

http://incominginsight.blogspot.com/2015/02/insight-into-thinking-comprehension.html

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.

What is ABC Thinking (2): Three Components of Thought

When I talk about ABC thinking, I am referring to the practical application of a theory I call the ABC Theory of Cognition, originally developed by Dr. Stuart Cook in South Africa. Please do not confuse the ABC Theory of Cognition (which I am discussing here) with the ABC model of behavior. While they may have a few things in common, they are fundamentally different approaches to understanding how humans work.

The ABC Theory of Cognition if founded on the idea that the way we think (also called our cognitive process) can be broken into three discrete aspects of thought. Each of these aspects has a particular focus, and when you put them together, they make up the way we acquire, process, and react to information about the world. For simplicity, these aspects are labeled “A,” “B,” and “C” - thus, the name of the theory. These aspects of thought are ways of knowing. That is, they give us knowledge of our world, albeit in different ways. Our strength with of each of these aspects and the priority we give them is the structure and pattern of our thinking.

Aspect A: The Conceptual

The “A” aspect of our thinking has to do with concepts and abstract thought. This includes, but is not limited to, identifying concepts, categorization, analysis, synthesis, and comprehension. It is what we in the west most often call to mind when we say the word “thinking,” though other cultures might have different standards for "good" thought.  This is also the aspect of our thought that focuses on our thinking – what we call reflection or introspection.

Aspect B: The Concrete

The “B” aspect of our thinking focuses on the tangible world, and our memory of it. All our experiences are processed through the “B” aspect of our thinking first, with the exception of our internal reflections. It covers all sensory information, and our memory of those sensations, and includes our attention to detail.

Aspect C: The Emotional/Intuitive

The “C” aspect of our thinking focuses on our non-perceptual, non-rational response and connection to our environment. In particular, it includes our emotions (internal reactions to events) and our intuitions (a more complex reaction that provides input on external factors beyond our personal reaction). It also includes various kinds of “mystical” connections to our environment, as found in many religious experiences. This aspect of thinking has, traditionally, been considered suspect in the West, but does give us important information about ourselves and our environment.


Next up: Putting The Aspects Together

What is ABC Thinking?

It has occurred to me that, while I have talked about what I do from time to time, I haven't gone into a lot of detail about the underlying philosophy and theories that drive what IRI is about. That should be corrected, I think. So for the next few months, I will be discussing the basics of some of our core ideas. The first, and perhaps most critical of these is the idea of ABC Thinking.

Caveats

Before I begin, I want to make a few notes for the more scholarly minded. First, this is a basic overview, not an academic defense. The goal is to introduce ideas and help people understand what I do and why, not present a full dissertation on the topic. (Who knows? That might come later.) As such, I will be avoiding technical terms as much as my philosophy upbringing will let me. Second, This is a brief overview – I don't intend to go into every detail about the theories (though if there is interest, I may go back over some areas and dive deeper). Finally, this is a blog, so it will probably be a bit informal. You have been warned.

Also keep in mind that this is a theory that identifies problems and seeks a solution. I do not consider it the theory, or the end-all of psychology, anthropology, or whatever other discipline it may touch. This is the world as best we at IRI understand it, and our ideas should be taken as starting points for discussion, not concrete conclusions about reality.

Next Monday: Getting Started - The ABC Theory of Cognition

Away Longer Than I Thought

Well...so much for two posts in December.

This is only technically a post in January, so I have to admit to having effectively missed another month. In my defense, I was busy in December and January: December was a trip to Spokane, WA and January included a trip to Manhattan, KS. In addition, I had fall semester wrap-up and spring semester start-up and Christmas in between. So I was busy, but I still feel like I should have gotten another post in.

In order to keep this from being entirely an apology post, I will take a bit of space to discuss part of IRI's theories on cognition and learning. Specifically, the difference between what we refer to as "Direct" and "Indirect" understanding. I don't claim these ideas are new - I have seen allusions to them in several places - but they are a pretty core part of what we've been working on, and I think it is interesting stuff.

Essentially, direct understanding is grasping an idea, and understanding it in a way that makes it "yours." That is, you are comfortable enough with the concept that you can examine, review, critique, and modify the concept based on how it relates to other ideas without having to resort to asking others what to do with it. Indirect understanding, on the other hand, is grasping an idea through an intermediary - a teacher, a book, a blog, etc. Initially, all our understanding is indirect, but our goal is a direct understanding of any important concepts we work with.

One of the problems we have run into in our work is that most teaching (nearly all, really), emphasizes indirect understanding. That is, we learn through others - I give you information, and then we're done. In some contexts, this is necessary (like this blog, where I am limited in how I can engage you, the learner), and often isn't a real problem. Often, the data alone is sufficient to our purpose.

Unfortunately, there are many cases where ideas need to be internalized to use them successfully - as in the case of any scenarios that require manipulating the ideas to form new conclusions (analysis, problem solving, etc.). In these cases, the learner needs to form a direct understanding of key concepts in order to develop new ideas, but, all too often, our educational system simply leaves them with an indirect understanding. This can drastically hinder the process of innovation and adaptation in both an individual and a culture. A lot of our work at IRI goes into figuring out ways to help people move from indirect to direct understanding in areas critical for their development.

Fortunately, there are ways to do this, and once we get people thinking about how to make that transition, they start to develop their own systems in addition to what we have come up with - a kind of learning snowball effect. Developing direct understanding, however, is often a slow, time consuming process, at least at first. This is one reason why IRI's programs seemed to only progress slowly in the first few years, and then we suddenly started talking about the multiple business start-ups, new training programs in the works, etc. The initial start is a slow burn, but once the project gets going, well...there is a reason we don't feel that we need to be in Mozambique all the time now. The Mozambicans, having developed a direct understanding of several key principles of development, are now developing themselves like crazy.

It's amazing, and there is much more I can say (and probably will later), but I think I have a long enough post for today. Have a great new year, and thanks for your interest!

Doing Much but Saying Little

I’ve been a bit quieter than I expected lately, on account of keeping busy. I have been working on several different things at once – teaching at LCU, helping reorganize parts of IRI, reviewing the training materials for use in our South Africa and Hong Kong pilots, meeting with prospective partners, etc. Unfortunately, while this makes my life interesting, it doesn't necessarily make for good blog posts:

“Today I read books. Then I reviewed the training material I am working on. Then I edited the material a bit. Then I had a meeting. Then I graded papers.”

This is not exactly gripping reading.

So in an attempt to add some actual useful content to this blog, I am going to try to write up a short review of some of the reading I am doing. Some of this will be books we are using in some classes (real books that non-student people read, not just academic books), some of it will be reading of my own, whether that be books, blogs, interesting news articles, etc. I posted that I wanted to do things like this before, and now, with my more academic focus this year, I think I can actually pull them off.

Let’s give it a try.

Check in later this month for my first installment – I have a  couple articles and blogs I have been reading that have posed some interesting questions, so that seems like a good place to start.

Have a great October!

State of the Year Summary

I thought it might be good to wrap up the year with some information on my plans for next year. IRI has been very busy this year, between our work in Africa and several new opportunities opening up in North America and Asia, it has been very exciting. Our perpetual car malfunctions in Africa combined with the typical non-profit lack of funds, however, have also made it very frustrating. This feast-and-famine year means I have to compromise between following up on what's opened up and long-term financial planning.Which leads me to my current plans for next year:

The Plan

January starts with a seminar in Torrington from the seventh through the eleventh. This seminar is a pilot seminar for our board of directors and various people we've met over the years who have been interested in our seminar work. Once we've wrapped up the seminar, I will head up to Spokane, WA to visit some contacts and to find temporary work until my next major trip. Finances are tight, and temp work will help cover my recurring bills while I'm traveling in March and April.

In March I head off to Hong Kong and the Philippines. We will be working with a Hong Kong organization for the first few weeks of the trip, then head over to the Philippines to conduct a seminar and follow-up training. Our departure and return dates are not set yet, but I expect to be overseas for about two months.

May sees me back in the U.S. At this point, if my accounting skills are even remotely reliable, I will be just short of broke and back in Spokane. This will begin what I am tentatively calling the "Jason goes back to work" season. In addition to looking for temporary employment, I will also be promoting our developmental training and consulting to area businesses and organizations. I have found that the tours I have conducted the last few years, while great for keeping in touch, don't really give me much time to follow up and promote our training to local organizations. Part of IRI's long-term financial strategy has always included using our training and consulting in a professional capacity to fund nonprofit work, so I want to start developing a reputation in the business community.  I expect to be busy for several months during this phase.

Assuming all goes well in the "Jason goes back to work" season, I should be ready to get back to traveling in the fall. August marks the beginning of a new school year in the U.S. as well as the beginning of many academic conferences. My plan is to hit as many conferences as time (and work) allows in order to meet with like-minded people, develop relationships, and promote our training. This will probably consist of weekend travel, so I plan to remain based in Spokane unless I have found better work elsewhere. This period of work and conferencing will continue until late November, with my final conference being ICOM, which takes place just before Thanksgiving. From there, it is time to meet with my associates and friends in the Midwest over the holidays, review the year's successes and failures, and plan for the next year.

Concluding Thoughts

So that's The Plan in a nutshell. Will the plan work out as stated? I seriously doubt it, but just having a plan helps me manage new opportunities and navigate obstacles. The goal of any year-long plan is not so much to actually do everything you plan, but to give you a foundation that allows you to adapt to changes while still being as productive as possible.

Thanks to everyone who has been following my adventures this year. In addition to my other activities, I intend to change the way I handle these blogs soon. I want to increase my updates and provide more information on both the work I am doing and how the theories I have been working with impact how we can understand our world. I hope you'll all join me for what should be a fun and exciting year!

Things We Have Learned: Terms & Concepts

One of the things we are learning in our work is just how different learning terms is from learning concepts. When learning any language, the former is required to speak or write, but the latter is required to understand. We have also learned how easy it is to learn terms without actually learning concepts. This results in a dangerous situation where a person thinks they know the language, but is actually severely restricted in what they can communicate or comprehend.

To ensure good communication, we need to make sure we know what the terms we are using mean. We usually do this by defining the terms – we use other terms to describe the new term. This allows us to expand our vocabulary and thus the scope of things we can easily discuss. Unfortunately, this method makes the assumption that the terms we are using in our definition are already understood. As we have learned in Africa, this is not always the case.

In our discussion with Mozambican nationals, we discovered several terms that are not well understood. That is, the English-speaking nationals may know the terms, but the concept that the term represents is still largely unknown. For example, in our seminar, one of the areas of development we discuss is relationship-building. After the seminar, however, we discovered that some of the nationals did not grasp the concept of a relationship—which reduced the effectiveness of the session quite a bit. The important thing to understand is they know of the term “relationship,” and could use it in common conversation, but they did not possess a working concept of relationship.

We encounter a similar issue in the west—a prime example would probably be corporate jargon.[i] If you have worked in a corporate environment, you have probably encountered this situation: a boss/manager/employee/etc. will use a particular term such as “leveraging”, “diversification“, “asset management”, etc. but clearly does not understand what the term actually means. That is, they know of the term but do not understand the underlying concept. They use the term for a number of reasons: to keep from sounding ignorant, to fit into the corporate culture, or even to impress others who do not understand the concept. The problem, of course, is that when a person uses a term whose concept they do not understand, they quite literally do not know what they are talking about. This can lead to a very unfortunate situation when they are speaking to someone who does understand the concept, and therefore expects a certain set of actions from the speaker. In this case, use of such jargon results in a negative effect for the person who used it, even though they were trying to use it to help themselves.

Anyone familiar with a corporate environment is probably familiar with the illustration above, yet we often assume that this is not the case when working with other cultures. This is especially true of cultures with whom we share a common language—we forget that it is the culture that determines what terms map onto what concepts. In forgetting this important truth, it is very easy for us to make mistakes in communication; most of the time, these mistakes are relatively benign, but when you are working as an educator[ii] (which many charity and social development programs are beginning to focus on), the consequences of failing to understand the difference between terms and concepts can have dire consequences. This is exacerbated when there is also a language, not just a cultural, barrier.

The final lesson? While knowing the national language of a group you are working with is important, it is much more important to make sure you are communicating concepts, not just terminology. When communicating cross-culturally, you cannot just assume you know what you are saying—always seek confirmation that your message was received correctly. That is, assume you aren’t communicating well until demonstrated otherwise. This way is slower (and usually more frustrating), but generally results in much clearer communication.[iii]

---

[i] For the purposes of this article, “jargon” refers to a term used without knowledge of the concept it connects to in the context you are using it. This is a bit different from the dictionary definition of “jargon” so I wanted to clarify.

[ii] I include translators in this category

[iii] Just to give you an idea of how close to home this principle can get, consider that men and women, in most cultures, have vastly different social roles, expectations, and experiences—effectively different subcultures. In the U.S., the same can be said for many racial groups, religious groups, and even political groups. As it turns out, good communication is hard. 

What do the Seminars Do?

One question that many people are understandably interested in is: what, exactly, do the Insight Seminars do? The problem answering such a question is that there are many things the seminars do; there are also many ways to explain what they are and different people are interested in slightly different aspects of what happens. So for this explanation, I will try to keep things at their most basic. That is, I want to explain what we think is the core of what the seminars do.

First, some background. We have all heard how our environment shapes us. Various studies, researches, papers, articles, and our own experiences make this clear. What we don't often realize is how much we are shaped by our environment. In our early development, nearly everything we believe is determined by outside forces—we are told what to wear, where to go, what to say, how to behave, even how to eat and drink (properly). In addition to everything we are told, we absorb even more by example. From watching other people and through personal experience, we learn how to really act, what is real and make-believe, what things are dangerous, and just generally how the world works.

As we get older, we pass this knowledge on to others in our community, which both reinforces and refines the ideas we have about the world. It is human nature to want to be right and comfortable, so we tend to spend time with those who have similar views to us; this puts us in a situation where everyone around us strengthens our views. Over time, it seems to us (and those around us) that our ideas are just “the way things are”, and we think that such things are “common sense” and “everyone knows this.” The truth, however, is that we are often wrong on all three counts. This is what gets us into trouble. Because our view of the world is restricted to our own community, we are unable to see certain aspects of reality. Thus “the way things are” may not actually be the way things are. “Common sense” is only common in our community, and everyone most definitely does not know “this.”

Once we have a community consensus, it becomes difficult to recognize where our ideas don't match up with the way the world works. In certain cases, this can produce terrible troubles, such as cultures of poverty and the self-reinforcing fatalism found in communities which have suffered long-term social and/or economic hardships. These cultures create self-reinforcing systems of thought which accept or even encourage negative or destructive behavior. Because the ideas behind these systems are shared throughout the community, they are considered “the way things are,” and are treated as “common sense” within the community.

In order to break out of these self-destructive systems of thought, new ideas need to be introduced. That's where the seminars come in. The seminars introduce new ideas and concepts which help people to identify how they can take control of their environment and change their lives and the world around them for the better. Introducing ideas isn't enough, however. It is important that people understand how these ideas apply to their own lives—this way, people can use these new perspectives to improve their lives on their own terms, without having to fit another culture's paradigm into their system.

Long lead-in for a quick explanation, I know. Next time, I want to explore a bit more about what these new principles are and why they are so effective.