Showing posts with label summary. Show all posts
Showing posts with label summary. Show all posts

March 10, 2015

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 Is ABC Thinking?

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

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

ABC Thinking and Dr. Stuart Cook

Examples of Cognitive Systems: BCA Thinking

BAC Thinking: A Theoretical Cognitive System

Thinking About CAB: Conceptualized Mysticism

Thinking about CBA: Mystical Materialism

Thinking About ACB: Mystical Conceptualization

Thinking About ABC

Insight Into Cognitive Systems: Extra Thoughts

Insight Into Thinking: Comprehension 
(here is where I start repeating myself a bit - consider it a review)

December 22, 2014

Insight Into Cognitive Systems: Extra Thoughts

The last (major) post covered the last of the Cognitive systems. Before I go into more on the implications of how our cognitive systems impact our lives, I want to make a few more points that will be relevant to the discussion:

Cognitive Systems are Habits

First, these systems are not formal methods of thinking that people choose to implement. They are, rather, terms or references for a group of mental habits that, taken together, determine how we interact with reality. For most people, the ways of thinking that their cognitive systems entail are not thought of as philosophies, or world-views, or even beliefs. If they are thought of at all, they are usually thought of as common sense. You don't talk much about common sense...it is foundation on which you have other discussions. This is, I think, one reason why this level of cognition generally gets overlooked--it is too basic to be easily seen. You don't, after all, see the foundation of a house, and cognitive systems are the "foundation" for how we reason, believe, and react.

Cognitive Systems are Not the Whole of Cultures

I have been using a few cultures as examples when explaining cognitive systems. I want to make clear, however, that cognitive systems are not the whole of any culture. I tend to think of cognitive systems as a set of shared mental habits in a culture. They are certainly foundational, but there is more to a culture than just one particular cognitive system. This is (at least in part) because...

Generalizations are Generally True

When talking about cognitive systems, it is important to remember that we are talking in generalizations. Generalizations are, by nature, imperfectly reliable. While it may be true that most of group X has a certian characteristic, it is almost certianly untrue that all of a group has that characteristic, unless it is required to be in the group. For example, it is generally true that Americans are more emotionally disconnected than other cultures, but there are a LOT of exceptions to this. Any particular American may be very well balanced emotionally and socially - the generalization only applies to the group as a whole.

In addition, it is possible that a single person may evidence different cognitive styles in different contexts. A scientist, for example, may be very ABC in the lab, but as soon as she gets home, she is more BCA, because that is the home environment she was raised in. Her thinking style shifts from one to the other, and she may be completely unaware of the shift. When I talk about cognitive systems and culture or among, we are speaking generally. I do not believe that every person in a cultural group must be BCA or ABC or CAB, nor do I even think that a certain person who I note is an ABC thinker may consistently be ABC in all places at all times. The way we think can shift, because our minds are flexible. This is a good thing, especially if we take the time to identify what our habits are, and focus on improving them.

All People Have the Same Toolbox (But Not the Same Skills)

One of the implications of this cognitive theory is that, with the single possible exception of people with physical brain damage, everyone has the same basic cognitive tools. Too often in the West, we have equated conceptualization with intelligence (thus, the IQ tests). Do not misunderstand, conceptualization and analysis are critically important, but they are simply tools. Some people don't use them as much as others, or may not even understand why they are important, but the tools are still there. Not knowing that you have tools, or how to use them does not make you dumb, just ignorant. As a colleague of mine says, "Ignorance is fixable, but you can't fix stupid." This is a critical point, as throughout much of recent western history, we have assumed that if people do not utilize a high degree of analytic thinking, they must be less intelligent, which has, in the past, led to two unfortunate results.

First, many people have acquired an assumption that people who do not evidence sufficient levels of conceptual./analytic reasoning are "dumb" or otherwise mentally less than those who do. Thus, people will tell me that they are not smart enough to do this or that, when the reality is that they don't have the mental habits that make such actions easy. People will assume that because it is hard for them, but easy for me, I am "smarter" than they are, when in fact, I am just more used to thinking in a particular way. This is problematic, because it encourages stasis, because someone who is "too dumb" simply can't do a thing, so they don't bother trying. The reality is that there is no such thing as "too dumb" there are only habits that people have or have not acquired to make some tasks easier.

Second, there is a strange assumption I run into that reason, logic, and analysis are somehow Western ways of thinking - that is, that they are some kind of creation of the West. This means that people will often conflate teaching conceptual thinking with "Westernization." The truth is that conceptual thinking is a tool that all human beings can use, and the more it is used, the more people are able to "own" their personal and cultural beliefs, attitudes, and actions. Conceptual thinking isn't "Western" it is human. Unfortunately, this, combined with the first assumption (that conceptual/analytic thinking determines mental worth) has resulted in some terrible attitudes toward cultures that do not have a habit of strong conceptual/analytic thinking. This is especially true in Africa, where I have heard several westerners lament about how the Nationals are "too dumb" to handle certain tasks - tasks which require that kind of strong conceptual/analytic thinking that was suppressed in their culture during the colonial period (a period many of the African cultures have not recovered from yet). Sadly, this has caused many to give up on some groups in Africa - including members of said groups. It is both tragic and terrible, and a situation that IRI is trying to counteract.

--------

So this was a fairly long post, but I think it covers a few extra thoughts that I wanted to explicitly address before moving on. Enjoy the holidays, and check back next year for more Incoming Insights!

January 31, 2014

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!

December 18, 2012

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!

June 24, 2012

Seminar in Review: June, 2012 – Chimoio, Mozambique


The Insight Seminar here in Chimoio is wrapping up, which gives me an opportunity to reflect on what’s happened, good and bad. This is the third seminar we have held in Mozambique and the second Portuguese seminar. It is the first seminar in which I did not act as presenter—instead, Leonard Chetechsi took on the role of presenter. I acted as assistant and coach during and after the seminars. My main rule this time was to coach Leonard on seminar presentation and debrief with him after each session. Leonard is one of our co-workers in Mozambique and was the interpreter for last year’s Portuguese seminar. When I leave, he will be responsible for organizing and leading seminars for the next year.

So how has Leonard been doing? Overall, he’s doing a fantastic job—he’s a natural presenter, and will be invaluable in helping Mozambicans understand the new concepts we are introducing. But generalities are only worth so much, so let’s get into seminar details, what they mean, and why they’re important. For ease of reading, I will break this down by point of interest (this will probably take several blog entries to completely cover):

Point One: Schedule

 We originally were planning for me to present/oversee four to five seminars while I was here. Unfortunately, due to limited funds delaying my departure and car trouble, we ended up with three and a half weeks in Mozambique instead of our original three month plan. This left us with enough time for one seminar. In keeping with our theme of “new scheduling plans”, we decided to implement an experimental seminar schedule—instead of holding the seminar for five eight-hour days, we thought we would try weeknights and weekends. This would give participants time to work during the day. This meant we had to extend the total time of the seminar to two weeks, but we thought it was a fair trade-off.

The result was mixed. While the participants were certainly able to get more work done during the week, the cultural attitude toward time meant that each session started almost an hour late—over ten days, that drops ten hours. In addition, they participants weren’t really keen on coming over the weekend, which meant we lost additional time. Between the two, our total seminar time was cut in half. On the plus side, the participants did have extra time to think through what they were learning. In addition, the participants indicated they wanted to complete the seminar as soon as Leonard gets back from traveling with Al and I back to South Africa. Overall verdict: while the five-day schedule is inconvenient for people, it seems to provide a more complete learning experience with the fewest difficulties.  Leonard wants to conduct the next seminar using the standard schedule.
 

Next Entry: Attendance and Participation

Seminar in Review: June, 2012 – Chimoio, Mozambique (2)

[note: these seminar posts are being posted in reverse order to facilitate easier viewing on the site - this is part 2 of 3]


Point Two: Attendance

Given the radical schedule changes and the fact that our Mozambican associates really have never scheduled a seminar on their own before, our attendance was pretty much what we expected. Our first night saw around six people; over the next few days, we lost a couple of people and gained about four more. By the end of the first week, we were averaging six people a night. The second week, however, saw a decrease in attendance. Whether this was due to a certain amount of miscommunication about what to expect from the seminar or participant fatigue is hard to determine—I am planning on working with Leonard to follow up with the participants to investigate the details. In any case, by the end of the second week, we were down to three people.

While discouraging, this is not unexpected. The seminars are far more complex than many Mozambicans are used to, and it is not unusual for the stress of the material to cause some to give up. 
On the other hand, the miscommunication regarding expectations has been identified and we will be able to better communicate what the seminars are about next time. In Mozambique, many nonprofit organizations have taken to offering people food or money to attend their seminars. The offer is appreciated, of course, but it creates a situation where participants attend not to learn, but to earn.[i]  While this may sound like a nice way to provide poor nationals with money and allow them to learn, all it really does is set an expectation that “classes” equal “stuff.” Thus, seminars and other training are often valued for the prizes, not the education, provided. Once we clarified that our seminar was there to give people tools in the form of information, a few of them lost interest. Others, however, were excited to learn something they actually considered useful, and saw no need to have any other incentive.

Point Three: Participation

Of utmost importance in the seminar is participation by the attendees (which is why I usually call them participants). The seminars don’t just spit out information at the participants—it is important to us that people understand the principles we’re trying to communicate, and are able to apply them to their lives. As a result, the seminar is geared toward a lot of activities to reinforce our ideas. This is especially important in Africa, where most of the participants have never encountered these concepts before.

This, thankfully, was a great success. The participants were very engaged with what we were discussing (even those who were just there because they thought they would get food were interested and participating). There was a definite level of excitement in the group, and we noted not only a steadily increasing level of engagement from the remaining participants, but also an increasing level of excitement. Some of these activities and discussion are quite difficult and complex, and the participants were definitely rising to the challenge. This was exactly what we wanted, and we are extremely happy with the results.

Next Entry: Conclusions



[i] These same organizations often later wonder why there isn’t any long-term impact from their training. Here’s a tip for anyone who is interested in teaching people: if you have to pay people to attend your training, THEY ARE NOT THERE FOR YOUR TRAINING. People do not learn by infection—simply going to a training session does not guarantee participation or retention, and paying your students to attend will only get them in the seat. If anyone out there is considering or has been paying people to attend your training/seminar/workshop, please just stop (note: this does not apply to workforce training by businesses – if you want your employees to know something they don’t you should pay them to learn it). OK, footnote rant over.

Seminar in Review: June, 2012 – Chimoio, Mozambique (3)

[note: these seminar posts are being posted in reverse order to facilitate easier viewing on the site - this is part 3 of 3]

Conclusion:


So overall, how did things go? I think I can safely say that while we are happy with the response from the participants in the seminar, the scheduling and attendance shows that we still need to work on our overall seminar structure here. This was expected, given the difference in culture between where we come from (the U.S.), where the seminar originated (South Africa), and the local culture priorities. One of the major advantages of having Leonard with us is that we can ask him why various things are happening, and he can give us a response that comes from inside the culture. In the end, it will be Leonard[i] who makes the final decisions on how to adapt the material to Mozambique .

One key thing we took away from this session is confirmation that our previous seminars were not some kind of exceptional fluke – these seminars really do have a powerful positive effect on the nationals. The concepts they introduce, while common to many westerners, are virtually unknown here. One example is our session on categories. We spend a fair amount of time explaining what categories are and why they are important. After going through the session, Leonard noted that, while the participants were having a lot of difficulty thinking of things in this new way, they were rising to the challenge, and excited about what they could do with what they have learned. For those of you with strong conceptual backgrounds, I want you to try to think of how you would see the world if you did not understand categorization—then understand this is exactly the case in many Mozambican (and, from other discussion we have had, many African) cultures. 

It isn’t that Mozambicans can’t think in terms of categories, just that no one has ever bothered to teach them about it, and it is not native to their culture. This is why we’re here—concepts like these are critical to developing large-scale economic as well as individual personal development. Mozambique is a place full of potential, and once the Mozambicans are able to see how to take advantage of that potential, we expect great things from this culture.


[i] I should mention that Leonard is acting as a kind of proxy here – we actually have several other Mozambicans we are working with who are working alongside Leonard to refine the seminar in Mozambique, but because of the unfortunate schedule changes, they were not able to be here for this seminar, so I am focusing on Leonard for this account.

September 15, 2011

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.

September 6, 2011

Reporting In

I've been away from the blog a bit, despite my best intentions. I have completed my tour of Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas. During my time traveling, I was able to visit several of our supporters and talk to a large number of people about what we've been doing in Africa and our plans for the future. I've fielded a lot of questions about what we are planning and why we are doing what we are doing. I've also gotten to talk about our vision for the future. Most of the people I talked to were enthusiastic, some were confused, and a few were concerned about some aspect of our work, but all were open and welcoming. In short, it was a lot of fun, and I want to thank everyone I met for taking the time to hear about the exciting work we are doing.

I still plan to write up a few articles to help explain more about the seminars. I did not forget—the seminars are just hard to describe. There are a lot of ideas that have contributed to their development, and I want to make sure I do them justice.

One quick point—when I post about the seminars (or anything else), please remember that I am speaking as a person, and my views may not reflect Safari Insight Mission's official position. Just needed to throw that out there for legal reasons, so no one takes something I am musing over and presents it as the SIM gospel.

Next up: what the seminars are really supposed to do.