In a virtually rambling and incoherent blog post, BFChirpy seems to write about metrics, knowledge and such stuff. Take a quick look. A great example of self-indulgent writing and thinking, AND the common extreme self-centeredness of almost all the most active social media pundits and fringe members.
I posted a response on the blog, but you never know what sticks so here’s mine: Continue reading
Thought I’d pass this along. It’s based on something in our Defusing Hostile Customers Workbook, but it pertains to how people handle negative emotions.
About 6 years ago I started work on a book manuscript about the power of the stories we tell, both in terms of how they limit us, and how they can be used to help us learn. My interest at that time had to do with PERSONAL stories and how they embody our beliefs about the world and ourselves, our capabilities and other people. The stories we tell ourselves (often in the form of self-talk) help us or hinder us, and I wonder if, in fact, for any of us to grow significantly, we need to modify our internal stories.
It seems like stories is a nifty way of operationalizing our beliefs about self and others. Of course that’s not particularly new in Psychology. Is the Rorscach test (inkblots) anything different than providing an ambiguous shape so a person can describe what he sees in the form of a story? Likewise with the Thematic Apperception Test(TAT).
Everyone talks about the importance of networking. I get the point. The more people who you know, and who know a little about you, the more likely you will “make a connection” that will pay off, whether it be in person, or online. I hate the underlying assumption, or presupposition about networking, not to mention that I’ve had the experience of being at in person gatherings where everyone is “marketing” to each other under the guise of networking.
My objection is simple. Continue reading
It’s been a decade since I wrote Conflict Prevention In The Workplace – Using Cooperative Communication. Who would believe that still, when it comes to conflict, the old standards of conflict management and conflict resolution still dominate the conflict field, while the idea of preventing unnecessary conflict in the first place is almost never mentioned.
It’s passing strange. It’s clear that once a conflict gets going, it’s much harder to put the brakes on, so why not work as hard at eliminating conflict in the first place, particularly since so much of the really destructive conflicts between people are really not about issues, per se, but about how each of the parties interacts with each other.
If you are at all involved in the delivery of training via the use of technologies, you have probably seen, heard, or used the terms e-learning or social learning*. They have become common currency in the discussion of training and learning undertaken in non face-to-face training and education contexts.
Unlike the term “distance learning” which is an older term with a very clear and precise definition, both the terms e-learning and social learning lack clarity of definition to the extent that many practitioners who use the words don’t have clear ideas about what they themselves mean; what is included and what the terms exclude. This is not an abstract issue of linguistics but a practical issue that has profound impact on both research and practice.
…the people who oversell the value of social networking and social learning through exaggerations, deliberate or ignorant interpretation of research (which is usually poorly done anyway), and general religious zeal.
In short, many of the “gurus” in these fields, who are a) converts and true believers while b) making lucrative incomes, or hoping to make lucrative incomes by becoming the keeps of the wisdom (a tactic used in the old days of mainframes, in case you are wondering.
Today, a TRDEV-L group member posted an interesting message asking what’s wrong with training? I sent a reply to him via the list, but thought I’d share it here as a think piece and stimulus for comment.
Why is it so? Do people have so many bad experience in training that they don’t believe training is any good? Have they been exposed to so many bad trainers that they don’t believe there are any good ones? (Phil Connell)
I’ve had something like 10+ books published and had a long career as a trainer and management consultant, and I’d say that, at the core of all my books lies the issue of communication. I’d also say that almost all the training and consulting I’ve done has had to do, at least in part with communication.
That’s one reason why it drives me crazy when people who otherwise act and speak like they have expertise and understanding put forth broad generalizations as prescriptions for how others should communicate. I understand why they do it. It’s because, in almost every case, they have been indoctrinated into the field of interpersonal communication within a humanistic model of communication is more idealogical than real. It’s simple. That ideology says, “Always play nice, take nice to everyone”. Extensions of this involve prescriptions like: Continue reading
It is no secret that I believe adult learning principles and styles are essentially vague and useless in terms of instructing “adults” versus “non-adults” and that the work of many popular adult learning “experts” is terrible, and that includes Knowles. I’m not alone in that respect.
So I was browsing around and came across a well written article entitled How to Use Adult Learning Principles and Styles in Your Next Course, which I believe is typical of the thinking in that field. Despite the fact that it is well written, and clear, it’s nonsense, and it doesn’t even take much thought to realize it IS nonsense. Why many people can’t see the lack of clothing on this particular emperor is beyond me.