The Curmudgeonly Trainer

Upon being chastized for spelling errors for allegedly incorrect spelling of Dewey Duck, Mr. Bacal responds:

> You ain’t that great a speller yourself. Among other things, in the same
> comment you misspelled the name of Dewey Duck.

I think you are making some possibly faulty inferences here. First I was not talking about “that” family of Ducks. The Duck family I know has a son called dooie (or something like that), and it’s is not spelled/t Dewey. MY Duck family is known for inventing the custom of ducks migrating south. providing Canadians with much spiritual uplift, and providing Americans with lunches.

So the eggs on your face this mornin.

CNN is reporting massive demonstration in U.S. cities, apparently lead by an underground organization called: Revolutionary Front For The Preservation of English Conventions Long Outdated.

Lead by octaganerian Che Strunk, demonstraters are lobbying the U.N. for a formal code of punctuation to apply to all languages.  Che, in an interview, said:

“This has to stop. We have language terrorism going on, with the evil doers attempting to corrupt our way of life by changing the number of spaces after sentences. Not only that, we have odd spellings used to confuse the masses, like behaviour, and honour.  We believe this attempt is funded out of California, where all evil
things happen.”

In a related move the Dead Writer’s Society released a statement supporting a move to language purity. Unfortunately, no members of the Society were available for comment, seeing as how they are all…well…dead.

CNN has pre-empted all coverage of the Afghan situation to cover this breaking story. It has also created a website where information is constantly updated at:

http://CNN-I-don’t-have-enough-to-worry-about.com

Gary  wrote:

> So I guess the point I’m trying to make is that often those who are the
> most vocal about the “correct” way to call someone or some group of
> people, etc., that these people are perhaps not as comfortable with their
> own selves as perhaps they would like to be.

Gary, I’m sorry, but while what you say may be true (I have no evidence one way or another), I don’t see it  that way. And, I’m not sure that your experience is typical of minority groups, since it sounds to me you did not grow up bearing the prejudice and bigotry that “could” have been addressed towards you based on your
heritage. (I’m assuming) Neither are you choosing (I am assuming here), the role of advocate and activist.

I happen to believe that it is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL that we have advocates and activists who yell long and hard about both what we might think as the big things AND the “little” things. I happen not to like some of them, but there is still a role there.

It keeps the issues in the public eye, and while we’ve made progress in a number of areas, it’s easy for “majority” folks to forget that there is NOT equity in our societies, and that language plays a role in working towards that equity.

I wouldn’t  suggest that a woman who took umbrage to being called a girl was “uncomfortable with herself”. I would say that she is pointing out a bias in language that can affect (and still does affect)  hiring of  woman, particularly into senior positions. Hiring a “girl” to be CEO doesn’t make sense. Hiring a woman does. The language here isn’t trivial.

What we need, Gary, is for more people (particularly NOT associated with minorities (e.g. white middle class people) to stand up and say “Hey, if you want a word that is inclusive of your situation, I’m willing to change the words I use”. There is no cost for any of us to do so. It costs me nothing to say woman rather than girl (ugh). It costs me nothing to call my significant other the same word that a gay person would call their significant other. (I just don’t know what that word should be).

That doesn’t mean that they > need to “change,” but that perhaps they just need to be more accepting of
> who they are and of others who are also perhaps a bit afraid of who they
> are, as well.  After all, we usually have feelings of hate and bigotry
> towards those things we fear, not those things we understand or accept.
> One of my Native American mentors once said that the opposite of Love is
> not hate, but fear. I find that a very interesting concept.

I agree on the fear. I just am not comfortable diagnosing people on the basis of the words they choose to use, or ask us to use. It’s a blind alley.

Sadly, even trainers who ought to know more about stress don’t always. While there are many good trainers in stress management, there are a lot of bad ones with superficial understanding.

Here’s an example of one trainers attempt to explain stress, and my response.

I had a couple of email questions regarding my response and I have a
spare minute or two here.

On 16 Sep  at 8:07, Robert G wrote:

> In the stress reduction clinic at the University of Massachusetts,
> Worcester, Mass., they teach that we are not in control of how our body
> reacts to stress but we have complete control over how we respond.

Ok. Not only is this incorrect, but it is semantically confused.

1) “how we respond” includes our body reactions. What would be more proper or at least closer would be to say we have complete control over our voluntary behavior (of course that’s meaningless or at least redundant).

2) We are clearly able to control our body’s reactions. That’s not to say everyone can do well, or does it all the time. We know that, for example, phobias can be “extinguished” to eliminate the behavioral problem associated with a phobia AND the way our body reacts. The process of biofeedback teaches people how to control heart rate, respiration, blood pressure, stricture of surface blood vessels, and on and on. Those are all common body reactions.

Not only can we control our reactions physiologically but also change what is and is not stressful, through cognitive techniques like restructuring/reframing.

3) Bob’s message assumes there is such an objective thing as “stress” independent of the perceptions of each individual. It’s again, a great example of reification. Stress is not defined as an external event but the results of perceptions (including reactions of the body). Which of course is the reason why something YOU find stressful might be enjoyable for me. Selye defined good and bad stress decades ago.

4) Why is any of this a big deal? Why do I bother being so “rude” on occasional issues? I expect people in our profession will be responsible enough to post within their own levels of understanding as best they can. WHY? In this case, Bob’s message contained assumptions (or conclusions) about stress that are not only inaccurate but DISEMPOWERING to people.

If there’s one thing that therapies have become good at, it’s helping people learn to control their physiological reactions. It does nobody a service to tell trainers or regular people that it is impossible to control one’s internal reactions, when it IS possible to learn to do so, relatively quickly and easily.

5) Finally, even re: the question Bob asked, apart from it being what I see as a vague and impossible to answer question because it’s ill phrased. When someone prefaces a question with a context, or purported set of facts that are incorrect, how does that affect the discussion and answers?

When someone prefaces a question with a statement that clearly lacks clarity and accuracy about the thing being asked about “stress”, where do we go with it.

6) Why the rudeness? Because I do not expect Bob to care about what I have to say, and see no reason why he will, and no reason to think he should. I’ve seen reactions before like” “Well, THEY said it, not me”, or “the eminent so and so I met last week told me so”. Or, to simply shift the issue to personal attacks and ignore the substance.

The issue here, like or not, is that the statement is wrong, harmful and disempowrring. While I rarely comment, this particular statement is harmful if acted upon by trainers and others.

If anyone wants to discuss the issues related to stress, then let’s get to it (and that includes Bob).

Demographic shifts are resulting in the loss of experienced leaders and a risk of companies lost in leadership vacuums unless positive action is taken. We’re proud to partner to offer you a FREE whitepaper on the present and future of this leaders crisis, entitled:

The Looming Leadership Void: Identifying, Developing, and Retaining Your Top Talent

Learn more about the unavoidable leadership void and how to prepare to fill the leadership ranks and ensure appropriate bench strength.

The daunting combination of the high volumes of outbound talent and the low levels of available skilled labor have brought into focus the need for succession planning - a combination of process, tools, and disciplines that enable an organization to plan for anticipated leadership needs as well as identify, develop, retain, and allocate key talent.

This white paper, a compilation of survey responses from 245 organizations, is a roadmap for organizations that desire to achieve superior performance through Best-in-Class use of succession planning with regards to strategy, capabilities, and technology utilization.

Click here to receive your free copy.

Are you a consultant? You may actually be offering consulting services even if you don’t realize it as much of training design and delivery IS a consulting process.

Consulting Today is the major publication for professional consultants in the world, and we’re proud to be able to partner to offer you a free subscription provided you live in the USA, and you work as a consultant or in a consulting company (or otherwise qualify).Consulting Magazine is the flagship publication of the consulting industry.

No other publication reveals the impact of consultants as career professionals and advisors to leaders both in industry and government like Consulting Magazine does. Reaching senior-level consultants (Partners, Practice Leaders, Directors, etc.) within small, medium and global enterprise consulting firms, Consulting Magazine is the industry source for the key decision makers and influencers in the profession to read about what’s going on in their world.

Develop your consulting skills. Learn from the consulting experts to hone your skills. Get your free subscription now by clicking here. No credit card required and no need to cancel. No billing.

The standards set for MBTI certification are set by the vending company, in EXACTLY the same way that the standards might be set by Langevin — they get to choose.

The requirements to administer the MBTI are not nearly high enough to qualify anyone to use a psychometric test of any kind, even the MBTI, because they simply don’t require enough psychometric knowledge in general to allow the proper use of the MBTI (sorry, I know this will offend some, but if you are qualified in psychmetrics as a field, you’ll understand). Hence there are a lot of MBTI certified people who shouldn’t be a allowed near ANY psychometric instrument, including the MBTI. MOST (and I stand on this statement)  certified MBTI folks simply lack the broad knowledge and depth of knowledge to administer and interpret the results properly.

There ARE psychometric instruments where the standards for certification require a much broader and deeper understanding of psychometrics (i.e. disciplined and demonstrated graduate study and practicuums). Those standards are not set by the manufacturers of the test, and usually an advanced relevant degree  (usually in Psychology)  is required. Some intelligence tests, and the MMPI are examples.

So, sorry on this one, but WHENEVER the vendor sets the criteria (which is the case for the MBTI or “Robert’s Inventory of Critical Thinking Skills”, the problem is exactly the same.

If the standards aren’t set by an independent party, they should ALWAYS be suspect. When the standards are set by a party with an economic interest in selling instruments, it’s a major problem.

Quick note. The idea that problem-solving, as a general skill set, is something we should train people in is severely challanged by a body of research that suggests that training in problem-solving does NOT transfer well to other tasks and contexts. In other words, there is the possibility that you might get gains from training in a particular domain, context or content area, and not get gains in any others but the one you trained “in”.

I remember some of this research from the old days, and did some searching since problem-solving has been a major research area for cognitive science for at least two decades.

…but the jury is still out. It may be that training in general problem solving simply is NOT worth the investment at all.

Here’s just a brief, and not necessarily representative quote:

Studies by Hayes and Simon (1977) and Pea and Kurland (1984) suggest that training on one version of a logical problem has little or any effect on solving an isomorphic version, represented differently. Pressley et al. (1987), very pessimistically, state that the case of generalizable, context-independent skills and strategies that can be trained in one context and transferred to other domains is more a matter of wishful thinking than hard empirical evidence.

http://www.indiana.edu/~educr795/prop5.html for the research study,  and the short lit. review.

Bob Gerulat wrote:

> Bacal wrote:
> >Insert humans instead of adults and it fits, so why make the distinction
> >about “adults”. Kids are pretty diverse. Kids have less experience
> >quantity wise which actually makes their experiences MORE powerful in
> >terms of how it affects learning.
>
> Gerulat Responds:
>As we can see from Mr. Bacal’s example, there are in fact
> differences in that kids have less experience and that there is a
> difference, in his opinion, in the power of these experiences.

Yes, absolutely, but the PRINCIPLE is exactly the same. Try this on.

New learning is best assimililated by adults when it is tied into what they already know (their present eperiences). New learning is best assimilated by children when it is tied into what they already know (their experiences).

Both fit, right?
>
> Gerulat wrote:
> >> They want to be able to
> >> relate content to real world context-specific to their own lives.
>
> Mr. Bacal wrote:
> >Same for human beings. It’s just that what is relevant to a developing
> >human being may not seem so to an older one.
>
> Gerulat Responds:
> Once again, Mr. Bacal provides an example to show no differences by his
> substitution of the term “human” yet again shows that there is a
> difference between a developing human and an older one!

There are indeed differences, but the important ones have nothing to do with an essentially bankrupt theory or philosophy about what “adults” are like. The important differences (again it depends on content and age) have to do with cognitive processes, and things like moral reasoning.

> Gerulat Wrote:
> >> Thus
> >> they tend to be pragmatic.
>
> Whereupon, Mr. Bacal wrote:
>
> >Who isn’t?
>
> Whereupon, Gerulat Responds:
> Kids tend not to be. Remember, we are talking about tendencies and
> characteristics. Non-adults tend not to be pragmatic.

Depends on the area. A child who wants to learn how to ride a bike so s/he can go play with friends is being as pragmatic as an adult. Where the difference lies (and this is probably a cognitive limit on children up to a certain age) is the TIME SPAN of the cause effect relationships, and how far children are willing and able to project into the future.

But if we look at adults practically, they suffer the same problems in behavior and time projection. They   overspend, get into debt, etc, just because they don’t project that link into the future very well. That matches very well with the finding that 50% of adults NEVER make it into the formal ops. stage.

However, I need to > be careful here. The term pragmatic can be defined as that/those concerned
> with facts or actual occurrences–the practical. In adult learning theory,
> we are concerned with a slightly different meaning. We are referring to
> pragmatism. This is a branch of philosophy relating to the study of cause
> and effect with an emphasis on the practical lessons to be learned from
> history or politics. Pragmatism in this context refers to sets of theories
> distinguished by the doctrine that the meaning of an idea lies in its
> “observable practical consequences.” For example, a child might consider
> spending their entire month’s allowance on candy to be a practical
> application of the funds. However, the child’s parent may see this
> differently, relying on historical knowledge to know that there will be
> consequences to the action that the child did not consider (no more funds
> to spend, a belly-ache, a dental bill).

True, and the parent may go out and buy a house that’s way beyond their means. It’s absolutely the same  thing.

To place the example in a learning > context, consider offering a child the option of attending a math class or > going to the beach. The child might see sand and surf as a more practical
> application of their time, whereas the parent (or responsible adult) might
> see the math class as more practical for getting into a good college or
> eventually obtaining a job.

From the discussion here about training and education and getting those darned adults off the beach and into the classrooms, I don’t see much of a difference. Why? because many adults haven’t developed the advanced formal thinking required to project into the future, and perhaps even have the working memory (m-space) of younger teens.

I have to stop here, but here’s the bottom line on the adult learning, which is not solely my opinion but that of others who have published and critiqued the “theory”. Formalized adult learning theory is not a  description of reality but a notion of what adults “should” be within a very specific cultural bias. It’s the way us adults would like to be seen rather than the way we are. And because of it’s cultural bias, it applies completely to such a small segment of society as to be useless.

That’s why I probably would never hire someone who’s only learning in the learning field is adult ed. I would hire (and do work with people) who have studied LEARNING, cognition, development, etc.

The very WORST learning environments I have ever seen were produced by adult learning supposed experts, and the absolute absolutee worst I’ve seen is within adult learning programs at universities.

I was just reflecting on the different views on regulation, and looking at a number of websites related to coaching, and its regulation.

It seems to me like the two “camps” are characterized by completely different backgrounds, and thus, different values and visions of the coaching field. The camps are so different it’s hard to imagine the twain ever meeting, and it’s easy to imagine that the issue of
regulation can only be handled through the political process.

We can divide the camps into two: First, those that come into the field from other disciplines that have professional education components; law, teaching, psychology, and so on. On the other side we have people entering the field from fields or who have backgrounds in areas that do not have professional education components.

Since professional education has always involved the communication of professional ethics and conduct and professional practice guidelines, it’s not surprising that people coming in that way bring those values to the table.

If you browse some of the coaching websites, the value differences jump out. Many if not most of the coaching websites are marketing oriented, and the clear tacit goal is to SELL a product or service, to consumers, or to other prospective coaches. The sites are replete with what could be described as ad copy. If you look at the bios of those site owner/coaches what you find is they almost never bring to to the table education that is related to what they are doing.

Check out http://www.b-coach.com/ as an example. Without passing any judgement on that particular style, it gets pretty clear what values are operating here. One can’t expect that the values and vision of someone like Mike Jay (who’s education is in Animal Science) or Doug Constant (who in 1997 was involved in the multi-level marketing industry) to have the same values as someone who comes in with a social work degree, or degrees in psychology. I’m not saying that background necessarily determines coaching effectiveness, here. Only that background does affect values.

Different values give rise to different visions for the field. I think on one hand, the people who are concerned about the health of the field, and will at least recognize the current problems, envision coaching as a PROFESSION, just like social work, teaching, psychology, law, and accounting. They want to be associated with a field that is guided by a set of values derived from these professions. They want to share a designation that is EARNED through hard work, competency and commitment.

On the other hand, I think the other camp, if you will, sees coaching as a business, a point I made last week. That is, they envision the field as marketing and sales based, and primarily entered into for the purposes of making money. Or, at least, if you look at a lot of coaching websites that’s what comes through. Note I’m not denigrating making money here.

Where one camp seeks professional dignity, the other seeks to sell as many services or products through marketing ad copy as possible.

While one camp believes that professional services should be presented to consumers in a calm, measured and non-hyperbolic way, the other does not. As an aside I think you can tell a great deal about people from their promises.

Right now the commercial coaching establishment, of which Mike Jay is a part, is dominated by those who are pursuing their business interests, and, that coupled with different values and vision, is going to make it impossible for the twain to meet. Because quite simply, the more coaching is regulated, the less they will be able to make money from the field.

I can fully understand why people like Mike Jay are passionate about keeping coaching unregulated. I think a major part of it involves business reasons. But there are probably other values that differ. My bet is that if you scratch the surface of those opposing regulation, you’ll find they are the “self-made men and women” who value independence more than they value adherence to a code of professional practice. I’m sure there must be other huge value differences.

My personal position on this certainly is affected by my background in regulated professions, psychology and education. I think it’s possible to have regulation AND run a business within the field, but there has to be a balancing of the different values involved. And that balance is not there. So long as coaches coaching using a marketing/sales based and money driven model, continue to do what they are doing, the need for regulation is going to continue.

Finally, for what it’s worth. I came across a document on the web that had an extensive list of things that coaches could do to prevent the regulation movement from succeeding. Which I thought was kind of cool. Until I realized that ALL of the suggestions had to do, not with the substance of coaching, but with the WORDS used to describe coaching. So, as an example, they advised removing all words that might be construed as relating to psychology or therapy.

What they didn’t do was make suggestions for how coaches should change WHAT THEY DO. They didn’t say: “OK, make sure that what you do with your clients is clearly not therapy in substance”. What they suggested was “Do the same things, but call it something else”.

I have to wonder at suggestions that are in essence, based on deception. Ok. Do this, but don’ t call it this, call it that. It’s the marketing mentality gone berserk.

Bottom line. The values, backgrounds and visions are so different that no internal solution is going to be complete enough to satisfy those who wield power that the coaching industry will police itself.