CDP+++ Modulo 1 Clase 5.

Notas del editor

• #11: The main stakes for humanity are not hunger, poverty, sustainability, peace, healthcare, education, economy, natural resources or a host of other issues but our capability to build new social organizations that are able to provide solutions. Our main stake is Collective Intelligence.
• #12: The main stakes for humanity are not hunger, poverty, sustainability, peace, healthcare, education, economy, natural resources or a host of other issues but our capability to build new social organizations that are able to provide solutions. Our main stake is Collective Intelligence.
• #13: The main stakes for humanity are not hunger, poverty, sustainability, peace, healthcare, education, economy, natural resources or a host of other issues but our capability to build new social organizations that are able to provide solutions. Our main stake is Collective Intelligence.
• #14: The main stakes for humanity are not hunger, poverty, sustainability, peace, healthcare, education, economy, natural resources or a host of other issues but our capability to build new social organizations that are able to provide solutions. Our main stake is Collective Intelligence.
• #15: The main stakes for humanity are not hunger, poverty, sustainability, peace, healthcare, education, economy, natural resources or a host of other issues but our capability to build new social organizations that are able to provide solutions. Our main stake is Collective Intelligence.
• #16: What are the observable phenomena in the previous examples? They are too numerous for an exhaustive exploration, but let's list seven of the most significant ones. They give us enough grain to grind in order to understand some of the big theoretical and practical principles of original collective intelligence. 1. An emerging whole: each jazz band, sports team, working team has its own personality, a style, a spirit to which we refer as if they were an individuality. When we emphasize the success, the quality and the unity of a group, it is another way to express the fact that this Whole appears so obviously. 2. A 'holoptical' space: the spatial proximity gives each participant a complete and ever updated perception of this Whole. Each player, thanks to his/her experience and expertise, refers to it to anticipate his/her actions, adjust them and coordinates them with the actions of the others. Therefore there is an unceasing round trip, a feedback loop that works like a mirror between the individual level and the collective one. We define holopticism as this set of properties, that is the 'horizontal' transparency (perception of the other participants), and the 'vertical' communication with the emerging Whole. In the examples above, the conditions of holopticism are given by physical 3D space; our natural organic senses then serve as interfaces. The role of a coach, or an external observer, consists in encouraging the conditions for holopticism. 3. A social contract: whether it is musical harmony, game rules, or work legislation, the group is shaped around a social contract, tacit or explicit, objective or subjective, that is accepted and staged by each participant. The social contract is not only about values and rules of the group, but also the means of its self-perpetuation. 4. A polymorphic architecture: the mapping of relationships is continuously updated depending on circumstances, proficiency, perceptions, tasks to accomplish, or relational rules based on the social contract. It gets strongly magnetized around talents or expertise. Then each expert, as recognized by the group, takes the lead one after the other to act according to needs. In a sport team for instance, the right-winger becomes the leader when the ball comes into his space, but it can happen that he becomes the goalkeeper when the situation requires it. 5. A circulating object-link: as Pierre Lévy explains so well in a paper called Collective Intelligence and its objects (1994), "The players use the ball simultaneously as an index that turns between individual subjects, as a vector that allows everyone to design everyone, and as the main object, the dynamic link of the collective subject. We shall consider the ball as a prototype of the linking-object, the collective intelligence catalyzing object". Melody, ball, objective, or 'objective' of the meeting, no doubt that original collective intelligence gets built upon convergence of individualities toward a collectively pursued object, whether or not the object is a physical or symbolic one (a project for instance). When they belong in symbolic space, it is an absolute necessity that these objects must be clearly identified and united in their number and quality by each participant of the group, otherwise this leads to some of those fuzzy situations that all of us have already painfully experienced. 6. A learning organization: the learning process not only operates at the individual level, but it also involves the existence of a social process that takes charge of mistakes, and integrates and transforms them into shared cognitive objects. It enhances the development of the relational intelligence, what we learn for ourselves is useful for others. 7. A gift economy: in the competition-economy, the one we know today, we pick something for ourselves in exchange for compensation, most often money. In the gift economy, we give first, then we receive once the community has increased its wealth. Raising our children, taking care of the elderly, giving our sweat to a sports team, being involved in an NGO, or helping each other in the neighborhood are examples that demonstrate that the gift economy is the absolute base of social life. This is so obvious that we are generally unaware of it. Could any community be sustainable in the long run if it relied on the dynamics of individual sacrifice? In the gift economy, each participant finds a strong individual advantage that motivates him to give the best of himself. The gift economy organizes the convergence between individual and collective levels. Emerging whole, holopticism, social contract, polymorphic social architecture, circulating objectslink, learning organization, or gift economy, here are the main qualities that we will find in all communities in which original collective intelligence is at work. Each characteristic is all at once the cause and the consequence of the other characteristics. None can be taken separately. The more they are developed and coordinated, the more the community is able to evolve and create the future in complex, unexpected and uncertain contexts.
• #17: What are the observable phenomena in the previous examples? They are too numerous for an exhaustive exploration, but let's list seven of the most significant ones. They give us enough grain to grind in order to understand some of the big theoretical and practical principles of original collective intelligence. 1. An emerging whole: each jazz band, sports team, working team has its own personality, a style, a spirit to which we refer as if they were an individuality. When we emphasize the success, the quality and the unity of a group, it is another way to express the fact that this Whole appears so obviously. 2. A 'holoptical' space: the spatial proximity gives each participant a complete and ever updated perception of this Whole. Each player, thanks to his/her experience and expertise, refers to it to anticipate his/her actions, adjust them and coordinates them with the actions of the others. Therefore there is an unceasing round trip, a feedback loop that works like a mirror between the individual level and the collective one. We define holopticism as this set of properties, that is the 'horizontal' transparency (perception of the other participants), and the 'vertical' communication with the emerging Whole. In the examples above, the conditions of holopticism are given by physical 3D space; our natural organic senses then serve as interfaces. The role of a coach, or an external observer, consists in encouraging the conditions for holopticism. 3. A social contract: whether it is musical harmony, game rules, or work legislation, the group is shaped around a social contract, tacit or explicit, objective or subjective, that is accepted and staged by each participant. The social contract is not only about values and rules of the group, but also the means of its self-perpetuation. 4. A polymorphic architecture: the mapping of relationships is continuously updated depending on circumstances, proficiency, perceptions, tasks to accomplish, or relational rules based on the social contract. It gets strongly magnetized around talents or expertise. Then each expert, as recognized by the group, takes the lead one after the other to act according to needs. In a sport team for instance, the right-winger becomes the leader when the ball comes into his space, but it can happen that he becomes the goalkeeper when the situation requires it. 5. A circulating object-link: as Pierre Lévy explains so well in a paper called Collective Intelligence and its objects (1994), "The players use the ball simultaneously as an index that turns between individual subjects, as a vector that allows everyone to design everyone, and as the main object, the dynamic link of the collective subject. We shall consider the ball as a prototype of the linking-object, the collective intelligence catalyzing object". Melody, ball, objective, or 'objective' of the meeting, no doubt that original collective intelligence gets built upon convergence of individualities toward a collectively pursued object, whether or not the object is a physical or symbolic one (a project for instance). When they belong in symbolic space, it is an absolute necessity that these objects must be clearly identified and united in their number and quality by each participant of the group, otherwise this leads to some of those fuzzy situations that all of us have already painfully experienced. 6. A learning organization: the learning process not only operates at the individual level, but it also involves the existence of a social process that takes charge of mistakes, and integrates and transforms them into shared cognitive objects. It enhances the development of the relational intelligence, what we learn for ourselves is useful for others. 7. A gift economy: in the competition-economy, the one we know today, we pick something for ourselves in exchange for compensation, most often money. In the gift economy, we give first, then we receive once the community has increased its wealth. Raising our children, taking care of the elderly, giving our sweat to a sports team, being involved in an NGO, or helping each other in the neighborhood are examples that demonstrate that the gift economy is the absolute base of social life. This is so obvious that we are generally unaware of it. Could any community be sustainable in the long run if it relied on the dynamics of individual sacrifice? In the gift economy, each participant finds a strong individual advantage that motivates him to give the best of himself. The gift economy organizes the convergence between individual and collective levels. Emerging whole, holopticism, social contract, polymorphic social architecture, circulating objectslink, learning organization, or gift economy, here are the main qualities that we will find in all communities in which original collective intelligence is at work. Each characteristic is all at once the cause and the consequence of the other characteristics. None can be taken separately. The more they are developed and coordinated, the more the community is able to evolve and create the future in complex, unexpected and uncertain contexts.
• #29: The more all participants are aware of the nature of dialogue and committed to bringing it about, the better the chance it will happen. Towards that end, the following comparison of dialogue and debate offers one of the most useful summaries of dialogue that we've seen. (It was adapted by the Study Circle Resource Center from a paper prepared by Shelley Berman, which in turn was based on discussions of the Dialogue Group of the Boston Chapter of Educators for Social Responsibility.)
• #30: cuanto más compartamos la lista que sigue, .. más efectiva ej. 1 por cartulina .. cada uno tiene en mente para todo el grupo .. (inteligencia colectiva) Even on first reading, it can change one's perspective. The specifics, however, can be hard to keep in mind. So the more often people read (and discuss) the list, the more effective it will be. Perhaps someone will put the items on this list into fortune cookies for group use. Until then, you could write each one on a card and give every participant in a meeting one card to keep in mind, on behalf of the whole group.
• #33: Dialogue remains open-ended. Debate implies a conclusion. ( )
• #35: Not all communication is dialogue. Dialogue is shared exploration towards greater understanding, connection, or possibility. Any communication that fits this definition, the Co-Intelligence Institute considers dialogue. Communication that doesn't fit this definition, we don't call dialogue. (Note: Some of our colleagues believe that what we call dialogue should be called conversation . See for example, Is "debate" or "conversation" the most useful form of public discourse? by Alan Stewart.) Dialogue can at times be truly magical, dissolving the boundaries between us and the world and opening up wellsprings of realization and resonant power. In those rare, deeply healing moments of dialogue in its most ideal form, we may experience the wholeness of who we are (beyond our isolated ego), listening and speaking to the wholeness of who we are (deep within and beyond the group around us). At those times it is almost as if wholeness is speaking and listening to itself through us, individually a nd collec tively. Words become unnecessary; knowing is instantaneous, and meaning flows like a great river within and among us. These are moments of grace, whose frequency increases as we practice listening more deeply and exploring more openly with each other.
• #36: Here are some guidelines for dialogue in its most basic form 1 We talk about what's really important to us. 2 We really listen to each other. We see how thoroughly we can understand each other's views and experience. 3 We say what's true for us without making each other wrong. 4 We see what we can learn together by exploring things together. 5 We avoid monopolizing the conversation. We make sure everyone has a chance to speak.
• #37: Bohmian Dialogue The late quantum physicist David Bohm observed that both quantum mechanics and mystical traditions suggest that our beliefs shape the realities we evoke. He further postulated that thought is largely a collective phenomenon, made possible only through culture and communication. Human conversations arise out of and influence an ocean of cultural and transpersonal meanings in which we live our lives, and this process he called dialogue.
• #38: Most conversations, of course, lack the fluid, deeply connected quality suggested by this oceanic metaphor. They are more like ping-pong games, with participants hitting their very solid ideas and well-defended positions back and forth. Such conversations are properly called discussions. "Discussion," Bohm noted, derives from the same root word as "percussion" and "concussion," a root that connotes striking, shaking and hitting. Dialogue, in contrast, involves joining our thinking and feeling into a shared pool of meaning which continually flows and evolves, carrying us all into new, deeper levels of understanding none of us could have foreseen. Through dialogue "a new kind of mind begins to come into being," observed Bohm, "based on the development of common meaning... People are no longer primarily in opposition, nor can they be said to be interacting, rather they are participating in this pool of common meaning, which is capable of constant development and change." Bohm's approach to dialogue involved participants working together to understand the assumptions underlying their individual and collective beliefs. Collective reflection on these assumptions could reveal blind spots and incoherences from which participants could then free themselves, leading to greater collective understanding and harmony. Bohm maintained that such collective learning increases our collective intelligence. (For links to sites, groups, and listservs working with Bohm's approach to dialogue, click here .) (For Bohm's introduction to group dialogue, click here .)
• #39: Most conversations, of course, lack the fluid, deeply connected quality suggested by this oceanic metaphor. They are more like ping-pong games, with participants hitting their very solid ideas and well-defended positions back and forth. Such conversations are properly called discussions. "Discussion," Bohm noted, derives from the same root word as "percussion" and "concussion," a root that connotes striking, shaking and hitting. Dialogue, in contrast, involves joining our thinking and feeling into a shared pool of meaning which continually flows and evolves, carrying us all into new, deeper levels of understanding none of us could have foreseen. Through dialogue "a new kind of mind begins to come into being," observed Bohm, "based on the development of common meaning... People are no longer primarily in opposition, nor can they be said to be interacting, rather they are participating in this pool of common meaning, which is capable of constant development and change." Bohm's approach to dialogue involved participants working together to understand the assumptions underlying their individual and collective beliefs. Collective reflection on these assumptions could reveal blind spots and incoherences from which participants could then free themselves, leading to greater collective understanding and harmony. Bohm maintained that such collective learning increases our collective intelligence. (For links to sites, groups, and listservs working with Bohm's approach to dialogue, click here .) (For Bohm's introduction to group dialogue, click here .)
• #41: Most conversations, of course, lack the fluid, deeply connected quality suggested by this oceanic metaphor. They are more like ping-pong games, with participants hitting their very solid ideas and well-defended positions back and forth. Such conversations are properly called discussions. "Discussion," Bohm noted, derives from the same root word as "percussion" and "concussion," a root that connotes striking, shaking and hitting. Dialogue, in contrast, involves joining our thinking and feeling into a shared pool of meaning which continually flows and evolves, carrying us all into new, deeper levels of understanding none of us could have foreseen. Through dialogue "a new kind of mind begins to come into being," observed Bohm, "based on the development of common meaning... People are no longer primarily in opposition, nor can they be said to be interacting, rather they are participating in this pool of common meaning, which is capable of constant development and change." Bohm's approach to dialogue involved participants working together to understand the assumptions underlying their individual and collective beliefs. Collective reflection on these assumptions could reveal blind spots and incoherences from which participants could then free themselves, leading to greater collective understanding and harmony. Bohm maintained that such collective learning increases our collective intelligence. (For links to sites, groups, and listservs working with Bohm's approach to dialogue, click here .) (For Bohm's introduction to group dialogue, click here .)
• #42: Other ways of understanding dialogue My friend and fellow communications theorist, Ken Lebensold, expands Bohm's alternatives to three types of communication: Type A: Antagonistic communication , meaning conversations that can't seem to move beyond conflict (this is analogous to Bohm's "discussion") Type B: Banal communication, meaning conversations which feel oppressive, boring, or depressing, This might happen because participants are trying to avoid conflict, intimacy, or surprises, or it might just be habit. (Common examples are extreme politeness, tightly-controlled meetings, and alienated marriages.) Type C: Creative communication, meaning conversations that engage people's diversity creatively to generate greater shared understanding (which is analogous to Bohm's sense of "dialogue"). Consultant John Adams suggested a very simple way to describe dialogue, inspired by fellow consultant Harrison Owen: " Dialogue is people truly listening to people truly speaking ." When we all truly speak and truly listen, we can't help but generate greater shared understanding. An unspoken dimension of such guidelines for individual behavior is that they enable us to engage a deeper, larger intelligence than our own. Some say this is a universal intelligence of which we are tiny parts. Others say it is a collective intelligence generated by the synergy among us. I say it may be either or both, depending on the circumstances. Both are forms of co-intelligence accessible primarily to those who practice true listening and real dialogue.
• #43: Open Dialogue Again, dialogue is shared exploration towards greater understanding, connection or possibility. When such communication happens without structure or discipline, we call it "open dialogue." Our cultural conditioning makes it unlikely that most "open conversations" will actually end up as "open dialogue." The usual outcome is that some group members end up arguing or "head tripping" while others sit passively by. What can we do to avoid such outcomes? It is hard to get dialogue rolling in a world which has little understanding or experience of it. Few people are competent, aware and wise enough to evoke real dialogue in the midst of a heated argument, for example. Those who are, are awesome to witness, but hard to emulate. In the presence of a number of such souls, dialogue can come easily. In groups of practiced dialoguers, a novice will often find herself eagerly and effortlessly participating in the open, authentic, shared exploration unfolding around her. But few of us have constant access to true open dialogue. More often we can get access to real dialogue only through some structured process like a listening circle . But sometimes people (including ourselves) don't want the constraints of a listening circle . Or we're in a circumstance where such practices are inappropriate. We need guidelines and tools we can use to bring the spirit of dialogue to our everyday conversations and meetings. This section will provide some ideas and methods that are widely applicable.
• #46: uote, that I put in the back of the conference booklet, by Ambrose Redmoon; “ Courage is not the absence of fear, but rather the judgment that something else is more important than one’s fear. The timid presume it is the lack of fear that allows the brave to act when the timid do not. But to take action when one is not afraid is easy. To refrain when afraid is also easy. To take action regardless of fear is brave.
• #50: Tools for Open Dialogue "Popcorn" and other variations of circles In listening circles , people's turns are decided by the passing of an object around the circle. The sequence is totally predictable. This is highly structured dialogue. Listening Circles - An object is passed around the circle of participants. Each consecutive holder of the object speaks from their heart. No facilitator is needed. Sometimes a group wants to use an object to guide their discussion but they don't want to go around in a circle. They want more spontaneity. So the object is returned to the center after each turn and picked up by whoever wishes to speak next. This is sometimes called "popcorn" because the object pops in and out of the center. Since it is a bit less structured, it is considered more "open" than a formal listening circle. The group can decide that no one speaks two times until everyone has spoken once. This version of popcorn still feels much like a listening circle. However, if the group lets the object pass to anyone, regardless of how often they've spoken, there is a major loss of circle atmosphere. This loose form of popcorn feels like an ordinary conversation, except that people don't interrupt each other, there's time and space between speakers, and it's clear who has the floor -- major accomplishments nonetheless. In some circles the focus is on individual people. These individuals may be sharing their stories or receiving some kind of help from the whole group. In these circumstances it can be useful to let other people question the speaker for a while after he's finished, before the group's attention moves, with the object, to the next person.
• #51: Chime and stone Two more modifications of open conversation can help it have some of the benefits of dialogue without the constraints of a formal circle. These modifications are embodied in a chime (or a gong) and a stone (or other listening circle object) placed where all participants can easily reach them. If at any time one of the participants feels the group needs to center itself or move to a "heart space," they reach into the middle and strike the chime or gong. All talking stops immediately until the sound fades. Often the silence extends for a minute or more. When conversation begins again, it usually has a more centered, reflective quality. The purpose of the stone is different. When someone picks it up, they get the next turn after whoever is currently talking. This enables participation by less dominant, more reflective people who aren't inclined to compete for turns in fast-moving, often competitive conversations.
• #52: A penny for your thoughts Another way to deal with this last problem -- the difficulty of some participants to get a word in edgewise -- is to give everyone an equal number (for example, four) pennies, one of which they put into a bowl in the middle whenever they speak. When they run out of pennies, they can't speak again until everyone else has run out. (In a small group you don't need pennies; just agree that each person won't speak again until everyone else has.) An interesting variation on this is to make the pennies represent time -- say, one minute. A hat is passed to a speaker who puts in two pennies, and a timer is set for two minutes. When it goes off, he has to stop talking or put in another penny. People who want to hear from someone can give them one or more pennies, to give them more time. Sometimes a wild market in pennies can get going, with people wheeling and dealing. One participant at a conference took up a collection from the men to get a boxful of pennies for the women -- an interesting approach to affirmative action! If you think people might cheat, you can use poker chips or other unusual objects instead of pennies.
• #53: Fishbowl - In a group conflict, members of Side A converse in a central circle while others watch. Then Side B converses while others watch. Then other sides or no-sides take their turns. The whole sequence repeats two or more times. Facilitation is often useful.
• #54: Consensus Process - Explore a topic and options until all agree on the best approach. Usually consensus is a decision-making process, but sometimes the emergent solution is so clear that "deciding" is a formality. Facilitation is advisable.
• #55: Facilitation An open dialogue can be helped by facilitation. An experienced facilitator can be brought in or the role can be held by one or more -- or all -- of the participants. The simplest form of facilitation entails ensuring that all involved have a chance to speak and that the meeting starts and ends on time. Some facilitators discuss broad dialogue guidelines with participants and get them to agree to try applying them. Often guidelines such as the ones at the start of this article are posted on a wall where they can be referred to during the dialogue. The facilitator says that he or she will be trying to shepherd the conversation along the guidelines described. Then the facilitator lets people talk, giving them gentle reminders as necessary. Of course, to the extent all participants are brief, mindful, and curious about what each other has to say, little formal facilitation or gimmicks are necessary to ensure healthy dialogue. (more on facilitation)
• #67: World Cafe - The group breaks up into subgroups who talk for a while and then mix randomly into other subgroups and continue talking, ultimately returning to their original subgroup. Someone needs to ring a bell to signal shifts.
• #68: World Cafe - The group breaks up into subgroups who talk for a while and then mix randomly into other subgroups and continue talking, ultimately returning to their original subgroup. Someone needs to ring a bell to signal shifts.
• #69: World Cafe - The group breaks up into subgroups who talk for a while and then mix randomly into other subgroups and continue talking, ultimately returning to their original subgroup. Someone needs to ring a bell to signal shifts.
• #70: World Cafe - The group breaks up into subgroups who talk for a while and then mix randomly into other subgroups and continue talking, ultimately returning to their original subgroup. Someone needs to ring a bell to signal shifts.
• #73: Open Space Conferences - Participants who are passionate about a given topic create their own sessions on aspects of that topic. Active facilitation is needed at the beginning.
• #74: Open Space Conferences - Participants who are passionate about a given topic create their own sessions on aspects of that topic. Active facilitation is needed at the beginning.
• #75: Open Space Conferences - Participants who are passionate about a given topic create their own sessions on aspects of that topic. Active facilitation is needed at the beginning.
• #76: Open Space Conferences - Participants who are passionate about a given topic create their own sessions on aspects of that topic. Active facilitation is needed at the beginning.
• #77: Open Space Conferences - Participants who are passionate about a given topic create their own sessions on aspects of that topic. Active facilitation is needed at the beginning.
• #78: Open Space Conferences - Participants who are passionate about a given topic create their own sessions on aspects of that topic. Active facilitation is needed at the beginning.
• #79: Open Space Conferences - Participants who are passionate about a given topic create their own sessions on aspects of that topic. Active facilitation is needed at the beginning.
• #80: Open Space Conferences - Participants who are passionate about a given topic create their own sessions on aspects of that topic. Active facilitation is needed at the beginning.