Replying to LO27298 --
Over the past few years I have participated in several successful
experiments with a process called Dyalogue. It is a derivative of an
approach called n-logue.
What it has enabled in my situation is two people with directly opposing
views to engage in a conversation about their opposing views in a way that
explicitly did not require agreement. In fact it required us to stick with
what our initial views were, and focus on communicating them to each
other, not with any attempt to gain agreement, which was not going to
happen within the process we were using, but focusing on explaining to
each other what our views were. The strange thing was that the agreement
to not agree, and the release of pressure this created made it very
difficult to not move in that direction. It created a kind of separation
from our views that was very powerful. I have tried it a few times now and
found that as long as the agreement to not seek to convince the other
person is real it can create a very useful container.
Hope this is useful. Here is a link to the source of the approach:
DDI +64 9 912 7373
PO Box 99193, Newmarket
Auckland, New Zealand
A friend asks:
>I have been asked by more than one person if I have resources to
>help with issues of Tolerance. It goes beyond the traditional
>diversity discussion and is focused on religious tolerance.
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.