Replying to LO28679 --
In response to posting without LO reference number
[Host's Note: My apologies... It was to have been LO28679 ..Rick]
Dear David & fellow LOs
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this topic. Whilst I do not have a
direct interest in multiple personalities per se, (my Doctoral research is
focusing on Work Teams and Organizational Learning), I would like to
submit three questions for discussion.
Q.1. If one or more members of a given work team employed by a company
operating somewhere in the world has /(have) been diagnosed as possessing
multiple personalities, how do you know "who" is giving the response to a
question which may be part of a survey instrument or semi-structured
interview? (i.e. are researchers getting distorted views when dealing with
research subjects who have multiple personalities?)
Q.2. How can you validate one's observations of this team's dynamics when
one or more members are making "multiple" contributions to the team
effort? (i.e. Team member "A" maybe a very active contributor to the team
dynamics because there are more of this member providing the contribution)
Q.3. Assume that this same team is continually learning and making a
contribution to organizational learning within this said company, how do
you know which personality is doing the learning or does it really matter?
Thank you and I look forward to responses.
> In a message dated 6/16/02 5:57:02 AM Central Daylight Time,
> firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
> > Apparently it's been documented on many occasions that a person with
> > multiple personalities may manifest a certain physiology when one
> > personality is present, and a different physiology when another
> > personality is present.
> John and LO group:
> In 30 years of practice as a clinical psychologist, I've never seen
> this. During this time, I've always been wary of someone saying:
> "Apparently it's been documented . . ."
> The term "multiple personality" has, in the last ten years or so, given
> way to the term "dissociative identity disorder", or "DID" for short.
> Not that such a "name change" could elevate a poorly conceptualized
> "disorder" beyond it's modest status of "causal naming", as an
> appropriate level of interpretation.
> For those of us who believe in the "unity of the personality," even
> though we do not have "documentation on many occasions," the exisitence of
> "DID" is merely a poorly understood variation of a multitude of potential
> dynamic defense mechanisms. However, if you really want to make it on the
> Jerry Springer Show, "documented" claims regarding DID are always
Glebe Stcherbina <email@example.com>
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.