In a recent debate regarding a new theory proposed in one of my graduate classes, a student and I got into a bit of an argument. He later apologized for being "disrespectful." Below is my reply.
Dear [name omitted],
There's an old Zen proverb that goes like this (don't you just love storytelling and management?):
Acolyte approaches Zen Master with a cup full of tea. Zen Master takes teapot and pours more tea into cup. Acolyte says, "but Master, my cup is already full!"
Master replies: "Yes. That is your problem."
;)
We need to approach ideas without ad hominem attacks. While certainly people should get credit for their ideas, once the idea is out there it needs to be debated on its merits. In the universe of discourse of any field there is always disagreement. There's a saying that "I'll believe it when I see it." More aptly, people tend to come to the world (more and more as we age) with the attitude, "I'll see it when I believe it." Academe is rife with studies that show people do not take action based on information that is right in front of them because they do not fit their preconceptions. Covey's first "habit" of highly effective people is "seek first to understand, then to be understood."
If we accept the premise that learning organizations need to learn faster than the competition, then we as individuals in these larger systems need to play our part to help not hinder the learning system. I believe that science will eventually show (and is starting to show) that intelligence is strongly related to our ability to learn, which often means letting go of old ideas, or at least allowing the old ideas to fit within (thus correspond*) to the new paradigm. New neuronal connections are forming all the time. I think the "aha" feeling is actually a central nervous system response to these connections.
One view being reduced under a new, larger view is called the Correspondence Principle in cybernetics. E.g. Newtonian physics is perfectly workable under the larger paradigm of Einsteinian physics. We can use Newton's theories quite usefully in architecture, for example, without having to resort to the action of subatomic particles. But having that understanding is important to explain phenomena that do not fit our Newtonian worldview.
I should write this up. Oh, I just did! Thanks for the trigger.
Apologies if in our debate I came off as elitist. I enjoy a good debate (was regional champ in high school but never got the winning touchdown. Or the cheerleader.) and wish more students would engage. Don't let "respect" get in the way of debate. Indeed, a respectful learner is one who contributes an argument or perspective that may, in fact, transform the understanding of the listeners. Apropos: I'm very interested in hearing more about your work with simulations re Second Life or other virtual forums. There's a whole new world for "management anthropologists" out there!
Thanks for this note. Shows a lot of character. Keep talking and don't take it personally if I cut you off. Much better to have too much conversation than not enough.
Cheers,
Michael
* The etymology of "correspond" is "to answer together in harmony."
