🚀 go-pugleaf

From [ Marc Abrams (990505.1423) ]

This is the first of two posts. Although I believe they are related they
need to be addressed separately ( at least I think so :-) ).

There is an old saying that goes something like this;
"Don't judge someone unless you have walked a mile in their shoes" As a
metaphor I think it's sound advice, especially from a PCT perspective. We
often talk about CV's without having a real good understanding of _what_
they might be. Sure, superficially, we talk of goals and reasons. But do we
ever really examine them? You can't do this with everything, You would be
immobilized. But it is an interesting exercise into what a CV is. I did this
with Ken Kitzke's post and I did it with a line of reasoning I had about
another subject.

What was most revealing was I started out at one point thinking I would end
up a another, or at least within a reasonable distance of it. I wasn't
close. Not on either one. :-). What I was controlling for surprised the hell
out of me and I _never_ would have thought about it that way without the
exercise. The exercise is relatively simple. I borrowed it from Chris
Argyris and made _one_ ( but a very important one, from a PCT perspective )
change.

Take a piece of paper ( lined or unlined, whatever your most comfortable
with ) and fold it down the middle, length-wise.

On the left hand side write down the conversation you had ( this is a
reflective exercise )
e.g..
Ken: Just another example of.....

Marc: What, you....

Ken: blah, blah, blah

Marc: blah, blah, blah.

You can do this for any number of people, but I would keep it on an as
needed basis.
It also might be a good idea to number or letter the entries if there are a
few of them.

What is listed on the left side of the paper is what _actually_ went on.
Either by thought or deed ( talking )That is, what you perceived.

On the right side of the paper write what you were _thinking about but _did
not_ state with regard  to the item on the left hand side. Do this for all
entries,

Up to this point this is a standard reflection tool, Now we embellish it a
bit. We take the right side an make it into the left side on a new piece of
paper and resume the exercise. We continue to do this until you feel toy
have reached a satisfactory and or reasonable ending.

This exercise I believe might be useful to move into part II which is coming
onto the net with a _testable_ hypothesis _about_ some of these possible
CV's.

This will require some conceptual top -> down modeling, that I think
everyone can do. I am in the process of dotting my i's and crossing my t's
on this. Meanwhile it will give us a little bit of time to play with the
above exercise.

Any thoughts?

Marc