Getting the difference completely

The field of epistemology studies how we know whatever we know. A flawed epistemology yields our thinking that we're in the know when we don't know half of it yet. For instance, we know we're different from the other person but not how to get that difference completely. As far as we can tell, it only takes one to come up with what we know and that someone is outside ourselves. "They got it bad and that ain't good".

Our world is filled with teachers, trainers and instructors who know of many differences between them and their students. Their descriptions of students usually point out those differences objectively. The learners may be obviously less smart, knowledgeable, informed, experienced, confident, motivated, or creative. The observed difference characterizes a polarity between haves and have-nots or superiority and inferiority. The teachers are in power-over students getting over-powered. This is only half the difference or a single circuit that lacks another frame of reference. There appears to be no way the evidence-based description of the student contains numerous self-references and reciprocal arrangements. It's inconceivable that it "takes one in the same to know the other one at all" or "it takes two to tango" like this.

An epistemology is complete when it comes full circle. Closing the loop on an objectively identified distinction explores its reversal and context. When someone appears less smart, we know who's smarter than that. We then consider an opposite distinction where being less smart is better than being smarter. That might include situations where:

• being too smart for our own good says there's one right answer and we're the one who's right
• being right is not effective because it frames others as wrong or deficient in some way
• being smarter comes across as condescending, arrogant and offensive
• being less smart appears vulnerable, accessible and authentic
• being less smart relates well to others who also feel put down by holier-than-thou types
• being less smart is a sign of continual learning and openness to disconcerting alternatives

When the distinction and it's reversal both seem valid, knowing is no longer about the distinction. The complete understanding depends on the situation. The distinction is context-dependent. The applying the distinction also sends a message, conveys an impression and sets up an ongoing relationship. It's a wonder how the distinction will apply: in forward or reverse formation. The mystery of the moment undoes feeling over-confident, exclusively in-the-know, or rigid about only applying the distinction to others.

Seeing double

The concept of "double descriptions" that I explored yesterday was conceived by Gregory Bateson decades ago. He identified two patterns of entanglement between people which he labeled complementary and symmetrical relationships. In both patterns of entanglement, a single point of view misses what is happening. It takes two to see the one cycle.

Bateson compared the use of double descriptions to binocular vision. When we see with only one eye, we have no depth perception. We crash into things we expected were further away. With both eyes open, we navigate through space adeptly. We see the opportunity to count ourselves in the circuitry that ties us together. We experience depth perception in relationship with others.

In complimentary relationships, one member unconsciously offsets the other by going to the opposite extreme. The relationship is kept in balance by compensating for each other. A motor mouth will partner with a very good listener. A bully will seek continued interactions with a doormat. An analytical brainiac values the companionship of a passionate animal.

In symmetrical relationships, the two participants go round and round without resolution or conscious awareness of their mutual torment. They have too much in common to get along or to resolve their differences. They are essentially thrown for a loop by a mirror. The ways they pester each other escalates their misunderstandings and tensions between them. It appears they are boxing their own shadow or screaming at their mirror image. They provoke each other to endlessly try harder, fight longer and struggle with more determination.

The dynamics of cheating I explored recently embodies both kinds of entanglements. Some cheating displays fluidity, spontaneity and opportunism -- which is compensating for the other's rigidity and unresponsiveness that ends up doing everything by the book. Some other cheating is symmetrical -- giving the other a taste of their own medicine after getting cheated out of what they expected, paid for and deserved.

In both cases, neither participant sees what is going on. Double descriptions are not being practiced. Each merely reacts to the other's reactions unconsciously. Each point of view misses out on being closely tied to the other. Neither gets that it's going round in endless circles.

When each participant can describe both the other viewpoint and their own, problems get resolved. Shared understanding replaces the isolated contentions. The exclusive frames of reference become inclusive, accommodating and compatible.

Practicing double descriptions

Every situation can be seen two ways. We can practice making double descriptions in many different ways. We can:

• describe the thing we're observing and lens we're looking through to see it
• speak of the content and the context we bring to that content
• address it and our way of relating to it, embodying it or grounding it in our experience
• say what we have to say and where we're coming from to say that
• pay attention to something outside us and to our basis for pay attention on the inside of us
• make a thing of what we are seeing and of the process it is going through
• mention the obvious node in a system and the hidden cycle that ties us to it coming and going

Double descriptions like these make us effective. We effect others in a good way. We not only see things objectively, but subjectively as if we filter our perceptions and attributions of the exchange. We describe our bringing personal feelings, needs, histories and biases into our observations. We stop pretending to be unbiased, detached and unaffected by what we're seeing. We count ourselves in the situation we're describing.

When people describe us both ways, we feel understood by them and touched by their understanding of themselves. It seems like they have empathy for us and them too. Their sensitivity to our situation and theirs move us. They are showing consideration of our condition separate from them and in common with them. It appears to us that we're both getting pictured accurately in their minds, not labeled, framed unfairly or misinterpreted.

In the midst of these double descriptions, we become cooperative. We want to help out and understand others in return. Social capital abounds as we reciprocate responsibly and benefit from our generosity. We also see others both ways and effect them in a similar manner. The spill-over effects from these exchanges benefit everyone touched by the interconnections.

In lieu of getting taught

What's so bad about getting taught? We don't learn from getting taught like we learn from most every other immediate experience. So much gets dislocated when we're getting taught. It's amazing we can stay awake and pretend to pay attention.

Getting taught is not the same as getting answers to our questions. Getting taught is different from getting search results, resources we're looking for or books that may help us with our inquiry. Getting taught is getting told what to think, being given one right answer or getting fed some simplification to swallow hook, line and sinker.

When we're getting taught, it does not matter if we have a question. The instructing barrels ahead whether or not the timing is good, it works for us or it fits our situation. It's not about us, relating to us, being useful to us or helping us out in some way. We're not really there when we're getting taught. It's one of those "I - it" deals where we're the "it".

When the person, whose giving us the experience of getting taught, can describe us even slightly -- everything changes. They get us in some way. They picture us with some accuracy. They may give us the feeling of being understood, respected or validated in some regard. They create a context where we can count ourselves in and partake in the exchanges. We're suddenly really there like a somebody that makes a difference. Our status as an "insignificant nobody" has been "canceled until further notice". Being there is no longer about "getting taught".

Our own learning processes kick in when we've been described in some way. We're doing those inner things like: finding it out for ourselves, figuring out the way it works for us and coming to our own realizations about it. It's all about relating to it, tying it in and connecting between this and that -- rather than what we're getting taught. The content becomes incidental to what's going on with us. We describe ourselves differently as students. We change what we think learning is about and how it happens. We look engaged and act motivated like we're really curious or something. We make it easy for the instructor to describe us as we act like the learning is about us in the first place.

Count ourselves in

The best way to really learn something is to teach it. The worst way to learn something is to get taught it. In between teaching it and getting taught it is: finding it out for ourselves, figuring out the way it works and coming to our own realizations about it.

Teaching obviously has an effect on the other person getting taught. When we realize how that effect comes back around to bite us in the butt or congratulate us on the back, we're careful what we put out there. We become wise to the ways that learning happens without making it happen. We see how to really learn something by teaching it (and writing about it, explaining it, or making it clear to others like I'm doing right now).

We learn more from how we're taught than what we're taught. If we're shown respect while getting taught, we respect the person teaching us and the content we're expected to learn. If we're abused, disrespected, misunderstood or framed in a bad light, we get that message loud and clear. We show no respect to the instructor, give no credibility to the content and no patience to the process of getting it to sink in. We return what's been dished out to us.

When we teach like we're constantly sending subliminal messages, we see what we're saying without any words. We perceive the students signaling us in the same light. We come from a place that sets a good example, provides credible leadership and says what we stand for. We expect to be understood for how we conducted ourselves and the ways we treated the students.

When we describe students like we're one in the same, we point fingers back at ourselves. It "takes one to know one" and "anything about you applies to me too". Our description of a students says a lot about ourselves and where we're coming from. We join in the cycle of mutual regard and representation. We get framed by our framing the students. We count ourselves in to the mirroring and reflecting that goes round and round.

Making mistaken impressions

It's easy to get the wrong impression about this "mirror thing". We're inclined to take the analogy literally rather than symbolically. We get no use out of it. We fail to apply what we see to reflect on how we're seeing them. We assume the mirror image means we're exactly the same as they appear to us.

When we see someone is ugly, that does not mean we're ugly too. It means we're using an ugly way of seeing them. We're not operating in a second loop where there are many ways to see what we see. It reflects on us that we would choose such an ugly approach to recognizing how they appear to us. We expect nothing to be revealed to us deeper than surface appearances. We reveal to others that we take things at face value where appearances are devoid of significance. Things don't symbolize anything to us. A fact is fact and there's no two ways about it.

When we see students as lazy, that does not signify that we're lazy in the same way. It means we're too lazy to learn more about those "lazy" students. We don't have clue why they're acting lazy, how they get provoked, tempted or forced to lack ambition. We're taking a laid back approach to inquiring, investigating or rethinking what we're seeing. We not challenging ourselves to develop a loop where there are many different ways to see appearances.

When we get the impression that a student is unimpressive, we're operating under a mistaken impression. We're too easily impressed by initial impressions. How we get impressed by others is equally unimpressive. We don't change our impressions easily or upgrade the one's we formed early on. We give off the impression that we don't expect to make much of an impression on people. We have not reflected enough on our mistaken impressions to impress people with how we see them.

Thrown for a loop by a mirror

When we're faced with persuasive evidence, we scramble to quickly make up our minds. We jump to conclusions and categorize our experience conveniently. We then see what we want to see and nothing else. The evidence confirms what we've already concluded. We've been thrown for a loop by the impressive indications of others' advantage, danger or trouble to us.

When we fall into this pattern, our thinking does not work for us. We've set up a small factory for the manufacture of people problems. We continue to fabricate illusions about what's right or wrong with other people in self-serving ways. We use our descriptions of them to replicate what has already been decided in our favor. If we had a problem with them in the first place, we experience the same old problem repeatedly. If we expected them to help us out, we cling to these preconceptions. It then appears the other person is not changing, learning, or rethinking their effect on others. That's a mirror we're seeing when others' condition looks that way to us.

Our thinking works for us when we embrace reflective consciousness. We consider how the other person's stagnation is our own. We wonder why we've jumped to conclusions about them and how we've made up our minds erroneously. We question whether we are overly impressed (halo effect) or overly critical (demonizing) of their conduct, traits or effects on others. We realize that what we are seeing about others is showing us something about ourselves.

When we reflect on our descriptions of students, we utilize what we are being shown to change our minds. We get out of the loop we've been thrown into by the persuasive evidence. We get into a different circuit where our thinking works for us. We learn more about the person we expect to do more learning. We see more about the student who seems to not be seeing themselves clearly. We challenge ourselves about trainees who appear to fall short of challenging themselves.

We can change our approach to any learner who's approach appears to need changing. We take what we perceive objectively as a reflection of how we're perceiving them subjectively. We then gather more insights to perceive the students with more empathy, consideration, understanding and acceptance. This will likely knock the students out of their loop and induce them to reflect on their "made up minds" too. When one mind is transformed by reflection, many other minds follow suit.

Creating stagnation or transformation

When we are in the process of describing students to ourselves, others or the students themselves, we face a pitfall. If we're not cautious, we will inadvertently create stagnation with our description. It's not a question of how accurate, insightful or optimistic our description is. Stagnation results from the circuitry of the description we using. The students appear stuck with a bad habit, glued to an attitude or hung up on some obsession.

When a description is imagined to be a node in a system, stagnation is a result. We establish our characterization as a fact. Our description is unchanging and the trait we've described reflects that fixation. We make a thing of something and it looks like a thing henceforth. There's no point in changing when it's been pointed out to be something that can be categorized accurately. It's neither a process, pattern or puzzle.

When a description is imagined to link several nodes together, stagnation is postponed indefinitely. We're speaking of connections between things rather than things themselves. We welcome other tie-ins and different ways to relate the components together. We say what things suggest, potentially signify and raise as possibilities. We cannot jump to conclusions because the evidence appears inconclusive. We are open to interpretations, further investigations and alternative formulations. The circuitry of our description is open or doubled.

When a description spans between unknowns, transformation is likely. We know what what all we don't know. We're joining questions together into deeper mysteries. We cannot establish the facts as of yet, because we have not decided which questions will lead us there. We're enjoying what we don't know with wonder, fascination and curiosity. We are certain that our process will lead to an innovative outcome, but are not in control of making it happen. We immerse ourselves in a co-creative experience which is mutually transformational. We don't see the students or ourselves the same way after venturing into such unfamiliar territory. A second order change results from the open-ended investigation. We change how change happens and change everything as a result.

Describing students

There are many ways to describe each student, trainee, enrollee, customer or learner. There are many different facets of each student to describe. Our descriptions yield significant consequences for the students as well as for ourselves as their educators, instructional designers, managers or parents. There are no objective descriptions that leave things unchanged. We participate in creating what comes next in our shared experience by the way we approach describing students. In this next series of blog posts, I'll explore these issues.

Students give us lots of evidence that provides the basis for formulating our descriptions of them. We get impressions of how much they can handle and how quickly they catch on to new material. We get proof of how motivated they are, how worried they get and how confident they seem. We get a picture of what they want, what sparks their interest and what fires up their imaginations. We accumulate evidence for how they react to criticism, how they justify their efforts and how they rationalize their shortcomings.

As we accumulate this evidence, our minds recognize patterns in the data. We develop theories about what motivates them and what destroys their determination. We see connections between what they say and what they do that infers some causal relationships. We notice what occurs repetitiously under the guise of being new issues, requests or setbacks. We realize they may have internalized limitations that hold them back, fears that cripple their initiatives and trauma that makes them apprehensive.

While we're "putting 2 and 2 together", we may also change our questions. We can wonder if we are seeing them accurately and judging them fairly. We can doubt our objectivity with valuable suspicions. We can challenge our selective filtering, biased observations and vindictive perceptions of them. We can puzzle about what's hidden from our view, going unsaid and getting downplayed as insignificant.

Once we resolve these questions about our initial conclusions, we may formulate opinions about each student. We settle on descriptions that fit them without much contrary evidence which would give us "cognitive dissonance". We make up our minds to see them particular ways and rule out other possibilities. We take some facets for granted and dwell on others to excess.

Once we've locked into the descriptions that work for us, we're too smart for our own good in most cases. We are poised to create problems, trash relationships, control others lives and escalate tensions. Rather than see that had these effects with our "reliable descriptions" we see the problems out there in how they're acting, not in here where we're coming from. We avoid self reference in our descriptions and rely on "objectivity without observer dependence. We have become unnatural, disenchanted and lost in a world of illusion.

All this simply calls for changing our descriptions of students and our process for formulating how we describe them.