Monday, December 06, 2004

Individual Characteristics

What role does the type of brain functioning, personality or temperament play in an innovation commons?

3 Comments:

Blogger Chris T said...

Interesting point Paul. I'd say the role is to be different in as many dimensions as possible. Contradict me, take me to a higher / different plane, enhance me, add weight to my point etc.

No matter how much effort I put into thinking about a particular issue, I can guarantee that as soon as I start talking to someone else they will open up new lines of thought.

The tragedy of the commons is a phenomenon of finite resources, however we have the "problem" of infinite resources in innovation related opportunities - this is where I think we can add value to the innovation commons.

2:05 PM  
Blogger Dianna A. said...

I believe the make up of the group is critical to its ultimate success or value to each participant. For example, if I have a fledgling idea to develop, there's no point in hearing from a bunch of people who think like me. The best solution or evolution will come from hearing from people with a different perspective or way of thinking than mine. So I believe it's critical to welcome a wide variety of people of different backgrounds and personalities to "the party" in order to get the most out of the process. That said, I also belive it's critical to weed out people who have an inability to listen well, or who cannot offer constructive feedback. Thinking of Daniel Goleman's work on Emotional Intelligence, it would seem to me that strong "scoring" or development in that area would be far more important than specific academic, business, or level of intelligence details.

1:17 PM  
Blogger Paul Schumann said...

The Use of MBTI in Online Facilitation

Nancy White, the moderator of the Online Facilitation Forum, posted this item:

Author: Tony Di Petta
Date: 1988
URL: http://www.thenode.org/tfl/notes/dipetta.html

I indirectly found this article this morning while reading about an online facilitate challenge in a private community. Tony was mentioned so I googled and found this article. It seems to be another way in to the archetype issue without using the sort of labels like Gahran did in her piece.

Digging down, it is about finding ways to understand each other enough to have successful communications or do things together. We generalize as a way of making sense, but in the labels we use generate end up creating more misunderstanding. Quite the opposite of the intent, I suppose. Finding ways to "hear" the other person without being triggered by their style or language choice is a key goal in an online facilitation practice. Di Petta points out one really key part of the practice: knowing your own style/self first.

The article on this site is an abridged version of a paper published in
Cranton, P. (ed.) (1998). Psychological Type in Action. Sneedville, TN:
Psychological Type Press.

abstract

This paper examines the use of psychological type as a group process "tool" for moderators of on-line discussion groups. In February of 1997, The Personal Effectiveness through Type (PET) Inventory ®, was provided as an on-line tool to ten computer conference moderators working for the Education Network of Ontario (ENO). The ENO is a Canadian telecommunications service that provides internet access and computer conferencing services to the kindergarten through secondary school education community, in the province of Ontario.

Ten ENO conference moderators volunteered to use the P.E.T. inventory to determine their personal type "preferences", that is, their most ingrained and frequently used strategies and methods for making sense of, and interacting with, the world around them. The volunteers then participated in an on-line discussion forum that focussed on how their newly acquired type awareness might be used in their professional work as on-line conference moderators. The discussions about type and its use in facilitating on-line discussion groups led to a set of recommendations and suggestions for using type data to facilitate the on-line leadership and interaction efforts of computer conference moderators.

Snippet:
"One of the greatest concerns of the on-line moderators who considered
using type theory in their work was that type should not be used to "label" people, that is, to limit or judge others, or to suggest what they can and cannot do well. Type information can and should, however, be used to identify the kind of moderator leadership that is required by specific on-line situations and groups. Knowing what is needed in terms of leadership helps moderators plan or adapt strategy to help individuals or on-line groups meet their goals. By understanding their own preferences, moderators reduce the chances of letting those preferences dictate how to work on-line or relate to other members in the on-line group. "

Nancy White - Full Circle Associates - http://www.fullcirc.com - 206-517-4754, http://public.xdi.org/=nancy.white
Blog: http://www.fullcirc.com/weblog/onfacblog.htm


Claire Brooks posted this comment:

"Digging down, it is about finding ways to understand each other enough to have successful communications or do things together. We generalize as a way of making sense, but in the labels we use generate end up creating more misunderstanding. Quite the opposite of the intent, I suppose. Finding ways to "hear" the other person without being triggered by their style or language choice is a key goal in an online facilitation practice. DiPetta points out one really key part of the practice: knowing your own style/self first."

This discussion of type reminded me of when I first came across *Choconancy* in an online group space, later taken over by yahoo groups, I think. When joining up participants were invited to fill out a *type* quiz that returned a description of how people of that type would make pumpkin soup. It was light hearted and gave an insight into oneself and at the same time served as a reminder that other people would approach the same task completely differently. I still use version of the technique, depending on the type of online group. For example in formal learning situations it can be useful to people to complete a learning preferences quiz, and that can also be a way for some safe self disclosure to take place. In other groups it might be a modified MBTI quiz (http://www.personalitypathways.com/type_inventory2.html), or simply a fun thing from tickle http://web.tickle.com/

In Gahan's article it is possible that the sci fi clash was an interaction between someone who valued rationality above feelings a T rather than an F in MBTI terms, and being able to *label* differences in that way can be helpful. ( Still doesn't deal with all the issues tho' because this approach assumes that everyone has a reasonably good intent and unfortunately that is not always the case , so I am still looking forward to the next instalment on dealing with Trolls)..{aside} is that a barb? am I really a porcupine?:-). A big difference is that these activities are about self labelling....maybe there needs to be a quiz that allows people to reveal their self perceived tendencies towards to conflict, control, power relationships and other sensitive topics even if it is only for personal consumption/self awareness.
Claire ( ~sort of INFP/INTP)

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/onlinefacilitation/

8:37 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home