Patterns & Metaphors
Participant pre-logical biases
Template:
At the basis of the personality of every person or group active in a meeting, it is useful to recognize a set of pre-rational temperamental biases which are reflected in the aesthetic, theoretical, value and action preferences and in the preferred mode of discussion. The preferred mode of each individual or group may be positioned somewhere along axes of bias such as the following:
[1. Order vs disorder:] Namely the range between a preference for fluidity, muddle, chaos, etc and a preference for system, structure, conceptual clarity, etc.
[2. Static vs dynamic:] Namely the range between a preference for the changeless, eternal, etc and a preference for movement, for explanation in genetic and process terms, etc.
[3. Continuity vs discrete:] Namely the range between a preference for wholeness, unity, etc and a preference for discreteness, plurality, diversity, etc.
[4. Inner vs outer:] Namely the range between a preference for being able to project oneself into the objects of one's experience (to experience them as one experiences oneself), and a preference for a relatively external, objective relation to them.
[5. Sharp focus vs soft focus:] Namely the range between a preference for clear, direct experience and a preference for threshold experiences which are felt to be saturated with more meaning than is immediately present.
[6. This world vs other world:] Namely the range between a preference for belief in the spatio-temporal world as self-explanatory and a preference for belief that it is not self-explanatory (but can only be comprehended in the light of other factors and frames of reference).
[7. Spontaneity vs process:] Namely the range between a preference for chance, freedom, accident, etc and a preference for explanations subject to laws and definable processes.
Such pre-logical biases may be at the base of choice of life-style, discipline, policy, mode of action, mode of presentation of information, etc. To the extent that people have very different profiles in terms of these axes, every particular meeting position, viewpoint or programme will have only limited appeal. The challenge is to design meetings which are hospitable to all these biases in order that any outcome will be significant to those in the outside world who share them. Meetings are usually "successful" when participants share a set of biases and are a "frustrating failure" when a wider spectrum is represented. In neither case is the problem of overcoming such differences recognized, nor is the validity of any bias respected if it is represented by a minority. It is not surprising therefore that the results of "successful" meetings have little impact on those whose biases were not blended into their outcomes.
