My whole understanding of discipleship, transformation, and myself was completely transformed by learning about Kegan’s Theory of Adult Development. It gave me a unified framework for thinking about personal, spiritual, and relational growth.
The core premise is that a) we define our identity by distinguishing what we “are” from what we “have”, and b) maturing is redefining something we “were” into something we merely “have.”
However, as I have been applying the theory to my self, parenting, and coaching practice, I realized that I might be able to extend it to be both simpler and more comprehensive. In particular, by marrying it with General Systems Theory (plus a dash of General Relativity, with a hint of Internal Family Systems), I find it useful for analyzing not just human, but also natural and computational systems!Read the rest of this entry »
We, as citizens of these United States, in the shadow of COVID-19, believe the most urgent and important virtue we can aspire to as a people is Resilience.
Update: Truth Bowl is now Fish Bowl. Watch the videos to learn why:
For more details, please visit https://analogbootcamps.wordpress.com
Thursday 8/29 at 3PM Pacific will be our fourth public beta of Truth Bowl:
Zoom Meeting: https://zoom.us/j/2960092796
One tap mobile: +16699006833,,2960092796# US (San Jose)
Dial manually: +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) Meeting ID: 296 009 2796
This week we are experimenting with a new format inspired by Shark Tank:
Please join us for Truth Bowl Beta 3 next Thursday, August 15th at 3PM Pacific.
- Zoom Meeting: https://zoom.us/j/2960092796
- One tap mobile: +16699006833,,2960092796# US (San Jose)
- Dial by your location: +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) Meeting ID: 296 009 2796
Technological progress has never been so rapid, pervasive, or impactful. Yet we are just starting to grapple with the negative consequences of our relationships to smartphones, social media, machine learning algorithms, and big tech companies.
In this hypothetical Scenario, the Activist (Bill) has been invited by the organizers of a tech conference to Pitch his concerns. The press and senior executives will be there. Activist asks the Confidant (David) to preview his talk. Confidant is expected to raise helpful Concerns and Recommendations to improve the Pitch.
For our second “Truth Bowl Beta” we are pivoting away from a panel discussion towards more of a back-and-forth debate — but with a twist! Rather than judging the two Panelists (“Pitcher” and “Catcher”), the audience (“Fielders”) primarily focus on capturing and rating the most useful Insights that arise during the Bowl using www.slido.com
with the code #T361. As before, the Gospodar acts as moderator and timekeeper.
The Challenge Question will be something like “What single change would ensure education better promotes societal flourishing?” There are three phases: Pitch, Counter, and Reflect.
Ernie’s raw notes for ⰖTruth Bowl 2017-07-12-1500
The societal purpose of mass education is to Model and Promulgate a vision of how to align personal ambition with the good of society, ie gamifying communal status.
The big question is: what vision?
The small question is: does it work?
Around the world, we invest enormous quantities of Financial, Human, and Social Capital in education. Why? What do we hope to get from it? How can we measure that? Whom can we trust to give us honest answers, rather than merely promote a particular agenda?
In particular, is the purpose of higher education to:
1. Learn the hard technical skills necessary to land a job
2. Develop the soft “human” skills necessary for a meaningful career
3. Cultivate the habits of mind necessary for a fulfilling life
And if there is more than one purpose, how do we balance or integrate them in terms of curriculum and funding?
Truth Bowl is a structured dialogue, halfway between competitive debate and a panel discussion, designed to model and train people in “productive disagreement.” TRUTH is sometimes interpreted as the acronym “Teaching Respectful Understanding Through Hospitality.”
Two Panelists compete in front of a Jury to address a Challenge, composed of a Question and an Objective. Members of the Jury award panelists Points for clarity and thoughtfully addressing disagreements. At the end of each Round, the Jury rewards the panelist who most helped them comprehend the Challenge with the title “Domaĝanto” (Esperanto for “Question Tamer”).
Challenge Question for V2 of Truth Bowl (the ad hoc version)
You are a professor of philosophy at a large university. You’ve just received a panicky phone call from your former schoolmate Pat, the chair of humanities at a struggling liberal arts college out East. You vaguely remember hearing the school brought in an investment banker alum as president to pull off a turnaround. Pat informs you that said banker has invited a controversial book author to campus as a publicity stunt, and in one hour Pat is expected to face that author in some sort of debate.
Pat (and you) have never read the book or heard the author speak. However, many of your peers consider him a right-wing reactionary with the ear of Trump, who wants to abolish modern education and replace universities with some sort of theocratic communes. Previous invitations for him to speak at major universities have been rescinded due to outraged protests by students and faculties. That’s probably why this college president jumped at the chance to gain notoriety as the first school to host the author — and didn’t tell anyone until the last minute.
Several colleagues have urged Pat to quit and boycott the event, since it feels like a setup; better to be a martyr than risk legitimizing someone who seems both willing and able to destroy everything they stand for.
There isn’t much time. The only background material you have to go on is one relatively balanced book review.
Challenge Question: What advice would you give Pat, and why?
Options include (but are not limited to):
– Directly engaging with / critiquing (the ideas of) the author
– Proposing a debate format that would ensure Pat’s views get a fair hearing, despite the lack of preparation (Pat has enough authority to dictate the format, but not enough to escape the debate )
– Providing a clear rationale why it is Pat’s moral duty to boycott the event