Discussion: View Thread

I have been following this discussion about attitude,
and have a question that is at least indirectly related.

I would like to seek some suggestions on creative
ways to help students understand how to respond to a
situation that they seem to bring up often, and one for
which my guess is we have all experienced and know
the theoretical replies, but so how can we help our
students learn it too?
Your collective advice is welcome, please.

The scenario takes various forms, but the basics are
that person A tells person B that they do not like it
when person B does something and/or that A does
not want person B to do something, because A is
FEELING that B is doing whatever it is to negatively
impact on A. A emphasizes how B is making A
FEEL.

I think that we would agree that B is not responsible
for A's feelings? But students, particularly, young
people often think that everyone should always be
kept happy and they want to take responsibility for
how others feel. And, of course, this can be
complicated by adding variables to the A-B dyad, such
as differences in gender, age, race, rank, etc, and it
can occur in public or in private.

If you have encountered this type of situation, how
have you/ would you teach them, demonstrate to
them, that we are each responsible for our own
feelings? That we make/let ourselves feel the way we
do? Others do not do it to us. And as managers they
need to be mindful of others, but they can not take
responsibility for other's feelings. Or, perhaps, you
disagree?

Well, as I write this, it sounds like a bad joke, but
after hearing the story often, it seems like a
reasonable question for our collective creativity. So
how do you teach this concept. Is there some simple
plain truth about it, or does it come with my grey hair?
Thanks, Chris

CHRISTOPHER PRATT, ED.D., DIRECTOR
CAREER SERVICES AND
ATLANTIC COOPERATIVE EDUCATION
TRAINING CENTER
SETON HALL UNIVERSITY
SOUTH ORANGE, NJ, USA 07079-2689
201-761-9355, FAX: 201-761-9009
(Area Code will change to 973 as of June, 1997)
PRATTCHR@SHU.EDU
CHRISPRATT@worldnet.att.net
http://www.shu.edu/life/career/

Chris Pratt <PRATTCH@SHU.EDU> wrote:

>>... that person A tells person B
that they do not like it when
person B does something...<<

That is good.

>>... A does not want person B to do something,
because A is FEELING that B is doing whatever
it is to negatively impact on A. A emphasizes
how B is making A FEEL...<<

Feelings are wonderful thing, but A is responsible for A's feelings.
B is not making A feel anything, it is A's reaction to events and
is not B's doing. However, if A shares his feelings with B then
B may take into account A's feelings, thus improving the relationship.

>>... students, particularly, young people
often think that everyone should always
be kept happy and they want to take
responsibility for how others feel...<<

What a downer. I wonder where and how they developed this attitude?

>>... how have you/ would you teach them,
demonstrate to them, that we are each
responsible for our own feelings?...<<

By discussing the physical symptoms of feelings--rage, anger,
blood pressure rise, stomach aches, etc. These are some of
the driving forces that control our reaction to events. Our
initial physical reactions to an event, i.e., rage, anger,
stomach aches, is almost uncontrollable and very personal. However,
we can learn to stop and think and then respond thus avoiding
the negative consequences of reacting without thinking. We do
not all react the same way to the same event, therefore our
feelings are a very poor gauge to use to evaluate events unless
we are only concerned with our own feelings.

>>... That we make/let ourselves
feel the way we do? ...<<

We just feel that way, but we need to recognize that our feelings are
quite natural but only our own.

>>... Others do not do it to us...<<

This is something that many people should learn.

>>... And as managers they need to be
mindful of others, but they can not take
responsibility for other's feelings.
Or, perhaps, you disagree?...<<

I agree, since we are not responsible for others feelings, but
we should be mindful of others feelings and behave accordingly.

>>... So how do you teach this concept.
Is there some simple plain truth about
it, or does it come with my grey hair?...<<

The best learning experience I had was a stress reduction clinic
that did a good job of explaining the physical reactions to stress.
Once we learn to respond to events rather than always reacting to
events, life becomes easier to understand.

Bob

+----------------------------+
| Robert F. Gately, PE, MBA |
+----------------------------+-----------------------+
| GATELY CONSULTING (508) 473-0955 |
| 115 Dutcher Street Fax (508) 634-0670 |
| Hopedale, MA 01747-1006 Toll Free (800) 478-8117 |
| http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/gately/ |
+----------------------------------------------------+

<<
CHRISTOPHER PRATT, ED.D., DIRECTOR
CAREER SERVICES wrote April 29 (clipped)
The scenario takes various forms, but the basics are
that person A tells person B that they do not like it
when person B does something and/or that A does
not want person B to do something, because A is
FEELING that B is doing whatever it is to negatively
impact on A. A emphasizes how B is making A
FEEL.

I think that we would agree that B is not responsible
for A's feelings? But students, particularly, young
people often think that everyone should always be
kept happy and they want to take responsibility for
how others feel.
>> + + +

In a communication situation of 2 or more persons we have a
feedback circuit. It is pointless to ask where a problem
started within a feedback circuit. (Response: "I don't like it"
versus Response "I feel bad". This kind or "error
research" is done more often than not and is a major
erroneus approach. Since "everyone does it" and young
people copy this approach (monkey see, monkey copy - up to
any age) they get trapped into the idea of being responsible
for other people's feelings, or others being resonsible for
theirs. It is not so simple, but simple enough using a
different approch. (Creative Morphology - to be exact.)

What a person is responsible for is the way a thought
is packed into words (and other signals), passed along,
and the transfer rate and method of new unfamiliar "ideas".
The latter means we should not overload the receivers with
more information than they can process, else rejection is
automatic (the mid brain works this way, it is the central
decision maker). Such rejection then tends to be taken "personal"
again, which is wrong again because all the rejection
does is to try and stop the information overload situation.
The overload process is function oriented, the transfer
rate is a characteristic.
(Quoting Vannevar Bush, head of US military science after WW2:
Rockets will never span the ocean). Can't grasp - reject.

The unfamiliarity with this very important differentiation
of function versus characteristics is a big cause of
thinking blockage, in communication and in processes of
innovation.

<<
Is there some simple plain truth about it, or does it come with my grey hair?
>>

Both, some peple open up a thinking booster which turns hair grey.
Unfortunately grey hair doesn't turn on the booster.

<<collective creativity. So how do you teach this concept.>>
Queston order:
What to teach
When to teach
How to teach

What: Something we understand, know what we are talking about.
I am taking a short cut here: You can teach the mechanics of algebra
without great math talent. The reason is the relatively simple ways
to prove the result. Kind of 2+2=2*2 hence 3+3=3*3, etc <g>. Thinking
processes and thinking error research on unmeasurable subjects is
far more difficult. That is why we need to understand it much better
to teach it. We need to know e.g. the difference between no influence
and little influence. The magnitude change of the signal will help to
recognize which applies.

When: When there is a need, or a pain wanting help. In a student
environment, links to real world applications and visions help to
open up the "fascination regulator" (quoted from Handbuch der
Morphologie, by Hermann Holliger).

How: Since most new information needs to be processed, and may
meet rejection, we have to apply the Sensitation Process. Offering
some information, to little to cause fear, enough to cause fascination.

In closing the tour of responsibility, we (and Vannevar Bush) are
also responsible how we react to new, unfamiliar, fear inducing
information. This is no more than the other side of the coin of
being responsible of what we say how when.

More about this on website:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/canmor/index19.htm
or for the asking.

Emil Zahner
Innovation Coach
Morphological Institute Canada

Bob wrote 97.4.30:
<<The best learning experience I had was a stress reduction clinic
that did a good job of explaining the physical reactions to stress.
Once we learn to respond to events rather than always reacting to
events, life becomes easier to understand.>>

Interesting: I learned similar things at the Morphological Institute
Zurich back in 1980, and I wasn't the first one introduced to it.
The "stress" handling etc. was part of a training in
Creative Morphology, and I am passing it on now to those who want
to listen.

And Bob wrote elsewhere, same date:
<<The way a person behaves under stress is what determines
a person's suitability for management, all other things being equal.
>>
Which is just in different words as how we are responsible about how
we react to something less familiar, perceived as a potential danger.
I wrote about this 97.4.30.

Emil Zahner
Innovation Coach for Systematic Innovation
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/canmor/index19.htm