TED Conversations

Andrea Morisette Grazzini

CEO, WetheP, Inc.

TEDCRED 30+

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Part II: When, How and Why have your most strongly held views changed?

A week ago I asked How, When and Why people have changed strongly held beliefs.

The answers were exceedingly rich, even as they were given embodied both personal and interpersonal examples of lived and, indeed “living,” in-situ transformations. Far from detached or observational, discussants expressed deep nuance about themselves and persistently engaged with others of diverse ages, perspectives and geographies in vibrant co-reflections.

There were, as human conversations go, divergences and occasional disagreements. These and the sustained connective momentum throughout the thread demonstrated energy and passion for the topic – and, in many ways, each other as co-stakeholders of sorts in mutual self- and other discoveries.

As these unfolded seeds of this follow-up question were planted and coaxed. A call to continue, perhaps even deepen, the dialogue was made.

So, lets.

To orient this phase, consider these questions:

1. If you engaged in or observed the first conversation: Did your view of changes you’ve made evolve in any way due to the discussion? If so, what was the impact of others’ voices you heard in the conversation on your changed views?
2. How, when and why do we notice our truths converging with others? And conversely: how, when and why do we notice our truths diverging from others?
3. How can self/other discoveries wherein both agreements and disagreements are dynamically engaged – as they emerge -- be meaningful, transformative or productive for both/all?

I’m eager to see where this “go-deeper” conversation goes.

Many thanks, again!
Andrea

+2
Share:

Closing Statement from Andrea Morisette Grazzini

When I posed this question I expected the momentum of the original conversation would carry-over a multidimensional chorus of "inner-voices," as participant Lindsay referred to it. Momentum was certainly achieved.

What of it was constructive is more complicated to discern.

Of the three questions I posed to orient the topic #2 elicited the most visible energy. What came though clearly was the effect of reactivity as a powerful conversational contagion. In this case, translated by much difference and divergence.

The evidence of this lies mostly in what can’t be seen.

First is the absence of numerous comments that no longer remain, traces of which are hinted at only by notations they have been “Removed.” These dialogic divergences featured escalating exchanges that catalyzed more, devolving into various and accumulating personal disparagements.

Second is the absence of unknowable comments. One wonders what might have been offered, were it not for ever-present off-topic tensions.

At several turning points various participants engaged with some success to redirect to the topic. As they did new, richly textured voices offered stories and fresh perspectives on how change has and can occur in transformative ways for themselves and with others.

By the broadest definition: what remains, what’s been retracted and what hasn’t been said all amount to relational change.

It’s critical to note which have been reductive, rather than constructive to the ideals of the conversation. Herein lie complicated answers that are perhaps nearly as powerful as those so clearly expressed.

I'm grateful for those who persisted by modeling, inviting and engaging with diverse, dimensional dialogues here. Their presence was a powerful example of how counter-contagions of support can scaffold shared ideals and intent when unproductive behaviors threaten to topple progress. And give example to constructivist-style, dynamically construed paths to new views.

Andrea

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    May 4 2011: Hello,

    Firstly apologies for not responding to two responses to my post on the previous question. Here are answers to that:

    @Debra Smith - The Landmark Forum (LF) is the flagship program of Landmark Education (LE). LE itself is a global training and development company that is in the business of transformation. If other training disciples add on to existing skill sets such that one can "improve" or "fix" or even "change" themselves, LE goes under all the knowledge that an individual has and works on whatever it is that is holding them back from achieving breakthrough results in areas of life that are important to people and in matters that people really care about.
    Anywhere from a 150 to 250 people attend the LF, though this may vary depending on the country and location the LF is being conducted in.
    The methodology used is an informal dialogue between the leader (facilitator/coach) and the participants - no videos are shown, no material given...there isn't even a need to take notes as all you're doing is working on yourself and applying the distinctions (main messages) shared to yourself and your life. The more you apply the distinctions in specific areas of your own life, the more the chances of a breakthrough in that area.
    You can read up the basics on www.landmarkeducation.com
    @Andrea: Sometimes the LF can also be fairly confronting - esp. with deeply held beliefs. One of my most disempowering beliefs about myself (and i had a few :)) was that "I'm not good enough" and I did whatever came to me to compensate for that - ALL 34 years of my life. Proving, yelling, being autocratic - you name it. The impact was on my relationships and self esteem. As I confronted that and took responsibility for altering that, the anger and restlessness inside me subsided. The first people to notice it - of course my parents. They started enjoying this new me - to the extent that they enrolled in doing the entire curriculum as well!

    Answering this question in another post.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.