Context Games
From Knowing Knowledge
A conversation is an object. It is formed and frameworked as negotiated by parties.
Attempts to define who we are and why we do what we do, err in the assumption that there is an answer that exists by itself.
We are able to create a framework for understanding more rapidly than at any other time in history. Conversation spaces are readily available. Breakdown and teardown happens in seconds.
…we are not about logic
We are not only about our drives and desires…
We are about context games.
Our desires and logic are shaped in an orchestra of context: acting and reacting, negotiating and dialoguing.
To define context is to frame the solution.
Context is not as simple as being in a different space…context includes elements like our emotions, recent experiences, beliefs, and the surrounding environment—each element possesses attributes, that when considered in a certain light, informs what is possible in the discussion. The object is tied to the nature of the discussion (framework [or network] of thought). The context-game is the formulation and negotiation of what will be permissible, valued, and the standards to which we will appeal in situations of dispute. The context-game of implementing a new corporate strategy involves individuals, politics, permissible ways of seeing and perceiving, recent events, corporate history, and a multitude of other factors.
Context games are the attempt to clarify and highlight factors that impact our comprehension of a particular situation.
Consider two individuals engaging in a discussion of liberal and conservative politics. The real discussion is not about a particular political issue (for example, the degree to which the government should be involved in social programs). Instead, the real discussion centers on each party attempting to project their deeper views (based on the "pathway" model provided in Figure 26)—namely that by adopting a view, we often walk to its logical outcome. We do not engage situations neutrally. We engage them based on the manner in which we have crafted our logic or how we have entered the corridors of logic. We do not evaluate a thing only for "what it is." We evaluate it for how it relates to our defined views and ideologies.
Context games include:
| 1. | What we bring: Our existing viewpoints/ideologies. |
| 2. | What impacts: The factors that exist and impact the discussion/knowledge (recent events, news items, networks nodes from which we perceive). |
| 3. | What exists: The nature of the topic—it melds with the context and causes ripples of change within the context itself. |
| 4. | Space of occurrence: The environment/culture/zeitgeist in which the dialogue/debate occurs. |
| 5. | Who is involved: Parties with whom we are familiar shape the context; we fill in missing elements based on previous encounters. |
| 6. | What we possess: Oratory or charismatic traits of the participant. |
| 7. | What we feel: Emotions. |
| 8. | What we communicate: The attempt to convey to others the validity of each perspective. |
| 9. | How we negotiate: How we determine measures of validity and acceptable context (requires give and take). |
| 10. | What are the domain, type, state, and level of knowledge? |
| 11. | How we debate: The points of logic, emotion, inclusion/exclusion. |
| 12. | Context breakdown (and archiving for future similar experiences). |
In a sense, the key area seen as the surface notion of the debate (in our previous example of government involvement in social programs) is not really an issue. It is an opening through which we can express our larger views.
With regard to knowledge and learning, context influences our capacity to convey our thoughts. If knowledge has been hardened into ideologies, or if new knowledge is seen through ideologies crafted in advance, the outcome of the discussion is essentially set. Debate is largely an attempt to project world views.
Of what value is the act of debate? Debate provides an additional dimension to context that enables individuals to see entities beyond their own worldviews. We categorize and box individuals. This presupposes how they think and act. By understanding context games, we are better able to suspend hard proclamations in advance of understanding the particular concept being expressed by others. If both parties acknowledge context creation activities, the capacity to agree on a particular framework of debate and inclusion of perspectives that may challenge our established ideologies, may be increased. If our debate is less about projecting our world views, and more about exploring what is actually being said, we open our minds to reception of knowledge that is filtered by our opinions.
We value what is different more than what is known…it pulls on logic toward non-logic directions.
Existing mental models are not loose enough to allow for new structure to emerge. Mental models (like schema) assume that we are logical and structured in our exposure to knowledge. We are not always logical.
We are contextually holistic. We act consistent with how we have framed and determined our world. We filter out information we feel is not important. Our behavior is consistent with our context, though we may at times violate our actions of the past.
We do not exclusively subsume, accommodate, or assimilate. We place new knowledge in relation to other knowledge. If similarities exist or revelations occur, the element is connected to our neural structure. We connect more than we construct.
[edit] What about power?
Is it troubling that knowledge is changing? For some. Who? Those who currently serve as providers of, or gatekeepers to, knowledge.
What about traditional power structures? Is knowledge power? Does the free access to knowledge we currently possess equal a greater shift in power to the consumer? What about the continuing wealth disparity? If it is true that power has shifted to the consumer, where is it evident in our society? Do we have real power—the power to change society, to remake the world? Or is our power as end users restricted to remaking media and uploading images, files, and embarrassing karaoke videos?
If power is shifting to consumers, why are corporations continuing to expand their influence? Is it wishful thinking on our part? Or are the social masses able to balance corporations and governments 1?
Or is it simply hype? Is technology changing politics? Is it forcing deep changes in our society? Or is our tinkering at the surface, while the hidden hands of power continues to move and shape society? Is our power but one of perception and not deep influence?
Power, like knowledge is moving from deep reservoirs
and is flooding the landscape.
The power to speak exists for everyone. The power to be heard still pools.
[edit] Who are the new oppressed?
The oppressed in the digital divide:
| 1. | Those without access to tools of global conversation. |
| 2. | Those without skills to contribute to global conversations. |
What we decide today creates ripples that will change the landscape or how we decide tomorrow. The aggregate of the many forms the new power base.
Every industry will be impacted as power floods into the lives of individuals: marketing, business, school, publishing, recording/movie industries, churches, and religious bodies.
Is knowing really about thought constructs? Internal representations? Or do the thoughts themselves morph too rapidly to be perceived as a construct? Is it more like patterns held by the aggregate of our neurons—where no one area of our brain holds a representation. Perhaps the real concept that we currently call representation is actually the rapid bringing together of dispersed information through neural activity. The representation itself does not exist in its entirety, only in pieces. Connecting, or binding, creates the whole.
In order to bring the pieces together, we rely on patterning. Patterning is the process of recognizing the nature and organization of various types of information and knowledge. The shapes created by these structures will determine how readily new connections can be made.
| Organizations are not systems but the ongoing patterning of interactions between people. Patterns of human interaction produce further patterns of interaction, not some thing outside of the interaction. We call this perspective complex responsive processes of relating. | |
| Ralph Stacey 2 |
The words we use influence our ability to think, reflect, and react. Language creates structure, though not a framework—a framework is too rigid—boundaries formed through the creation of networks of ideas (note, the boundaries emerge as a result of the network, but once established they shape future network formation).
Opposition to an idea is often less of a commentary on the idea itself and more of a reflection of where the objector is positioned (space and time) in relation to the idea.
We adjust our logic to serve our conclusions. Only a few times in our lives do we build core foundations (for example, evolution or creationism). The rest of our time is spent building on these foundations.
| Reason itself is a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all. | |
| GK Chesterton 3 |
Our challenge of thinking is the creation and breakdown of structures for dialogue. The content that we debate is of less significance, because how it is processed is a function of the construct itself. We must battle against constructs that are created too early, and as a result, damage our capacity for ongoing learning and functioning.
Knowledge possesses different states. Knowledge that has hardened is typically not open for debate (we rarely enter conversations prepared to alter our core beliefs). We are prepared to create constructs to debate knowledge that is malleable. Where we have created a firm perspective, we are more apt to desire to communicate, rather than dialogue.
Strong opinions, weakly held.
Bob Sutton 4
|
Previous Page: In Relation to Knowing | Next Page: Something is amiss |
1 Moore, J. F. (2003). The second superpower rears its beautiful head. Retrieved September 1, 2006, from http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/jmoore/secondsuperpower.html
2 Stacey, R., & Griffin, D. (Eds.). (2005). A complexity perspective on researching organizations: Taking experience seriously. New York: Taylor & Francis Group.
3 Chesterton, G. K. (1994). Orthodoxy. Wheaton, IL: Harold Shaw.
4 Sutton, B. (2006, July 17). Strong opinions, weakly held. Retrieved September 1, 2006, from http://bobsutton.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/07/strong_opinions.html
