Describe one experience from the inside, then from the outside
Write what an experience was like for you, then write what someone in the room could have observed, and keep the two accounts separate.
Pourquoi ça marche
Bowman describes the individual quadrant as examinable from inside, by the class of methods called phenomenology, or from outside, by the structuralism class (2014, p. 31, describing Wilber 2006, pp. 36–40). Writing the two accounts separately keeps either one from quietly overruling the other. The separation is this page’s practice; the source describes the two classes of method, not this exercise.
Comment faire
- Pick one experience from the past week that you can still recall clearly, such as a conversation that went badly.
- Write three sentences about what it was like from the inside: what you felt, noticed and wanted. Use “I” and avoid explaining.
- Write three sentences about what could be observed by someone in the room: what was said, what was done, how long the pauses were.
- Compare the two. Note any sentence in the first account with no counterpart in the second, and any observable fact your inside account left out.
Données probantes
The inside and outside classes of method for an individual are part of Wilber’s framework, as Bowman describes it (2014, p. 31). No study has tested whether writing the two accounts separately improves self-understanding or communication. (anecdotal)
The mechanism is described in the source but not demonstrated here. Bowman points out that Wilber uses the inside-outside and interior-exterior terms inconsistently (pp. 31, 54), so where your inside account stops and your outside account starts is a judgment you make.
Sources
- Wilber, K. (2006). Integral Spirituality: A Startling New Role for Religion in the Modern and Postmodern World. Boston: Integral Books.
- Bowman, K. J. (2014). Correcting Improper Uses of Perspectives, Pronouns, and Dualities in Wilberian Integral Theory: An Application of Holarchical Field Theory. Integral Review, 10(1).
Erreur fréquente
Letting the outside account quietly decide that the inside account was wrong, or the reverse. The exercise only works while both stay on the page.
Pratiquez cela avec IX Coach
Plus de pratiques pour Integral Methodological Pluralism: The Eight Zones of Inquiry
- Sweep one question through all eight zones
Take one real question and write what an answer looks like from the inside and the outside of each of the four quadrants.
- Run one inquiry in first, second and third person
Study one question three ways: in your own notes, with the few people directly involved, and through a wider source that none of you controls.
- Match the method to the question before you gather anything
Before collecting data, decide what kind of question you are asking, so a question about meaning is not answered with a count.
- Find the empty zone in an explanation you already hold
Check one explanation you rely on against all eight zones, so the boxes it says nothing about become visible.
- Examine two conflicting views in context before deciding
When two views of the same thing conflict, name what each one is looking at before deciding which one is right.
Concepts associés
- Ken Wilber’s Integral Theory (AQAL), Made Practical
Five elements for catching what your view of a situation leaves out, held as a map rather than a truth
- Using Wilber’s Four Quadrants on a Real Problem
Eight ways to put the I, It, We, Its map to work on a problem you actually have
- First, Second, Third and Fourth Person Perspectives
How the number of viewpoints you can hold grows, what the research does and does not show, and how to practice it in a real disagreement
- States vs Stages of Consciousness: Wilber, Combs and O’Fallon
Why a powerful experience and a lasting change are different things, and how each one grows
- Torbert’s Seven Action Logics of Leadership
Seven ways leaders make sense of pressure, how common each is, and how to work with your own