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.
Pourquoi ça marche
Bowman describes Wilber’s model as including partial truths that are examined in context with other disciplines and wisdom traditions (2014, p. 35). This page applies that to a disagreement: when two views conflict, naming what each one is looking at is a way of examining them in context before any verdict. Separating the aspect from the verdict lets both views stand long enough to be examined together.
Comment faire
- Write each view in one line, as the person holding it would state it.
- Next to each, write the aspect it is looking at, such as what is felt or what can be counted. Keep the labels short.
- Ask whether the two views are measuring the same thing. If they are not, write each one as true of its own aspect.
- Only then ask which aspect matters more for the decision in front of you, and write that decision down separately from the disagreement.
Données probantes
Bowman describes the framework as including partial truths examined in context (2014, p. 35). Applying that to a conflict between two views is this page’s practice. No study has tested whether it resolves disagreements. (anecdotal)
Bowman documents inconsistent use of the inside-outside and interior-exterior terms (pp. 31, 54), so the labels you give each view may not match Wilber’s own labels. Some disagreements are about facts, and this method does not settle those. The mechanism is described in the source but not demonstrated here.
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
Using “both are valid” to avoid a decision. The practice separates the aspects so that you can decide; it does not decide for you.
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.
- 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.
- 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.
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