{"id":127,"date":"2008-03-07T14:39:00","date_gmt":"2008-03-07T19:39:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.davidhowardpsychologist.com\/blog\/?p=127"},"modified":"2008-03-07T14:39:00","modified_gmt":"2008-03-07T19:39:00","slug":"127","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.davidhowardpsychologist.com\/blog\/?p=127","title":{"rendered":""},"content":{"rendered":"
AI or CSI? <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
A longtime rule of research for me has ever been the keeping of an open mind. But even I registered a bit of surprise as Monty Python, Garrison Keillor, Robert Bly, Buddha, Nissan, St. Benedict, and, for good measure, Bob Gardiner, my sometime statistics prof from grad school days, all appeared to line up on the same side of the ledger \u2013 strange bedfellows (make that, bedpersons) at the best of times to be sure! And all this when I began to consider a concept Ed Leidel (small church coach) had introduced to our little group a few weeks back: Appreciative Inquiry.<\/em><\/p>\n

In my rather rudimentary understanding, \u201cAI\u201d (not artificial intelligence<\/em> or any other of those \u2018artificial i\u2019s\u2019) is a process through which churches might better revision and revitalize directions in their parish; while avoiding the \u2018problem-saturated stories\u2019 that typify AI\u2019s opposite \u2013 problem solving. By valuing \u2018what is best\u2019 in our church culture, cultivating affirmations, and dialoguing about \u2018what should be\u2019, we may develop as a community. This, versus identifying what\u2019s wrong<\/em>, getting stuck in the analysis of causes<\/em>, considering solutions<\/em> over strengths , and developing action or treatment plans<\/em> \u2013 all notions which are rooted in the view that somethin\u2019s broke and needs fixin\u2019.<\/p>\n

A basic principle of this approach (AI) is that the language<\/em> we use to describe or investigate something, by its very nature, colours the way we experience this inquiry; in short, language creates reality<\/em>. Ask problem-driven questions and you get negatively framed answers; pose positive queries and affirming responses come back to you. Sounds simple and upbeat enough. Right?<\/p>\n

But what of our disparate group\u2019s commentary on AI. Let\u2019s begin with Bob. \u201cNo, no, NO! You start with the Null Hypothesis\u201d, words that will ever echo as the young researcher\u2019s mantra \u2013 the core value, as it were, of meaningful inquiry. Then would follow the lecture, punctuated with finger thrustings and pointer slappings: \u201cExpect that nothing causes anything, that what you do will have no impact on the outcome \u2013 only then can you do good research\u201d. Generously restated, this \u2018null hypothesis\u2019 requires that we adopt a skeptical point of view if we are to be free to make \u2018real\u2019 findings; and avoid the trap of \u2018willing\u2019 our research to confirm what we (optimistically) hope to be the case.<\/p>\n

Perhaps a little more lyrically, Robert Bly, a dark and treasured poet of mine, has identified the need to \u201cgo into the ashes\u201d. I once heard Bly tell the story of a swallow trapped inside a granary. The bird, seeing the faint light at the top of the silo, repeatedly flew upward, inevitably striking the clouded glass that covered his apparent (and hoped for) point of egress \u2013 falling back to the granary floor, time and again. Exhausted, terrified, no longer able to muster the energy to fly, he scrabbled around in the darkness only to find a hole, gnawed by a rat in the base of the wall. Summoning his courage he crawled through \u2013 to freedom. A Saturday night favourite, professed Lutheran, and spokesperson for Lake Wobegon, Garrison Keillor recently captured a similar sentiment on the Prairie Home Companion: \u201cWe need to get into trouble\u201d; this, as he explored the Lenten dilemma faced by pastor Lindquist as he waffled (ever so briefly) between the wisdom of \u2018giving something up\u2019, the rightness of sacrificing and<\/em> the humanity of offering comfort and fellowship to his fellow cleric (by accepting that glass of \u2018single malt and a half\u2019 and, in so doing, eschewing the \u2018prescribed path\u2019).<\/p>\n

St. Benedict, in the third chapter of his Rule, cites the necessity of \u2018calling the (whole) community together for consultation\u2019, a reference to entertaining all points of view \u2013 however contrasting or incongruent or \u2018negative\u2019 \u2013 if (and here\u2019s the essence) we\u2019re to get the balance right<\/em>. Buddha characterizes our sphere as \u2018the full catastrophe\u2019, replete with not only the ten thousand joys (presumably the positive, desired, and affirming experiences) but also the ten thousand sorrows. To deny the latter is to devalue and distort the former; to effectively delude oneself. And of all the unlikely sources of spiritual wisdom, the Nissan Motor Company many years ago adopted as central to its employment policy a practice known as \u2018creative abrasion\u2019: hiring, in pairs, people of strong conviction \u2013 with opposing points of view; not to foment dissension or discord, but to foster a full and creative assessment in decision-making.<\/p>\n

So did you name that tune? With our run-up to Holy Week, it seemed only fitting to include in our \u2018group of experts\u2019 a most compelling, relevant, and sardonic image arguing for a balanced examination of facts: Eric Idle (in the closing scene of Monty Python\u2019s \u201cLife of Brian\u201d), hanging together with dozens of other victims of crucifixion, in blissful denial, as he whistles \u201cAlways look on the bright side of life\u201d. Let\u2019s ask the hard questions too. Choirs make wonderful music \u2013 but they do sing from the same page; a questionable footing for understanding, research, and growth.<\/p>\n

So will that be AI or CSI \u2013 Critical Spiritual Inquiry?<\/p>\n

David Howard<\/p><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

AI or CSI? A longtime rule of research for me has ever been the keeping of an open mind. But even I registered a bit of surprise as Monty Python, Garrison Keillor, Robert Bly, Buddha, Nissan, St. Benedict, and, for good measure, Bob Gardiner, my sometime statistics prof from grad school days, all appeared to […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.davidhowardpsychologist.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/127"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.davidhowardpsychologist.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.davidhowardpsychologist.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidhowardpsychologist.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidhowardpsychologist.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=127"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidhowardpsychologist.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/127\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.davidhowardpsychologist.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=127"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidhowardpsychologist.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=127"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidhowardpsychologist.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=127"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}