Yes Roger - I agree with what you say.
But remember my own context. I replied to a posting concerned with
"sensation-seeking" and adventure and this in the context of the
"risk-debate". It was therefore here that "risk" unworkable, as I said
from Breivik, and this in the context of the Zuckerman paradigm of quasi
behaviourism. Therefore I did NOT "summerise" a ten year study but I DID
extract the one main issue that that study found to significant in the
context of "sensation-seeking" and "adventure" and the concept of
"risk". That was my point. I was quite specific ( perhaps unusually so
!!!!)
best wishes
steve bowles
Roger Greenaway wrote:
> Steve writes:
>
> > Breivik clearly stated that "risk" was NOT a workable
> > concept!!!! This was because it was too full of cultural
> > "stuff". So in this context we have again many questions
> > to ask ourselves.
>
> Thanks, Steve, for summarising Breivik's 10 year study in 2
> sentences. But before arriving at questions we can ask ourselves
> (which is what you suggest) we first need to ask some questions
> about this study!
>
> For example, I believe there are many concepts that are
> _extremely_ ''full of cultural stuff'' and that are ALSO
> ''workable concepts'' e.g. person, relationships, intelligence,
> leadership, management, learning, development ... etc. etc.
>
> On the other hand, if you strip concepts (too much) out of their
> cultural context you are left with skeletal concepts that need
> bringing back to life somewhere further down the line to make
> them ''workable''. The difficulty I would have in studying risk
> in isolation is that risk does not exist in isolation.
>
> If we are to abandon a discussion about risk because the concept
> is not ''workable'' then what more ''workable'' concept (or
> concepts) should we be replacing it with?
>
> Does ''workability'' not simply depend of the (research) paradigm
> from which the concept is viewed?
>
> I am sure Steve did not want us to leave this ''unworkable''
> concept alone and abandon this discussion about risk.
>
> What I especially like about ''risk'' is the support that it can
> generate. Feeling strong support and encouragement from others
> meets a more basic need (in Maslow's terms) than the need for new
> experiences. Creating and using support is a life skill and
> leadership skill that is highly transferable.
>
> Cheri was suggesting that we look wider at what gets transferred
> from ''appropriate risks''. This included looking at how risk
> generates faith/trust in the support group. (Support for learning
> about things other than risk?)
>
> I have suggested looking wider still at the role of risk in the
> learning cycle itself (and learning to learn). 'Active
> Experimentation' is one of the four poles in Kolb's theory of
> experiential learning. If we regard 'Active Experimentation' as
> risk, then risk (according to Kolb's theory at least) is an
> essential feature of learning.
>
> So is Kolb's theory of experiential learning based on an
> unworkable concept?
>
> Roger Greenaway
> Reviewing Skills Training
> [log in to unmask]
> http://reviewing.co.uk
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|