[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] Indexes: Main | Date | Thread | Author

Re: [ba-unrev-talk] argument validity in IBIS [Icons for IBIS thread]

Jeff also teaches to avoid "yes and no" questions :-) I've internalized
this lesson (which I've come to agree completely with) so deeply that I'd
never now do what evidently Jeff taught in the workshop Mark mentions.    (01)

To me better than "Really?" would be a new question that characterizes the
terrain of possible discussion that the rebuttal may open up, by surfacing
the assumptions that may be behind the rebuttal and making them available
explicitly as things to talk about.    (02)

Let's say we have:    (03)

Q: What OS should we use?
      A: Mac
      A: Unix
      A: Windows
            -: Not open enough    (04)

A possible question to attach to the "Not open enough" node could be:
                  Q: What are our requirements for openness?    (05)

BTW, I don't think "IBIS" itself prescribes using questions such as
"Really?". It's a question of facilitator style and convention, not
anything canonical.    (06)

Al    (07)

"Mark Westcombe" <m_westcombe@yahoo.com>@bootstrap.org on 04/12/2002
11:20:55 AM    (08)

Please respond to ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org    (09)

Sent by:    owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org    (010)

To:    <ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org>
cc:    (011)

Subject:    [ba-unrev-talk] argument validity in IBIS [Icons for IBIS
       thread]    (012)

>One of the issues that has come up recently is  about the structure of
>rebuttal to arguments.  An awful lot of  problem solving discussion
>on groups evaluating the validity and  relevance of arguments, which means
>that there's a whole "sub-grammar"  for debate about argument validity (as
>opposed to pros and cons about  options/alternatives/ideas).    (013)

I think this relates to the least satisfying part  of IBIS for me at the
moment, which I'm sure can be overcome. Currently if a  participant
challenges an arguement I'm using what Jeff suggested in a Dialog  Mapping
training course to link a question node to the arguement with the text
"really?", then an idea node with "yes or no" and then a pro or con node
with  the counter evidence. I don't like the adversarial feel to this,
given how good  Dialog Mapping is at creating collaboration. It also uses
precious space. It may  not disrupt the group, but it disrupts me as the
facilitator which has a  knock-on effect to the group. Has anyone tackled
this differently?    (014)

Mark Westcombe
Management Science
The Management School
Lancaster  University
GB LA1 4YX    (015)

Office: 01524 593635
Home: 01524  64106    (016)