Monthly Archives: October 2014

Digesting the Darkness

Digesting the Darkness by Dale Hunter 

In a 1 ½ hour workshop at the Australian Facilitators Conference (AFN) in Alice Springs, September 2014, I led a conversation about facilitators’ becoming triggered while working with groups.

This session was supported by facilitator/musician Karen Hunter.

From the workshop promo:

The workshop answers the frequent question at Master Classes, “How do I facilitate when triggered?”

This is done by offering a process template, which can be interpreted in many different ways depending on culture, prior practices, and experience. The process template provides a well -tested generic approach for coming back to full presence within a short timeframe (hopefully within minutes) after being triggered.

The workshop will begin with an introductory activity and then participants will discuss what it means to be triggered (or become negatively activated) while facilitating and the problems that ensue. Examples will be shared by presenter and participants.

Then the generic process “Digesting the Darkness” will be shared and discussed.

We will experiment in pairs, small groups and the large group – playing with and adapting the process to each person’s values, skill sets and cultural preferences.

Workshop Process

The workshop began with my admission that I do get triggered when facilitating even though I have been facilitating for 30 years. I gave an example and then asked the 40 or so participants to share in 3’s their experiences of being triggered. There was a very lively discussion for 15-20 minutes and the sharing with the whole group indicated a sense of relief that we could talk about this aspect of facilitation and its “normality”.

The small groups of 3 then shared their strategies for becoming recentered / regrounded. Again there was a real sense of relief and much interest in one another’s input. Some of these strategies were shared in the large group.

I then shared a template, which had been developed at a Zenergy Master Class in 2013 called Digesting the Darkness.

 Digesting the Darkness
 Process Steps

Trigger:   The facilitator becomes “triggered” (emotionally activated).

React:   The beginnings of emotion (e.g. anger, fear, grief, or other “upset”) occur.

Notice:   The facilitator notices the reaction in the light of their own awareness.

Pause: The facilitator presses their internal pause button on their reaction.

Ground: The facilitator practices their own version of a grounding/ centering process (such as connecting with the body and breath, slowing and deepening breathing: and grounding themselves (feeling feet on the earth and connecting/ feeling into the earth).

Connect: The facilitator connects with the group (places their attention back on the whole group) and reconnects consciously with the group purpose. Standing in the group purpose and being grounded the facilitator continues to work with the group in a safe and inclusive way.

There is (as always) the very important need to debrief after the facilitation with a co-facilitator, peer, or mentor and attend to any residual emotions.

The big take out from the workshop for me was the relief of facilitators in realizing that they/we were all normal and that getting triggered can be an everyday occurrence for facilitators. Getting triggered is not the problem. The problem is how we can grow our awareness to notice quickly when we are triggered, get regrounded and reconnected with the group purpose and so lessen the likelihood of acting out in the group. Do remember, too, that it is crucial to have an explicit group purpose.

Advertisements

Some Forms of Collective Intelligence

Collective Intelligence is now referred to in fields as diverse as revelation and altered states; effective group, team and organisational work; and also intelligence gathering for security purposes. How to make sense of all of this? In my efforts to understand the diversity of the collective intelligence field (s) – I have been googling away – and within the confusion came across a really great blog http://www.blogofcollectiveintelligence.com

The following is an abridged reblog from an entry on this blog.

This particular blog piece references the work of Tom Atlee http://www.tomatleeblog.com/
See also http://www.amazon.com/Tom-Atlee/e/B001K7TDOQ for books including
“The Tao of Democracy: Using co-intelligence to create a world that works for all”.

Tom Atlee has been working in this field of collective intelligence for a long time. I read Tao of Democracy (2002) quite a few years ago and have it in my library. When I first read this book I found Tom’s thinking very helpful in beginning to clarify and articulate what happens when groups of people with a common purpose start to think, be and flow together in a way often referred to as group synergy (when 1+1+1+ = more than 3).

In the blog above Tom Atlee says

I have lately been receiving a lot of information on forms of and approaches to collective intelligence that do not fit within models I’ve been working with for the last fifteen years (that are largely deliberative). I am no expert on these other approaches, but encountering them has led me to brainstorm an annotated list of different forms to cover what I’ve seen so far.

I feel certain my list is not complete and that there are other ways of differentiating forms of collective intelligence, which I’d love to hear about. I intend this initial listing to be temporarily clarifying and stimulating and, hopefully, to trigger people to come up with new ways to map this terrain that better lay the groundwork for an evolving general theory of collective intelligence that embraces all variations.

Note that not all collective capacities are “intelligence.” Occasionally CI overlaps with other capacities like collective consciousness or “power-with” — capacities that can be characterized by collective stupidity OR collective intelligence. Furthermore, some dimensions of collective intelligence, like “flow,” have collectively stupid manifestations (mobs) as well as collectively intelligent ones (high functioning teams). I will try to navigate these distinctions creatively here, but the reader should keep them in mind.

Note also that some phenomena that I have not included here could conceivably be included in this list. For example, are “networks” an intrinsic form of CI, or are they a pattern useful in developing CI? I have chosen the later categorization, but people more familiar with networks may be able to make a case for them as a distinct form of CI.

Some Forms of Collective Intelligence

REFLECTIVE (dialogic) CI – People think together, using dialogue and deliberation. They find and share information, critique logic and assumptions, explore implications, create solutions and mental models together. Their diversity, used well, helps them overcome blind spots, ignorance, and stuckness. They see a bigger, more complete picture with more complexity and nuance, and develop better outcomes than they could alone. Most of this can be readily explained in terms of cognitive synergies among the participants.

STRUCTURAL (systemic) CI – Social systems are built that support intelligent behaviors on the part of the system as a whole and/or all its members. For example, the Bill of Rights supports creativity, free flow of information, and maintenance of diversity — all of which support collective intelligence. Quality of Life indicators guide national economic activity more intelligently than the wholly monetized Gross Domestic Product statistic. Chairs placed in circles support equity and sharing in ways impeded by chairs placed in rows.

EVOLUTIONARY (learning-based) CI – Organisms, species, ecosystems, and cultures are made of patterns of relationship that have “worked” over long periods. These co-evolved, built-in success-patterns contain embedded wisdom often used automatically, but which are also available for analysis and deeper learning. We can look at them as manifestations of learning — or perhaps of “evolving coherence.” Evolving coherence is perhaps most consciously pursued in the careful, grounded, ongoing collective inquiries of science, but we can also find it in any shared learning effort, an endeavor institutionalized in academia. Evolving coherence is also characteristic of morphogenic fields — the living habit-fields of life which arise from our collective experience and shape our consciousness and behaviors. Any patterns evolved (understandings learned) become part of the informational CI, below.

INFORMATIONAL (communication-based) CI – The flow of information through communication channels and the widespread gathering and persistent availability of information in databases (including libraries, newspapers, etc., as well as the Web — and morphogenic fields) means that knowledge that is created or recorded in one place and time is available to others in other places and times. Universal access to information informs the activities of diverse, dispersed people beyond their individual data-gathering capacities. In society, this form of collective intelligence has been aided in the last century by telecommunications and computer technologies, as it was centuries ago by the invention of printing. To a large degree, the informational sea we live in empowers the routine collective intelligence of our society or subculture. In fact, the complexity of modern society makes most information-gathering intrinsically collective (through scientists, statistical enterprises, journalism, etc.); any given individual simply cannot find it all out. Furthermore, our culture’s informational, narrative and morphogenic fields shape our awareness and behavior without our even knowing it. The dark side of the informational mode is the sea of unproven assertions and unexamined assumptions we experience as fact that, being unexamined, may be false or go out of date and — resisting change (evolutionary CI) — become the source of collective stupidity.

NOETIC (spiritual or consciousness-based) CI – Certain realms of human experience and cosmic reality are accessible primarily through altered/higher states of consciousness or esoteric practices. Psychic phenomena, the Akashic Record, the collective unconscious, group consciousness, the Maharishi effect, the Universal Mind, the Authentic Self, etc., all involve noetic realities with collective dimensions which offer insight, guidance, energy or power to those who can tap them. All these phenomena are grounded in “consciousness,” so we need to remember that “intelligence” is the capacity to learn new things and solve challenging problems. So the term “collective intelligence” may be most appropriately applied to the noetic mode when these higher/deeper realms are accessed by a group together such that the group’s subsequent understanding and activity are demonstrably intelligent. The noetic realm tends to be anchored in subjective experience, although there is growing objective evidence for various noetic phenomena. The noetic experience of CI is one of “accessing” or “attuning to” a pre-existing higher intelligence or awareness, rather than of co-creating a new emergent capacity through group synergy (as is the case in the reflective mode).

FLOW (mutual attunement-based) CI – When the boundaries between individuals vanish, become permeable, or fade into relationship or shared enterprise, a collective can think, feel, respond and act as one entity. This “group magic” is exemplified by — and experienced in — intense dialogue groups, high-functioning human teams and non-human collectives like flocks of birds. Basic forms of flow or flocking behavior are achieved by individuals following simple rules about their relationship to those around them, setting aside independence in the realms covered by the rules. This (flow, flocking behavior) happens even when the individuals are computer-generated agents like “boids” or “cellular automata.” More complex, creative forms of flow occur when conscious, distinct individuals are so attuned to each other that they can innovate and express their uniqueness in thoroughly appropriate/embedded ways, as with jazz improvisation. Flow may also be associated with mobs, groupthink and other dysfunctional collectives in which individuality, itself, is stifled or dissolved. But for our purposes the term collective intelligence is reserved for collective cognitive capacity and behavior that is highly functional. Flow is often a dimension of that. Extreme forms of flow manifest as mind-meld and collective consciousness (the global version of which de Chardin called The Omega Point) that may or may not be collectively intelligent. But core individuality is a resource for collective intelligence, providing diversity and creative energy. So flow can be understood as dissolving the boundaries, barriers and embattledness of individualism (ego) in order to better tap the powerful essence of individuality (true uniqueness and individual capacity) in the context of collective activity.

STATISTICAL (crowd-oriented) CI – In the presence of a goal, intention, inquiry or direction — and no skewing factors (e.g., deceit) — a high enough number of individuals will generate a remarkable level of collective problem-solving or predictive power, even in the absence of communication among them. This has been demonstrated in many cases of mass guessing, where the average guessed solution has proven superior to over 90% of the individual guesses. This can also be seen in ants whose almost random foraging is capable of rapidly finding food that can then be collectively accessed in very focused ways. Computer-generated entities also demonstrate this statistical intelligence: When the first-run-through maze-paths of about two dozen intelligent agents are superimposed over each other, the plot of the majority decision at each turn of the maze will often be a direct path through the maze — one that was not followed by any single agent. This form of collective intelligence — combined (often implicitly) with structural and other forms — is what some term “market intelligence,” Adam Smith’s invisible hand.

RELEVATIONAL (emergence-based) CI – “Relevation” is a term coined by quantum physicist and dialogue innovator David Bohm. It names the dynamic through which phenomena emerge (elevate) from potentiality (Bohm’s “implicate order”) into actuality (Bohm’s “explicate order”) by reason of their relevance to existing reality. Our inquiries and intentions can attract insights and solutions, often seemingly “out of nowhere.” As a form of collective intelligence this may be most vividly displayed by one person saying something and another person mis-hearing it in a way that provides them with some answer or insight. The answer, which was never spoken, relevated out of the space between them, drawn into existence by the second person’s desire to know that answer.

———————————————————————-

I find these categories helpful and would really like to hear from you reading this what your thoughts are and how I/we can better understand this developing field.

Dale