Opportunity Killers

(see the No Buts tool, auspicious conversations, contagious optimism, levelling process and other glossary entries)

Conversation Stoppers

• e.g. "you'll never change human nature"
• e.g. "this political leader is a "fascist''"
• (see différance for prolonging conversations)

Inauspicious reasoning

See auspicious conversations

• e.g. "those bigger guys are worse than us so there's no point in changing our behaviour".
• see The Courage Tool

Normal & invisible

• Many conversational phrases seem absolutely normal, yet tend to close down discussions.
• If these ways of thinking have been normalised they become unremarkable.
• If they are unremarkable we don't notice them.
• Not noticing them makes them invisible.
• Unfortunately, even if we don't notice them they may still have an effect.
• If they are invisible and negative we may need tactics for dealing with them.

Rudimentary guidelines

1. We can improve collective reasoning in a number of ways.
   • e.g. avoiding anything resembling a debating format
   • this configuration is likely to be inauspicious
   • because it is designed to rigidify concepts
   • because it is designed to polarise opinions around these concepts
   • the above processes can eclipse new meanings and unforeseen opportunities.
2. Some guidelines may consist of basic advice
   • "please avoid statements that are unhelpful or unproductive."
   • "where possible, please discuss systems rather than individuals''."
   • "please avoid terminating a conversation prematurely and/or unhelpfully."
   • "Our boss is a fascist" is a conversation stopper (i.e. how to translate into practical measures?)
   • "try to think across the binary divide between theory and practice

Conversation works on many levels

1. Conversational communication works on many levels at once (e.g. tacit knowledge)
2. Some understanding may need to work at a meta level (e.g. see metadesign)
3. In some cases it may be better to imply rules, rather than stating them explicitly
   • e.g. working by example to make conversations more enjoyable, creative and productive.
4. Participants might find it helpful to begin by stating that all participants are equal (see holacracy)
   • (although a conversation might start by acknowledging the underlying power asymmetries)
5. Participants might be invited:
   • to use the levelling tool
   • to attempt deep listening
   • to be non-confrontational
   • to start conversations without an agenda
   • to be open to unexpected possibilities
   • to begin meetings with Playfulness (e.g. no-agenda / fun conversations / childsplay).
   • to terminate meetings with clear Action Points to be completed by a specific date
   • to get specific participants to self-nominate for completion and reporting.
   • see Gordon Pask's Conversation Theory
   • If the notion of creative synergy can be valued, it calls for a co-creative approach.
   • Meta-levels of discussion may need to focus on positive encouragement/advocacy rather than sceptical/critical observation
   • We could request that criticisms be converted into answer-seeking questions
   • See the no buts rule.
   • Where criticism is used, perhaps it should only be applied to methods, not to individuals
6. Introduce synergy as a perennial purpose that values human participation and