<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">I have been using ORID to do movie conversations once a month for 8 to 10 months a year at whatever church we attend for about the last 20 years. I find that participants want to jump to the interpretive fast and even the Objective is more important to get inside the movie or issues. Two words above strike me - "happened" and "complexity". Using What Happened as the objective question just seems to encourage the participants to jump to the interpretive level. Also, with movies or books you have to get the objective out (What lines, scenes, characters) in a comprehensive manner especially in complex movies that have multiple plots going on at the same time with many people that all become interrelated. A good example of this is the movie "Crash" that came out some years ago. Shifting from movies to the analysis of the issues in our society today we see that they are are increasingly complex (such as health care, immigration, terrorism, and economics) that you have to stay on the objective and the reflective long enough and comprehensive enough to have any meaningful interpretation, and decisional conversation.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">David Rebstock</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 5:09 PM, Jack Gilles via OE <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:oe@lists.wedgeblade.net" target="_blank">oe@lists.wedgeblade.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word">John,<div><br></div><div>The problem with that short hand (4 F’s) is that the second level is about your interior, and that has to do with similar events, or experiences etc. They may have an emotional (feeling) attachment, but this is to trigger associations, links, patterns. </div><div><br></div><div>Jack</div><div><div class="h5"><div><br><div><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Oct 24, 2017, at 16:29, John Epps via OE <<a href="mailto:oe@lists.wedgeblade.net" target="_blank">oe@lists.wedgeblade.net</a>> wrote:</div><br class="m_-6393665721509768544Apple-interchange-newline"><div><div dir="ltr">Another version I heard from an IAF Conferece in the UK some years ago: Facts, Feelings, Findings, Future. The process certainly does not belong to us, but Brian Stanfield's book "The Art of Focused Conversation" provides a fine explanation and 100 examples. </div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 3:13 PM, Jack Gilles via OE <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:oe@lists.wedgeblade.net" target="_blank">oe@lists.wedgeblade.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word">Bill,<div><br></div><div>My friend Homayun Taba from India made the Conversation Method into “Well <b>SAID</b>”. <b>S</b> is for the S<b>ensory</b>; see, hear, touch, colors, sounds etc. and A was for <b>Affect</b>. The second level does not have to get people to talk about their emotions directly if that is not comfortable as Epps says. But you can illicit emotional responses with questions such as “Surprise, confuse, puzzle, ring a bell, startle, stand out, unusual, find yourself saying `yes^etc. All of these are affects. </div><div><br></div><div>“We don’t see the world as it is, but as we are”. (Covey)</div><div><br></div><div>One can also use Stephen Covey’s terms as a short course. He puts his two fists together and speaks of how we have “stimulus-response”; = “reactive people”, and he then pulls them apart and shares what needs to happen in between, when you reflect, judge, weigh-up and decide; “responsible people”. The method is really about Freedom and Responsibility, not right or wrong decision. One needs to dialogue with the values one is holding. </div><div><br></div><div>Jack</div><div><div class="m_-6393665721509768544h5"><div><br></div><div><br><div><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Oct 24, 2017, at 15:10, Bill Schlesinger via OE <<a href="mailto:oe@lists.wedgeblade.net" target="_blank">oe@lists.wedgeblade.net</a>> wrote:</div><br class="m_-6393665721509768544m_1848988117391151542Apple-interchange-newline"><div>I'd ask - as a reflective question - what did it affect?<br><br>-----Original Message-----<br>From: OE [<a href="mailto:oe-bounces@lists.wedgeblade.net" target="_blank">mailto:oe-bounces@lists.wedge<wbr>blade.net</a>] On Behalf Of Randy Williams via OE<br>Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 9:01 AM<br>To: <a href="mailto:oe@lists.wedgeblade.net" target="_blank">oe@lists.wedgeblade.net</a><br>Cc: Randy Williams<br>Subject: [Oe List ...] ORID—A “Life” Method<br><br>Colleagues,<br><br>In her new book Who Do We Choose To Be: Facing Reality, Claiming Leadership, Restoring Sanity, Margaret Wheatley has her own articulation of ORID in four questions which she calls an After Action Review. They are:<br><br>O—What just happened?<br>R—Why do you think it happened?<br>I—What can we learn from this?<br>D—How will we apply these learnings?<br><br>We have always said that our methods are “life” methods,. Therefore, we didn’t create them, we discovered them. Each time I come across something like this from Wheatley it confirms that they are indeed “life” methods. <br><br>I’ve seen other variations of ORID—for example from Peter Senge, in Catholic social theory, and even from my old professor of church history, Albert Outler. His articulation was, for me, the most memorable, in just three, not four, short questions: What? So What? Now What?<br><br>As some of you who also sat with him will recall, Outler was not always so concise. <br><br>Randy<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>OE mailing list<br><a href="mailto:OE@lists.wedgeblade.net" target="_blank">OE@lists.wedgeblade.net</a><br><a href="http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net" target="_blank">http://lists.wedgeblade.net/li<wbr>stinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net</a><br><br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>OE mailing list<br><a href="mailto:OE@lists.wedgeblade.net" target="_blank">OE@lists.wedgeblade.net</a><br><a href="http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net" target="_blank">http://lists.wedgeblade.net/li<wbr>stinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net</a><br></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div><br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
OE mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:OE@lists.wedgeblade.net" target="_blank">OE@lists.wedgeblade.net</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.wedgeblade.net/li<wbr>stinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>OE mailing list<br><a href="mailto:OE@lists.wedgeblade.net" target="_blank">OE@lists.wedgeblade.net</a><br><a href="http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net" target="_blank">http://lists.wedgeblade.net/<wbr>listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net</a><br></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div><br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
OE mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:OE@lists.wedgeblade.net">OE@lists.wedgeblade.net</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.wedgeblade.net/<wbr>listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>