I have been a tester for around 3 to 4 years and for a long time I felt that there wasn’t that much to my craft. I don’t mean that there weren’t things to learn, but rather that I got stuck in the squeeze and stretch principle that seems to always affect the test effort. I read your blog and I feel inspired again. It is refreshing to read how you draw together different concepts, ways of thinking and approaches into testing. It reminds of the things I used to think about so much and has (re)sparked my passion to be so much better at what I do.

I just want to say Thank you.

[James’ Reply: Yay!]

I understand that you are coming from “skepticism” and I’m absolutely fine with that.

Yes this education is not free. This education is not available in “text” as it would only contribute to the “knowing” domain & would not make a difference. A large part of this education is experiential in nature and available through direct communication which works on the “Being” domain.

However the Introduction to the landmark is FREE and you are welcome to explore it.
I would also like to invite anyone to share his thoughts/viewpoints on this education.

My intension is very simple. Im interested in Innovation in Testing and this education provides a medium to achieve that. thats all!
I have no intension of “Indoctrination of any kind”.

Thank You,
Cheers,
Shankar

I quote:
“That’s how I became a philosopher: My father believes that I must think for myself, and I always agree with my father.”

Scott posted:
Is this an obvious contradiction and joke that I am not getting? Thinking for yourself and always agreeing with someone does not really seem to go together. Please forgive me for being slow, if that is in fact the case here.

[James’ Reply: It’s a philosophy joke! I wrote it to be a paradox, but it is a paradox, actually, that I’ve had to live with in real life, to some extent.]

I do not find it a paradox at all. As I age, I find more and more things that contradict each other to be “true.” Your father wrote:

“Perspective- Use it or Lose It. If you turned to this page, you’re forgetting that what is going on around you is not reality. Think about that.”

In my practice of psychology, people’s perspectives are often limited, i.e. the stutue idea, and more than one perspective is often “correct.” Works well in conflict mediation. I thank your father and the writings of Dr. John C. Lilly to have this perspective.

– Chris Kayser, PsyD

I’m someone interested in Innovation in Testing.
I have found how Ontology can help create new paradigms of thought & innovation from that. I have undergone this education system & want to impact the testing community through each person’s individual ability to create from his own context. This will help great Innovations to be present in our world on Innovation. We can see extraordinary Innovations coming alive through this education.
Landmark provides an experiential education which helps one to see the world from a new Context & hence creativity is born.

Here we have some study reported on the Landmark methodology how it can help people see from different context & paradigms…..
_____________________________________________________________
Robert Marzano Study: A New Paradigm for Educational Change

This article examines powerful change oriented educational innovations and how Landmark’s educational experience provides access to a new, effective approach.

Summary
The authors explore the nature of the change process, examining two types of change:

First-order change assumes innovation is assimilated into existing beliefs and perceptions, and is rejected when it does not fit into the current framework.
Second-order change addresses the existing framework of perceptions and beliefs, or paradigm, as part of the change process - an ontological approach.
The article proposes that most educational innovations do not address the dynamics of second-order change. In contrast, the ontological approach to change seeks to provide individuals with:

An experience of their paradigms as constructed realities.
An experience of consciousness other than the “I” embedded in their paradigms.
These experiences provide individuals with an opportunity to try out new paradigms that might allow them to be more effective in dealing with current problems.

Conclusion
“To date, the majority if not all, of the innovations designed to improve education in substantive ways have not endured. One possible reason…is that those innovations simply have not addressed the dynamics of second-order change, which is fundamentally ontological in nature. Given the dramatic effects produced by [Landmark Education] the theory and practice of second-order change appears to be a fruitful area for increased research and study.”

http://www.landmarkeducation.com/display_content.jsp?top=21&mid=80&bottom=116&subsection=156

____________________________________________________________________________________

I would love to invite each one of you for a free Introduction To the Landmark Forum. Come with a open mind & discover how we can Innovate in our lives…….in our natural abilities……..

Please find find a center at a location near you!!!!!!!!!!

Cheers, Happy Innovation,
Shankar

[James’ Reply: I read the study. It didn’t seem like a study to me. The only study part was an opinion poll, and the methodology of the poll was not divulged.

Also, the authors are not clear about their values and standards. At one point, they state “The ultimate proof of the effectiveness of the seminar is the extent to which participants consider new, more effective paradigms.” They do not explain what they mean by “proof” or “more effective” and they don’t seem to consider the alternative hypothesis that A) no new paradigms were considered or adopted, and B) any new paradigm considered and adopted were worse than the ones abandoned. In any case, an opinion poll is a very weak way to conduct an assessment about the effects of education.

The statement also betrays a misunderstanding of the Kuhnian concept of a paradigm. Paradigms in Kuhn’s terms are incommensurable. They cannot be evaluated objectively against each other from within each other. Kuhn’s whole thesis, for which he was fervently attacked by rationalists, was that the process of adopting or rejecting a paradigm is not rational. The authors of the article you cited seem to believe in a meta-paradigmatic position from which all paradigms can be fairly assessed. But there is no such thing.

I’m still wondering what any of this has to do with testing. I think indoctrination of any kind is antithetical to testing. Testing is a skeptical process.

My material on testing is open. It’s on my website. This is because I want to improve the craft and keep it wide open and freely available. The Landmark material, on the other hand, is proprietary. It’s secretive. And I don’t see how it is developed in a spirit of ongoing criticism within itself or by others– a process that gives life, as well as breadth and depth, to philosophy and science.]

But I saw a stream of discussion on reality & mention of Ontology.

My understanding of Ontology and the ultimate reality from the science of Ontology states “The Human Word” is the Ultimate reality. The word that comes from our mouth. If we dig deeper into things there is no limit & keep exploring…..in the past human beings have explored from millimeters to now nanometers scale of understanding & perception….we can go beyond….
But the reality exists in Human word.
To experience the ultimate reality one needs to experience himselves in the domain of “Being” which is the source of action & medium to manifest reality.

If one needs to exeperience the domain of Being, you can take the journey through The landmark Education - The Forum is considered the 2nd most adventurous human endevour on the planet. Cheers, Shankar

[James’ Reply: Can you relate that to testing?]

Do you know of any such book(s)?
Do let me know… or better write a blog on it!! and drop me a link…
I’m thinking of writing a blog on this topic myself so maybe we could cross-link?!!

Good blog!! Keep it up!.

P.S.: (aside - this IS a deprecated use of letter writing practise)
You might be interested (or already aware of) in seeking out INTP as in the Myers Briggs test!! Seems like you’re interested in many things that an INTP would like… so though you may disapprove of “classification into narrow boxes” you might still like to hunt things that do interest INTPs….
keirsey.com is a good place…

[James’ Reply: I’m an ENFP, so I do have the N and P thing going. As for books, I would suggest my book, and also Introduction to General Systems Thinking, by Weinberg, and Exploring Requirements: Quality Before Design, by Weinberg and Gause]

This is to say that I love your work(The last comment was brilliant), and expect you to correct me on my flawed argument.

- Bevan

[James’ Reply: Hi Bevan. I’m happy to meet you online. I think you’re right. I feel that we are all philosophers, in that sense. In that same sense, everyone in the world is an athlete– since they have bodies and have a non-zero level of fitness (or else the heart would stop). But if I were to use the word in that sense, I’m afraid I would need another word for people who are assertively self-determined in their philosophy, instead of feeling as if they are just “living” or “being sensible”.

Maybe a “philosopher” is a philosopher who, when accused of being a philosopher, says “thank you!” instead of denying it.]

—Michael B.

And also a lot of head nodding on my part - this post made me realize that I had explored the writings of only a few of the philosophers James mentioned. “so many books, so little time…” Well - if something is this important, make time for it!

We tend to be magnetized to the learning we need. I see that others who have embraced James’ writings and teachings learned about him because of his father. In my case, I visited a blog where students of Richard Bach gather to share their thoughts. (I use the word ’students’ because ‘fans’ sounds way too shallow).

Richard Bach changed my life .- his writings are fascinating, poetic, and consciousness-expanding. Millions of people count him as a true friend and mentor.

He is largely responsible for my imagination…

I was pleasantly surprised to learn that two of Richard’s sons had chosen Quality as their calling. So this led me to Satisfice. (and yes, I had to run to a dictionary about Epistemology ).

And a new journey began. I knew that I needed to be a much better tester. Ethically we are called upon to do our best. But life can be overwhelming and we can fall into fatigue and negativity. With only so much energy and time and knowledge, and in an arena of constant change and chaos - what to do? I had sometimes considered leaving testing as a career. I wanted to write and teach and “do science”. I’m interested in consciousness and how stuff works. Yet my resume says “here’s a tester with development experience - plug him in and use him”.

Now, I’m sharing just the beginning of a realization that testing really is science, and philosophy, and creative writing. An ongoing School of the Mind. Sharing the encouragement that my lot in life is not just tedious, weary scrabbling for food - but an opportunity to soar. (Someone wrote a book about that )

I think that my enthusiasm is a good thing, but it must be backed up with study and work. It needs to be channeled in directions that make sense and add value.

How does a tester take a fascination for learning and best utilize it to become the best they can be at their craft? Join a community of seekers who share this goal sounds like a plan. Stay fired up with the dream, and commit to the hard thinking. Yet it is a paradox. The “hard thinking” is refreshing fun. Richard Bach wrote of life consisting of Fun and Learning. When Fun and Learning meet, this feels like the right path to take.

Carl Sagan (I believe it was in his Cosmos TV series) once stood in front of a bookcase. The bookcase contained, more or less, the number of books a human being can read in a lifetime. That’s all. Scary. He said that the trick was to pick the right books.

Boy do I ever have some reading to do!

What does it mean to say that a process is under control? That some aspects of the behavior of the process conform to a model? What reality underlies the model? What measurements provide the lens through which we examine this apparent conformance? Why should we accept them and how comprehensively should we interpret them? Models can be useful and they can suggest useful actions, but what more (or what instead) should we be paying attention to?

Another influence from India was rejection of the law of the excluded middle (the assertion that either X is true or not-X is true, but not both). My father studied nuclear physics; I studied a lot of mathematics. I’m not sure that I fully comprehend the rejection or that I could agree with it. But in practice, it has often served me well to ask the questions, “How could X be both, true and false?” and “How is this dichotomy between X and not-X misleading us or misdirecting us?”

The work of Georg Hegel had a pretty significant influence too, though I found Kant’s and Hegel’s original writings frustratingly difficult to read. I had the privilege of taking several courses with J.N. Deck at the University of Windsor and much of how I understand dialectic reasoning is through Deck’s eyes. The core insight for me was the idea that conflicts of ideas are natural, that growth comes from embracing and studying the conflicts rather than from glossing them over.

Hegel’s work is starting to influence the context-driven school through another vector, Lev Vygotsky’s cultural-historical approach to psychology, which in turn led to Yrjo Engestrom’s cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT) (http://www.edu.helsinki.fi/activity/people/engestro/ ). Rebecca Fiedler (http://www.beckyfiedler.com/ ) has begun to apply CHAT as an interpretive lens for studying the inherent tensions associated with adopting a new technology (one of her papers, “Applying Cultural Historical Activity Theory to Software Testing Research” is at http://www.testingeducation.org/wtst5/FiedlerWTST.pdf. Her dissertation, “In transition: An activity theoretical analysis examining electronic portfolio tools’ mediation of the preservice teacher’s authoring experience” is not yet available on the web.)

I studied Popper and Kuhn as a graduate student in psychology. Both of them rejected simplistic worldviews and embraced an intellectual humility. We aren’t going to learn the ultimate truth about the universe, but we can refine our models, and our understanding of our models, by putting them through creative testing and by understanding their social context.

Philosophy isn’t only about epistemology.

Occasionally people confuse context-driven thinking with ethical relativism. They are not the same.

The Talmud played a significant role in my thinking. Not that I’m a Talmudic scholar–I’ve read more of the Mahabaratha than the Talmud and no one would call me a scholar of Hindu thought. But I grew up in a culture in which Talmudic reasoning and Jewish fiction created a framework for evaluating interactions among people. As an adult, puzzling through issues in commercial law, the Talmud has offered an affirmation of the critical importance of integrity, of the responsibility of people to each other, with strong threads of compassion.

Many folks in computing praise Ayn Rand. I could never understand the appeal of someone who seemed happy to take advantage of the benefits of a rich societal infrastructure without a notion of accountability to that structure or responsibility to provide benefits back. As an adult, I respect such writing far less.

People do live by different ethical systems. I’m not going to ever be able to change that, so I accept it. Your values are your values and mine are mine.

Context-driven testing is about providing appropriate and effective technical and managerial support services to a client. Some people have suggested that context provides a reason for them to shade what they see as the truth. To say things they don’t believe, or don’t have a basis for believing, because that’s what the client expects or wants to hear. I just don’t see that as an option. My reputation for integrity is one of my greatest assets, easy to lose, and hard to recapture. It’s not up for sale or sacrifice. It is, and should be, one of the things my client is paying for rather than something they suffer from.

Some consultants apply this beyond their scope, pushing a view of development (or business ethics or whatever) at a client who is looking for a far narrower set of guidance. I often work with people whose view of quality, staff relations, customer relations, honest advertising, political sanity, racial purity, or religious viewpoint are different from mine, sometimes annoyingly so. Sometimes, it is impossible to work with some of these people. But in many cases, I can realize that they didn’t invite me into their lives, for a fee, for guidance on any of those issues. They have a narrower problem and there are ways that I can help that don’t require me to lie, to hold back relevant observations, or to mislead anyone else or hurt anyone else in the process. Understanding the scope is part of context-driven consulting, I suppose. But changing who I am to fit within in it is not.

[James’ Reply: Thanks for dropping by, Cem.]