NTLBayArea < 2006
Meetings
Notes from NTL Bay Area Meetings 2006
Bay
Area NTL meeting summary (11/29/06)
Present: David Bradford, Frank
Friedlander, Flo Hoylman, Jack Sherwood, Mary Ann Huckabay, Tracy
Gibbons, Scott Bristol, Yifat Sharabi-Levine.
Topic- The seven deadly sins/
led by Mary Ann Huckabay
Mary Ann led us through
intellectual exploration of the origin of the seven deadly Sins,
their meaning (see table below), the Contrary virtues to these sins
and their function on the individual and social level. The
discussion was rich and comprehensive. Below are some of the
thoughts that were expressed by the members:
-
The nature of the sins have
changed over time (is pride a sin today?). Moreover, a lot of the
advertising today apply to the desires beneath those sins (e.g. a
commercials to buy a new expensive car to show how more successful
you are than your neighbor.)
-
Each of these sins is part of
human nature and describes an excessive state or extreme feeling.
-
They serve as a mechanism for
social control; there is a fear shared by the individuals and
society about what will happen if people will unleash their desires
(what will happen to me and what will happen to society) therefore
they help people establish internal self control.
-
In Buddhism there are similar
references about hate-anger and desire-attachment psychological
states that can prompt us to feel one of the seven deadly sins (e.g.
attachment to food can cause us to feel gluttony).
-
There is a reference to the
sins in the old testimony however the Ten Commandments seem more
codes of moral behaviors.
-
The seven deadly sins have
some modern manifestation and judgments attached to them, for
example: Sloth- people on welfare, Gluttony- obesity, alcohol
abuse.
-
In T groups we encourage
participants to get in touch with the feelings underling the seven
sins and consider expressing them in the appropriate setting. We do
not encourage acting them out.
-
The proposals for the eight
sin to be added were cruelty, denial or dishonesty
In the second part of the
meeting we shared more personally what are the “sins” that we are
dealing with, or what “sins" we are afraid to loose control of. The
discussion was engaging and intimate.
Regards,
Yifat
|
Seven deadly sins
|
The seven Contrary Virtues
|
|
Pride is excessive belief in one’s own abilities
that interferes with individual’s recognition of the
grace of god. It has been called the sin from which all
others arise.
|
Humility
|
|
Envy is the desire for others’ traits, status,
abilities, or situation.
|
Kindness\love
|
|
Gluttony is an inordinate desire to consume more
than that which one requires.
|
Abstinence
|
|
Lust is an inordinate craving for the pleasures
of the body.
|
Chastity
|
|
Anger is manifested in the individual who spurns
love and opts instead for fury. It is also known as
Wrath.
|
Patience
|
|
Greed is the desire for material wealth or gain,
ignoring the realm of the spiritual. It is also called
Avarice or Covetousness
|
Liberality\Generosity
|
|
Sloth is the avoidance of physical or spiritual
work
|
Diligence\Zeal
|
Our
next meeting is Wed. 29th at Tracy Gibbon's home in Mt. View
[directions attached].
The
topic is "The 7 Deadly Sins" and will be led by Scott and Mary Ann.
As
usual, we will start with coffee and cake and informal chatting at
1:30 with our session starting at 2:00. Should be a very
interesting meeting -- hope you cna make it.
Our
meeting today was smaller than usual [David Bradford, Scott Bristol,
Andrea Corney, Joe Luft, Judith Noel and Jack Sherwood], but the six
of us had an interesting [and non-trivial] discussion on trivia.
After a
quick check-in, Joe led off by asking what "trivia" meant to each of
us [not surprising, it meant different things to different people].
We then looked at such issues as the functionality of trivia [useful
break from "heavy" work so a chance to recharge our batteries and
let our creative unconscious work, to being enjoyable in its own
right to self-insight as to what hooked us about a dealing with a
specific trivial issue]. Some trivia is annoying while other isn't
[and again there were individual differences] -- we said that there
is often a double-dose of annoyance {"being annoyed that I am
annoyed at this trivial issue"]. We talked about the various ways
we handled trivia including some creative alternatives. Each of us
shared, "what is the trivia that we would like to get rid of" and
what is our hesitency in getting others [including paying others} to
take that on? We talked about how trivia played itself out between
couples and when not dealt with often acquired a symbolic meaning
while dealing with it can lead to clarification of what is important
to each person and greater closeness.]
Our
next meeting is Nov. 29th down at Tracy Gibbon's house. The topic
is "The Seven Deadly Sins" and will be led by Scott and Mary Ann.
More details [and directions] will follow, but mark your calendar.
DLB
The September 6th
meeting will be at Flo and Jack's houseboat. The topic is HAPPINESS
[how we deal with it personally and in the T-group]. It will be led by
Mai Vu and Craig Schuler. Mark your calendar!
BANTL
Meeting Notes
July 11, 2006
Attending: Andrea Corney (host)
Scott Bristol
Flo Hoylman
Jack Sherwood
Mai Vu
Carole Robin
Craig Schuler
Judith Noel (note-taker)
Topic: FEAR
We met at Andrea's home on a lovely summer afternoon and spoke about
FEAR. Craig and Carole co-led a discussion of the genesis of the
topic of FEAR (ours, as trainers, t-group manifestations, those
affecting our group) by speaking first of the psycho-therapeudic
research and the emotion literature, some religious and
philosophical reference, as well as the lack of ready information on
the interface of fear and t-groups.
Key to our early discussion is that FEAR is an early survival
mechanism, and alert system; and that each stage of group
development has its own fear-based assumption (e.g. Membership Stage
has Fear of Rejection). We spoke about the debilitating effects of
Fear, and also raised the question Can Fear Be Useful? And, How can
we use fear more productively in relationships?
Craig and Carole raised the question: Do men and women respond to
fear in different ways? In fact, do men and women have different
fears? They led gender-distinct groups in an experiential exercise
to mind map FEAR.
The results of a 10 mins. mind map were that the women tended to
report fears about being TOO MUCH; and focused on issue of personal
safety and well being, as well as relationships-maintenance. The
men did not relate easily to FEAR, and the responses seemed to
suggest a general fear of being
NOT ENOUGH; the fears were physically-based, or involved rising to
some kind of challenge.
We then discussed implications for us as trainers -- our own fears,
working with the participants' fears, recognizing the other gender's
fears. Finally, the group discussed some fears held in the group.
As a check out, we each gave one word end-of-the-meeting feelings:
sad, relief, less fearful, appreciative, trusting, coming back to
well -- welcomed.
"There is nothing to fear but FEAR itself".
Next meetings: Wed. September 6, 2006 and Wed. October 18, 2006
The September 6th meeting will be at Flo and
Jack's houseboat. The topic is HAPPINESS [how we deal with it
personally and in the T-group]. It will be led by Mai Vu and Craig
Schuler. Mark your calendar!
respectfully submitted,
Judith Noel
Craig
and Carole will lead the discussion and help us explore the topic of
fear as it relates to our work in T-groups.
Our last meeting
was held at Carole Robin’s house on Wednesday, May 31. In
attendance were: Tracy Gibbons, David Bradford, Craig Schuler, John
Cronkite, Jack Sherwood, Flo Hoylman, MaryAnn Huckabay, Andrea
Corney, Judith Noel, Scott Bristol, Nan Widler, and Yifat
Sharabi-Levine. After our usual extended check-in, which gave us an
opportunity to catch up with each other, Mary Ann kicked off the
content portion of our session with an exploration of the topic of
shame. We discussed various kinds of shame, the difference between
shame and guilt, positive uses of shame/its functionality, the fact
that shame is engendered, and the causes of shame. We then moved
the discussion to a far more personal place as we addressed the two
questions that Mary Ann had suggested as foci for deeper
exploration: 1) Do you feel pressure to cover or downplay parts of
your identity or personal characteristics? What are these? What
drives you to do this? And 2) How do you think this affects your
effectiveness as a T-group trainer? The conversation was rich and
powerful as different members shared stories of shameful experiences
from their past, sources of personal shame and current feelings of
shame in the here and now. The session lasted well past our usual
5:00 ending time—a testament to this meaningful topic and our
engagement with it.
The next meeting
is at Andrea Corney’s house in Menlo Park on July 12th
(directions will follow). Craig Schuler and Carole will help us
explore the topic of fear as it relates to our work in T-groups.
Carole Robin, Ph.D.
****
Nine of us (Scott Bristol,
Judith Noel, Margaret Tyndall, Kathleen Brown, David Bradford, Jack,
Mary Ann Huckabay, Andrea Corney and Paula Jones) met at Jack
Sherwood's houseboat. We looked at research done by John Gottman
(The Marriage Clinic by John M. Gottman) that focuses on the
physiological and behavioral differences between men and women and
discussed how that impacts cross-gender relationships in life,
t-groups and workplace settings. Gottman has done longitudinal
studies of marriages that work and fail by measuring observed data,
participant perceptions and real-time physiological data. Daniel
Goleman relied on Gottman's research in developing his work on
Emotional Intelligence. We explored some of those links as well.
It was a rich and surprising session.
Some information that Scott
presented (all mistakes are Paula's):
The ratio of positive to
negative behavior in conflict resolution affects the success of the
relationship. A ratio of 5 to 1 positive/negative is predictive of
a successful relationship. A ratio of .8 to 1 positive/negative is
seen in marriages headed for divorce.
A husband's unwillingness to
be influenced by his wife is an 80% predictor of divorce
The first three minutes of
conflict "start-up" predicts results - a harsh start-up that is high
in criticism predicts failure with 96% accuracy
Women are more likely to use
criticism than men - in a harsh start-up, men can become emotionally
flooded very quickly and can be unable to recover for 30 minutes
from that state. Flooding means feeling emotionally overwhelmed.
If unaware I'm flooded, I may feel locked up, frozen or buzzy. If
I'm aware, I'm likely to be self-concerned about my feelings and not
very connected to yours. When flooded, men cannot process
information and so may revert to criticism (attributions about
partner's character defects) defensiveness (looking for fault in
partner) contempt (I am superior to you) or stonewalling (freezing
and blocking the other person out.)
When men self-soothe by
stonewalling, women become emotionally flooded and so may resort to
criticism, defensiveness, contempt or stonewalling. When either
person is flooded, he or she may adopt the emotions of the other
person as their own. All of this can create a difficult cycle that
breaks down the relationship.
Same gender couples tend to
use softer startups in conflict and so tend to be more able to deal
with conflict without the same damaging consequences. Gottman
suggests that same gender couples may have something to teach
heterosexual couples about relationship.
Women bring up 80% of the
issues in a relationship and are more likely to use criticism.
Some of the discussion
points:
In t-groups, we encourage
people to be aware of their feelings and use them to expand the
range of their interpersonal choices. If in a conflict I can name
the feelings I am having about you, I can choose to disclose those
feelings instead of engaging in less effective behaviors like
criticism, defensiveness, contempt or stonewalling. It increases
the opportunity to connect in an authentic way and make choices
about how much influence you have with me and I have with you.
Daniel Goleman relied on
Gottman's research to develop Emotional Intelligence. Goleman
suggests that we will be more successful in relation to others if we
can know how we feel in real time (self-awareness) and use that
information to be self-managing. Even if a conflict begins in a
harsh or messy way, if I am aware, I have options to shift the
conflict to less harsh terms and have a more successful outcome. I
may choose to reflect back what I am hearing (avoiding spinning up
into criticism or stonewalling.) I may disclose my feelings (e.g..
talking about feeling defensive instead of engaging in defensive
behavior; curiosity, hurt, sadness) or make emotional bids to attend
to the other person (listening, touching, how I look at the other,
indicating interest and support.)
In a t-group, one possible
intervention in this dynamic is to invite the person who is flooded
to publicly process their internal experience and disclose their
intent - is it to be connecting or disconnecting? Moving into
disclosure may help others find ways to connect instead of
continuing the disconnecting behaviors of stonewalling, criticism,
contempt or defensiveness.
In a t-group, we must be
aware of the impact of silence, as it can appear to be
stonewalling. If someone takes a risk to express her feelings, it
can be devastating to be greeted with silence. Silent facilitators
can set up this norm, so we need to be thoughtful about letting
people know they are heard. We also discussed balancing this
concern with being careful not to set up dependence on us to support
group members this way and to model for and encourage others to make
their reactions known.
Cross-gender facilitation
pairs may be impacted by these dynamics. Gottman says that the more
we allow ourselves to be influenced, the more influential we
become. While male unwillingness to be influenced by females is an
80% predictor of divorce, the opposite is not true. Question arises
- do male facilitators allow themselves to be influenced by female
partners? If influenced, do they show it? It would be interesting
to look at how this dynamic shows up and how facilitators model
cross-gender influence in t-groups.
When women make attributions
in interpersonal conflict ("there you go again" "that's just like
you" "for once, could you just...") it may hook male fears of "honey
we need to talk" leading to male flooding and the above-described
cycle of male stonewalling and female flooding.
Given the 5 to 1
positive/negative ratio in conflict resolution as a predictor of
successful relationships, one intervention strategy we discussed for
t-groups and work teams was to build behaviorally specific
appreciations early. The reason is that the 5 to 1 ratio also
builds an emotional bank account between two people which can be
drawn upon in conflict to give the benefit of the doubt, give
greater weight to attempts to repair the relationship, and allow
some spontaneity and messiness in the startup. Appreciation does
not mean superficial flattery or attempts to cushion tough feedback,
but instead means authentic and honest communications. An example
of an appreciation might be "I know what I am telling you is hard to
hear, and I can see how hard you are working to understand this
issue."
We also discussed the
different biochemical responses that men and women have to
conflict. Men tend to move to fight or flight, whereas women tend
to move to bonding. While we didn't have much discussion about
this, the question about how to own and work with this dynamic in a
t-group was raised.
This was a rich 3 hour
discussion to which I have not done justice, but which will continue
to trigger insight and curiosity for some time to come.
Paula S. Jones
President
Paula S. Jones and Associates, Inc.
140 Orange Blossom Lane
San Rafael, CA 94903
415-453-5301
************************************
Our
next meeting is Tuesday, April 18th at David
Bradford’s house in Berkeley. The topic is “Gender Differences in
Interpersonal Communication” and based on the research by John Gottman.
Scott will lead the discussion.
The NTL Bay Area
Meeting on March 7th was at Andrea Corney’s house and
attending were David Bradford, Scott Bristol, Andrea Corney, Flo
Hoylman, Paula Jones, Yifat Sharabi Levine, Leigh Morgan, Judith
Noel, Carole Robin, Jack Sherwood and Nan Wydler.
Andrea helped
start the discussion having distributed materials by Ruby Payne on
the "hidden rules of class" (poverty, middle, wealth). We then had
a lively [and personal] discussion around social class looking at
how it affected us personally [our own past experiences with
different social classes and our feelings about class] as well as
the implication for how social class plays itself out differentially
in a T-group. We looked at class through various lenses, such as
money, education, and "size of our world". Many talked about the
experience of changing class or of becoming partners with someone
from a different class. We also talked about how our childhood
experience of class (such as always worrying about having enough)
impacts us today.
Our next meeting
is Tuesday, April 18th at David Bradford’s house
in Berkeley. The topic is “Gender Differences in Interpersonal
Communication” and based on the research by John Gottman. Scott
will lead the discussion.
************************
The
next meeting will be on Tuesday March 7th at Andrea's house
in Menlo Park [we will send out directions later], but mark your
calendar.
In
terms of topic, we are going to focus on the effect of social
class. At the end of this last meeting, we talked about various
aspects of diversity including:
-
Are T-groups very Western, white and middle-class in its basic
assumptions?
-
What are the different forms of discourse -- e.g. the western,
linear, get-to-the-point style vs. cultures that communicate through
story telling?
-
And what is the impact of social class
We
decided to begin the March session by focusing on social class with
a particular emphasis on our own experience of class. As a warm-up,
we will send (with the directions) a reading and a short quiz.
Hope to see you there
Nine of
us met at Lanz's house on Wednesday, January 6th (Tony,
Kathleen, Judith, David, Gary, Andrea, Jack, Flo, Lanz). The
topic was a continuation of the previous session - looking at
the degree to which we use ourselves in difficult
interventions. We worked through two 'real' case scenarios,
which were written up ahead of time. Since we had people who
had been in the facilitator role present in the group, we were
able to hear from them how they thought participants might have
responded to our proposed interventions.
Themes that emerged:
- to the extent we could name what was really up for us, we
could usually craft an intervention acknowledging that, e.g. If
I felt protective of a participant, I could share that "I'm
feeling protective and realize I'm holding back even though I'm
frustrated by........"
- recognizing the importance of using clinic when we're feeling
hooked prior to sharing and working in the group (especially
when feeling 'crazy' or experiencing alot of volatile feelings
of hurt).
- the appropriateness of containing a disruptive member before
s/he does too much harm (to self and the group), so that s/he
can successfully be brought back in off the sidelines later in
the group's development
- the willingness to step into the authority role and not shirk
responsibility even though we are being attacked, hooked,
baited, etc.
- noticing when we are partaking in power struggles and finding
other ways to intervene
- noticing when to intervene at the individual and/or group
levels and the danger in some situations of doing both
consecutively.
As I read them, the themes above lose alot when taken out of
context. In part, I have not worded them well, but more
importantly there's a strong element of "you needed to be
there". It
was a rich discussion.
***********************
Our
next meeting will be Wed. January 3rd at Lanz Lowen's house in
Oakland [5691 Chelton Drive, Oakland 94611 -- Phone [510] 5306875.
As
Yifat's (Nov 30, 2005) summary indicated, we only got through
the first scenario so are going to pick up where we left off. [Copy
is attached].
As
usual, we will start with coffee and cake at 1:30 to socialize with
the session running from 2:00-5:30ish and then wine and cheese for
further informal discussions.
Hope
you can make it.