Maxim of SIN: Some problems with not recognizing that each conflict, and each party, is novel and unaverage

We each have our own rhythm, our own beat

If you have attended a program at which I have presented recently, you have probably heard me talk about what I call the Maxim of SIN. It is the antidote to one-size-fits-all approaches in conflict resolution (or in other processes and activities, too). SIN stands for Situational, Individual, Now. Here's another reminder about the perils of interacting with parties in a manner that is Procrustean.

Dr.Todd Rose, a dropout from high school teaches at Harvard; click to read his CV. In this video from Cyberlearning Summit 2012 titled "Variability Matters," he talks about the problems that result when we ignore variability in the classroom and instead teach to the mythological average learner. He points out the brain has billions of neurons which form networks based on many factors, including day-to-day environment. This results in a rich diversity of brains in any classroom so why do we try to teach as if the brains are similar or even identical? He talks about what we lose when we teach to the average student, a being that lives only in fantasies and computer programs.

Of course, we have the same rich variability and diversity of brains and minds among parties to a dispute and yet how often do we see conflict professionals implementing notions and models and techniques that ignore this heterogeneity? Most the time, I believe. If you think I am exaggerating, listen to what is being taught about mediation. We hear things like, "Well, when this happens, the brain is doing X so what the mediator should do is Y." Or even, "These are the steps the mediator should take to resolve a dispute." Listen and you will hear the formulaic recommendations and advice.

If only conflict resolution were that cut-and-dried! As Dr. Rose says, "Variability matters." Artful, effective strategies are only possible when one understands variability very, very well.

There are ways to assess, appreciate, adapt to, and act upon (and with) the distinctiveness of each party, conflict, and mediator. I blogged about one method last week at idealawg. How are you making sure that you recognize each conflict's distinctiveness and keep sharp your skills at observing and capitalizing on differences, exceptions, and uniqueness?

If you are interested in the benefits of understanding uniqueness, take a look at "The Science of the Individual" (Mind, Brain, and Education) [behind paywall] of which Rose is the lead author. Abstract:

Our goal is to establish a science of the individual, grounded in dynamic systems, and focused on the analysis of individual variability. Our argument is that individuals behave, learn, and develop in distinctive ways, showing patterns of variability that are not captured by models based on statistical averages. As such, any meaningful attempt to develop a science of the individual necessarily begins with an account of the individual variability that is pervasive in all aspects of behavior, and at all levels of analysis. Using examples from fields as diverse as education and medicine, we show how starting with individual variability, not statistical averages, helped researchers discover two sources of ordered variability—pathways and contexts—that have implications for theory, research, and practice in multiple disciplines. We conclude by discussing three broad challenges—data, models, and the nature of science—that must be addressed to ensure that the science of the individual reaches its full potential.

The science of the individual. A phrase worth remembering, particularly when we begin to lose the beginner's mind and see many parties as marching to the same drummer, the same beat. If we assume sameness, the resolutions reached in our mediations may be as fitting as stepsisters' feet in Cinderella's slipper.

Note: Click to read Rose's story about why he advocates for understanding variability. And click to hear him presenting "The Myth of Average" at TedXSonomaCounty. For more about his theory and the life story from which it has developed, read his book Square Peg.

Comments

[BenZiegler]

I like your SIN Stephanie. It speaks to me of the need for mediators to have a diverse toolkit, in order to get consistently effective (mediated) resolutions. And, SIN also reminds me of the collaborative law maxim, 'it takes a system to change a system'. I see the 2 maxims as related.

[StephanieWestAllen]

Hi, Ben. Thanks; glad you like SIN.

I dont pretend to know much about collaborative law so dont know how it sees systems. Heres more or less how I see them:http://westallen.typepad.com/idealawg/2006/12/interview_of_ir.html

I talked with a wise friend of mine in May who tells me that systems theory and chaos, complexity, etc., have followed a path similar to that of neuroscience and entered the world of pop science with all the attendant misstatements, overstatements, and inaccuracies. But I dont know that about systems from personal experience. I do know the field of family systems has come under some criticism that seemed justified when I read an article or two.

Can you recommend something I can read about this maxim you mention? Id like to learn.