Here is the paper I presented at the Christchurch AANZPA conference 2015:
I am using Facebook a bit more lately.Â I still use Twitter more.Â But very differently.Â This post for example I might link to Twitter, I found the link on Twitter.Â It relates to my “Exploring the Psyche in Cyberspace” – psyberspace project.Â And people who don’t like this stuff may well drop off, others who like it will stay on.Â But Facebook is different.Â Family, friends and local people hang out there.Â I don’t want to foist my arcane musings onto them. Â I might send a snippet, and a snippet of art.Â My photos update from Flickr to Facebook.
I’ve tagged this “psychodrama-lib” I think we have this journal in the Christchurch Psychodrama Library, and it looks like a good article. I am particularly interested in the idea that there is a different reality in the group, “underlying, intangible, invisible,unofficial structure but one which is more alive, real and dynamic than the other.” to quote from the first page, all they will give me on the Net!!
# Progress and Pitfalls in Sociometric Theory # J. L. Moreno # Sociometry, Vol. 10, No. 3 (Aug., 1947), pp. 268-272 (article consists of 5 pages) # Published by: American Sociological Association # Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2785077
That is the Amazon link to the used books at a huge price.
As part of my link journey on the General Semantic theme I found it on Google and took a snap off the screen with the iphone of some references I wanted.
More details of my process and the book follows.
I have enjoyed some of the writing and audio from Al Turtle a relationship therapist. I get an RSS feed of his updates and today found a link to his favourite books. Great idea!
I found a ebook of A. E. Van Vogt’s The World of Null-A, non-Aristotelian logic in SF form. I see that this is not a one-off in Al’s list! He is into General Semantics – intrigued I went off on a search trail.
I am moving around in the social network space like a sleeper tossing & turning in bed trying to get comfy.
Managed to get my Tweets off Facebook so I now have a sense of belonging to Facebook, some dear friends and family are there. Twitter is more remote but I follow a buch of great people, they mediate my news.
But for anyone, me included, who wants to see everything I do online it can be seen here in Friendfeed
It is cool, just searched on Friendfeed: from:walterlogeman librarything and saw a bit of history.
Can I publish all that data somewhere where it belongs to me?
Ideas on cyberspace and psyche follow, with reference to social networks, science, psychodrama and sociometry. I conclude with a quote from Moreno that led to this reflection.
Anne Hales site is worth a visit.
There is someone in your training group whom you fear and dislike. You don’t like conflict very much and have not spoken about this. How might you prepare yourself to address this conflict? An answer suggested by Ann E. Hale, M.A., TEP
An excerpt from her response follows:
I am intrigued by the parallel between the physics of particles/waves that change depending on the observer, and the psychotherapy process.
Once an observer is introduced we change the nature of the psychotherapy. The very stuff we grapple with in a diad, trust, engagement, transference are impacted in many ways if there is a third party observer. All the relationship stuff of the psychotherapy would be present with the observer as well. In addition what happens to the unconscious processes as a result of the invitation, allowed by the therapist, on the work with the therapist?
In a brief conversation today with colleagues I noted two comments that I’d like to reflect on more.
“Even inside the group there are things we can’t see.” (A)
And the other…
“Deciding to LOOK at the process changes the group as well, even when the observers are all members.” (G)
It might be useful to see how these observations relate to Moreno’s “Rules” of sociometry, which is a form of research relying on practice based evidence. I’ll quote my summary of them.
- Participants are informed, ready, willing and able to participate.
- Participants in the group are “researchers”, and the leader is also a participant.
- Participation is done in action. Learning is experiential, it is learning by doing.
- There is acknowledgment of the difference between process dynamics and the manifest content. To quote Moreno: “there is a deep discrepancy between the official and the secret behaviour of members”. (1951:39) Moreno advocates that before any “social program” can be proposed, the director has to “take into account the actual constitution of the group.” (ibid)
- Rule of adequate motivation: “Every participant should feel about the experiment that it is in his (or her) own cause . . . that it is an opportunity for him (or her) to become an active agent in matters concerning his (or her) life situation.” (ibid)
- Rule of “gradual” inclusion of all extraneous criteria. Moreno speaks here of “the slow dialectic process of the sociometric experiment”.
References are to: Moreno, J. L., 1951, Sociometry, Experimental Method and the Science of Society . Beacon House, Beacon, New York. Page 31
In my exploration of Moreno’s ideas on Methodology I have come across Action Research. Kurt Lewin’s name comes up again. I recall he had something else that was *like* Moreno, but not quite? Yes, Force Field analysis, (see next post). I wonder how connected it all is, and how useful? Or if it is important to see the specific Moreno aspects that might be overlooked? I imagine the ideas of wap and Maximum Voluntary participation might not be present. Will check out, and would be interested in comments from people who know!
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Action research is a reflective process of progressive problem solving led by individuals working with others in teams or as part of a “community of practice” to improve the way they address issues and solve problems. Action research can also be undertaken by larger organizations or institutions, assisted or guided by professional researchers, with the aim of improving their strategies, practices, and knowledge of the environments within which they practice.
Kurt Lewin, then a professor at MIT, first coined the term “action research” in about 1944, and it appears in his 1946 paper “Action Research and Minority Problems”. In that paper, he described action research as “a comparative research on the conditions and effects of various forms of social action and research leading to social action” that uses “a spiral of steps, each of which is composed of a circle of planning, action, and fact-finding about the result of the action”.
I am interested to get hold of the article by Philip Carter
And one by J Guntz