(formerly titled "the problem with the list", and we are the list- hence the change in rhetoric to something a bit more growth oriented) >Gary wrote >I found out long ago (pre Brin-L) that intelligent people can be quirky, >eccentric, sometimes a little strange and highly opinionated. I am sure that >all of you have noticed that this list is packed full of highly intelligent >people that at times ARE quirky, eccentric, strange and very definitely >highly opinionated. I also discovered (also pre Brin-L) that I have to be >tolerant of these intelligent, quirky, strange and opinionated people that I >associate with. We are quite a neat group when we have it together, sometimes it just seems to get away from us. We all have strengths and weaknesses and truth be told our strengths are commonly our biggest weaknesses. Having been a person who sought the ease of black and white, right and wrong- it took a while to live in the realm of grey where day to day reality meets our ideals, and our efforts are imperfect yet demand more of us. The list is a good place for us to grow, and actually I think we demand that of each other in some ways (and someday I might be able to follow a whole QM thread, it is getting easier). In growing we all become both leaders and followers, learner and mentor, and there are inherent things that come with those roles. Since the topic came up, a year ago I was called a leader, however chastised. Not incongruous in a growth pattern- self reflection ensued, new leaders emerged and the cycle continued. We all feel passion for many ideals and yet they should be challenged (IMHO)- within the context of growth and understanding. Perhaps that is why I struggle with the various "styles" discussed by Marvin and Darryl..... >Darryl wrote >And I also agree with Marvin, the biggest differences on the list are >not liberal vs conservative or environmentalist vs economist, but >between the people who prefer conversation and the people who prefer >debate. I feel I chose understanding above debate, and conversation as the journey to get there. That is not to say debate is not valid or not essential, but should also be contextualized toward a point of nitty gritty stuff, not "winning". As a poorly competitive human in *games that matter* (tm) to most people... what I value is not traditional winning. That being said, I still value debate within perspective, regardless of the topic. I have enjoyed watching new leaders come alive over the past year, yet am reminded of how hard the role is to even begin to understand. Somehow I felt out of place as the warm,fuzzy non-technical poster, but others perceptions are different. Everyonce in a while I look at the research on leaders and figure it is one hell of a struggle to capture the "admired leader characteristics"- "honest, forward looking, inspiring, competent, fair-minded, supportive, broad-minded, intelligent, straightforward, courageous, dependable, cooperative imaginitive, and caring" (all ranked higher than the lower ones of "determined, ambitious, loyal, and self controlled"). I think only when we can recall that we are human and we have responsibilities to both look into ourselves (to understand others) as well as help others grow, that we can truly become a fully aware. As simple as it sounds Covey captured it well- seek first to understand, then to be understood- I wish I knew more languages, there is probably some simple taoistic type character or phrase to sum all this up. So we stumbled and skinned our proverbial list knee and have to get up and carry on, and realize our group pride took a realistically small beating, the mistake we make is if we don�t learn from our errors and grow to correct them with human understanding. Dee (the tired)
