TechnicalTrainer.org

Tony Karrer posted, Fight in the Blogosphere - Finally. Since Tony’s post, it has gotten me to thinking. Not that Tony would post about an intellectual dispute, but that he was somehow worried about it. Tony said, “On the other hand, I’m somewhat worried that the tone may put off people.” Tony even goes so far as to question if these kinds of arguments/debates are good or bad.

Are we really that sensitive in learning and development world? Are we so concerned with hurting someone’s feelings that we are unable or unwilling to stand and defend ideas we find important? Come on folks, get both a backbone and some passion.

How about these fights as a start:

1. Tesla vs. Edison
2. Einstein (Relativity) vs. Quantum Mechanics
3. Galileo vs. The Church
4. Newton vs. Leibnitz

This is just a handful. And is really used just to prove the point that conflict is virtually inevitable. It is also the source of amazing burst of human creativity. Take Tesla as an example. He was told that AC current couldn’t power motors. So, he actually invented a motor to prove his skeptics wrong. The Wright Brothers certainly chased powered flight despite numerous doubters.

So, I think we need more not less disputes, disagreements, and down-right arguments. In fact, if you look just a little you can find numerous examples.

1. Kirkpatrick vs. Phillips (measurement)
2. Behaviorists vs. just about everyone else
3. Nature vs. Nurture

You can disagreement politely or not. You can choose small or large forums to air those disputes. You can dispute something privately or publicly. But, I think it is almost a professional obligation to force yourself to challenge your own assumptions about what you know. Heck, I’m proud to say that I have posted my own disputes with my colleagues.

1. Me vs. The 30-minute Masters
2. Me vs. Cliff Atkinson

Sure, not the loftiest of writings, but the act of writing what I thought, and supporting it as best I could, caused intellectual growth. Sometimes disputes cause you to change your mind; sometimes they cause you to stand for what you believe even more. The only true demand should be the requirement for intellectual honesty. When/if you are ever proven wrong, admit it and move on. I only wish that sort of intellectual honesty happened more often.

So, bring on the conflicts! The health of our profession depends upon it.

My two cents …