Brain Food for Pioneering Spirits: What forms and types of reflection can we think of? Dr. Yasemin Yazan, Jürgen and guest Frank explore how reflection docks onto our senses — from why mind maps mirror the structure of our thinking, to a Nobel laureate’s claim that communication, not energy or time, holds the world together, to why plain conversation is often the most underrated method of all…
Note: This session was recorded live in German as part of the Deep Talk Club, so the video above is German-language audio only. What follows is an English translation of the conversation, lightly edited for readability — the back-and-forth between the moderator and participants is preserved, but the original timestamps and speaker names have been left out.
A very good morning to you. Yes, today we’ll continue with the next topic, namely forms and types of reflection. Maybe briefly on this, since we suddenly had this update here on Clubhouse yesterday — I took a quick look last night too, to make sure I could find the rooms faster, and so on. I think it’ll be a bit rocky, because there really are quite a few updates, which other chats that have taken place also make clear, that there’s some uncertainty for now, because you suddenly have to look around and somehow everything looks different. Some functionalities have disappeared, others have been added. I looked at the manual yesterday to see what updates there are. And it really is the case that there’s no longer classically this Main Hall. I’m curious. But we’re also allowed to give feedback here, meaning really using that. I think that’s really, really important. Because depending on what feedback reaches the Clubhouse team, it could well be, and it explicitly says so, that depending on our experience, or what we need or don’t need, this or that gets made available as a feature again too, something that maybe got discontinued. I personally find it a disadvantage that there’s no Main Hall anymore, because I actually found it quite nice that you could more or less see all the rooms currently running, and just go in without knowing anyone, and not be limited only to what your own contacts, and maybe the contacts of your contacts, are. So we’re allowed to watch this with excitement, and we’re also allowed to get active, to make sure that maybe one or another functionality comes back after all, and maybe also bravely just try things out, because every change brings with it, well, what does our brain do right now? Does this threaten our existence? That’s the first question, and the second question is, what’s the benefit? And if I can’t recognize the benefit, one thing happens, that I have the feeling, do I even feel like engaging with this at all. So, in that sense it fits in nicely here. That means, the first resistances are of course there. And if we can locate that, we can also deal with it. So I’m glad we can keep providing clarity here too, so to speak, to deal with these impulses ourselves too. And here’s a warm invitation too, to look again and actually get active, gladly write some feedback too or something, so that this or that comes into motion again here too, and this isn’t already, in quotation marks, the final version we’re allowed to try out here now. Right, and with that let’s get started today. Forms and types of reflection is the question, the room title and the question we want to engage with. What forms and types of reflection actually come to mind for us? And you’re all really, really warmly invited to join in and enter the exchange here too. Another quick reminder, we want to look at the methods of reflection in detail tomorrow. It’s finally happening. Tomorrow’s the day we look at the methods, and gladly discuss various tools and techniques in exchange too, and tell what experiences we’ve had with them. Today it’s more about these forms and types, so things like writing, painting. So what’s actually out there? We want to look at that together. Feel free to join in, bring in various thought impulses from your experience, from what you’ve already done or tried in terms of forms and types, what you’ve applied in some form, without yet explaining the how, so to speak, the approach itself — we don’t want to look at that today yet. And another quick reminder, the room gets recorded the entire time, and I don’t even know if I still need to make this reminder, because I think in the future all rooms will be recorded by now. I’m just observing that for now. But it looks very much that way at the moment. So, I’ve rediscovered some rooms. I don’t know if you can see them too. Maybe we can look at that too. Maybe we’ll do that next week. We’ll have the summary anyway then, before we switch over to the next topic, the next overarching topic, so we might have already tried this or that out by then, and can go into exchange about it again too. Because I can, for example, see a whole lot of recordings of our last rooms, and not just the last rooms, but really, really many rooms even before that, some of which took place months ago, with other colleagues I moderated that with on Clubhouse. And I don’t know exactly, for example, do I only see that, or does everyone who was maybe there too see it? Or is it accessible to everyone, including those who weren’t there? So such information would of course be helpful too. Especially in Germany, against the backdrop of all the data protection stuff, I’m not so sure whether what they did there is entirely safe. Well, whatever, just on the side. So, recording for our recording here is definitely safe and included in the recording. That means, anyone who joins automatically agrees that the whole thing gets published too. And then we have three small room rules: a profile picture where you’re recognizable, first and last name, and at least one sentence in your bio. And anyone who doesn’t want that for whatever reason, doesn’t want to speak in front of the group or something, or just can’t right now, of course has, as always, the possibility to just write in the chat. And I’m glad we still have the room chat, because all other messages — I don’t know who’s already noticed — are only via voice mail now, so to speak. That means, right now you can’t send each other written personal messages at all anymore, also really, really exciting. Yes, and then, while I’m maybe waiting to see who’d like to join first, to open the reflection room together today, another quick, well, what does “another” even mean, a quick announcement. I hope I can still get this pinned here. Let me check if it still works. Yes, seems to work. And, don’t be surprised if the link comes a bit later. I’ll check in a moment, I’m not managing to send it right now, but I’ll take care of it shortly. And specifically, on September 14th — and this will also go out today over the course of the day with the newsletter as info — there’s an event from the BDVB in cooperation with the RV Rhein-Main, and the topic will be the AI revolution, navigating between innovation and uncertainty, a talk I’ll be giving, and it’s accessible free of charge for guests via Zoom. That means, wherever you’re sitting, if you have the time and inclination, on September 14th at 7pm, you can simply register as a guest to join for free. As I said, I’ll share this link over the course of today’s room, so you have the possibility, or just check the newsletter if you get it today, so you have the possibility to actually register for it, provided the topic of AI and the brain, in this combination, interests you too. With that I’ll mute myself for now and see who’d like to join first this morning. Quick question, you can see your hand signals though, right? Maybe give a signal, because now anything is possible here. So, yes, okay, great, thanks. Thanks. A very good morning, dear Jürgen. Always exciting here, isn’t it?
Can you hear me now?
Yes.
I only heard you in fragments just now.
Okay, if that’s the case, that’s good then. Yes, a very good morning, dear Yasemin, and everyone else in the room. I’m also struggling with handling this new version, but also, well, you mentioned it with the Main Hall too, with the new content, or with the structure, as far as I understand it. But we’ll see. There are certainly still cross-connections and mutual enrichments, and this or that problem will probably solve itself too. Regarding today’s topic, I’m really facing a bit of a dilemma. You know my mania when it comes to terminology, really bringing about a clear separation there. You named it in a title, yes, forms and types. And I tried to approach the difference through the result of yesterday. Through the result we roughly established yesterday, I hope I’m representing it correctly, where we established a distinction between format and method. Method becomes the topic tomorrow, but let me maybe recap — we said the format, terminologically, comes very close to today’s term, form. The format of a reflection determines how the reflection, how it’s carried out. And if I now — we’d also defined method, but let me set that aside for now — how a reflection is carried out determines the format, or influences the choice of format. And now today we have types and forms of reflection. And now, from the terminological side, you could say, well, let me now take — and this is what I did — let me take format as a meta-level, as an umbrella term, and purely hypothetically define under that a hypothesis formation. I form a subgroup under that, types and forms, and try to question, or verify, or account for the thesis that there’s a difference. And that’s what I did, briefly now, and I thought, if you want to distinguish these two positions, then maybe by the purpose, the general purpose of the reflection, namely, if I say the format determines how something is carried out, so gives an organizational structure to the reflection, then that, in my view, is essentially dependent on the content of the reflection and on the goal I connect the reflection with. And that, in my assessment and my check, already justifies a clear difference in the different terminology. And I’m recalling our finding from yesterday, which you brought up multiple times. It’s basically irrelevant what name we give the child. We just have to agree on what we mean by it. So, and now, after a long speech, let me define the type of a reflection quite strongly connected to the goal I want to achieve. And specifically, I see there, for example, when I reflect, that I set for myself in advance as a goal. Either I want to understand something. I want to understand myself. I want to understand myself in my environment. I want to remember the last DTC. I want to solve a problem or find a decision. So, all topics we’ve already had. Connection. And finally, infinitely, I include you, our favorite topic, I want to learn. So this form of design, though I’d like to add, understanding of course doesn’t explicitly exclude the learning effect, but they mutually enrich each other. So these goal components create, for me, some kind of terminological specification, justify it. Whether we call it type or call it form is, in the first moment, irrelevant to me. The counter-position, for me, is the content, so not the goal, but the goal is causally connected to a content. So, and there I’ll just take terminology we’ve already had multiple times in the past, namely self-reflection of course, in the truest sense of the word — how did you put it yesterday, the dialogue inward, self-talk. Then the counterpart to that, social reflection, so me in my environment, for example. And I looked again, and I find a position that could fit splendidly in here, that’s reflection on ethics, values, and norms. That’s actually, for me — I’ve just taken three secrets now as an example — the actual baseline, before I, let me put it this way, before I take the time and find the space to reflect, that I say, what’s the actual content? And then to establish, what’s the goal? And for both, as I said, I’ll leave it open now how we name the child, one calling it types, the other forms, or the reverse, doesn’t matter to me. My only desire is that there’s a significant distinguishing point here in the basic structure of a mental reflection. Thank you for, admittedly, sorry, a long speech, and I’m curious.
Yes, thank you so much. I’m not sure if we already have the same understanding everywhere. That’s why I’d like to pick up again what we discussed yesterday and address it once more. So, as you already repeated, basically the format determines the organizational structure within which the reflection takes place, we’d said yesterday. Then we said, the method determines how the actual reflection is carried out. And with forms and types, I’d noted for myself, mode of representation. How we name the child, I’m totally with you, is completely irrelevant. The thought was really to look at what the mode of representation is, that then comes into use, for example, when applying the method. So for example, if I said now, I want to use a mind map, say, then that would be in the visual area. Yes, then I might work with symbols, something gets drawn, and so on. And this mode of representation is, so to speak, what we want to engage with today. How we then label it, whether that’s forms, whether that’s types or whatever, the terminology itself is relatively irrelevant to me at this point. If you have a better term, we can gladly use that too. That’s just to clarify what I meant by that. Does that make sense to you, Jürgen?
Absolutely. That means, for me, the topic is the mode of representation of the various types of reflection. I don’t want to nitpick now, but that’s how I’m taking your feedback. Is that right?
Exactly.
Okay, agreed. We understand each other.
Yes, wonderful. Then the next question, basically, is which mode of representation I can accordingly choose for the various reflection possibilities I have. I’d already brought in one or two examples, things like writing or painting would be aspects. Just to set a first, or two, impulses. There are of course clearly more here, but I don’t want to bring in too much already, but can gladly expand on that too. But let’s just gather together what actually comes to mind for us. What modes of representation are there? Jürgen, would you like to build on this?
Yes, and please bear with me, just so I really grasp the topic comprehensively today, from the room. You just defined what we understand today under types as representation of reflection. Check mark. Does that include form? Meaning, do forms and types all run under this context of mode of representation, or is there something else coming?
I’d actually have used it synonymously. If you think there’s another aspect missing, so to speak, then we can talk about that again too. So if you now think that in this trio of yesterday, today, and tomorrow, something’s still missing in this context, and we should maybe look at that again under form, then we can gladly pick that up too, Jürgen.
So I’m fully — I’m agreed with you, if we take that as a synonym and today explicitly discuss these, I’ll call them now, expression forms, the types of expression forms of reflection, check mark. My desire was just that we maybe keep in the back of our minds, because I find this position so important and it makes an essential difference, really in the basic understanding of reflection, to maybe get back to the content and goals of reflection that I mentioned, because for me, that’s my personal opinion, because for me they’re actually the pacemakers, to actually only then arrive at the structure and at a methodology. So if I become self-aware, and I’ll say this now, it’s actually a pre-reflection for me, before the actual reflection, that I explicitly become clear about the content and the goal-setting, in order to then arrive at the structure, and then choose the method. I’ve admittedly jumped ahead a bit now, but that’s actually, for me, the lower level of the approach to a reflection. But regarding today’s topic, equals synonym, absolutely agreed. Thank you.
Yes, absolutely. Thank you so much. And what might also help here, because it’s a bit of this — we already had this yesterday too — do you choose the method first, or how do you actually proceed in order? That means, we have various cycles here, in quotation marks, that arise. And there are always various sequences again, in which reflection takes place again too, on different levels, so to speak. And let me open up an example from coaching now, to maybe make clear what that might illustrate, so to speak. Because you could ask yourself the question, why do I even think about what the types of expression form are, if I, what do I know, maybe haven’t even chosen the method yet or something. But it can certainly be a help, for the reflection itself too, and specifically, for example, in coaching, if I now notice that someone in coaching with me tends, by their nature overall, to proceed very, very factually and logically, then the means of choice isn’t necessarily to go into writing, for example, but actually to maybe open a different door, to choose a method to advance the project and reach the goal. And specifically a method that’s not classically in the area where my coachee actually feels comfortable, but actually to choose something quite contrary, something that’s not classically their area, so to speak, their area in the sense of comfort zone, but to open new doors here instead. That’s why it makes sense to also think about the types of these expression forms, and leaning on that possibly also then
already filter out some methods that don’t come into question, and on the other hand consider other methods. Jürgen, can you do something with that?
That’s a really good point, dear Yasemin. But let me ask a counter-question now. If you, as a coach, choose this path — absolutely exciting, I find that great — my question is immediately, based on which selection criteria do you determine the specific mode of representation? Let me think of my favorite topic now, mind maps. What characteristic traits do you base that on? Is it the topic you’re coaching? Is it the person, about whom you have certain co-information? I’ll assume that, I’ll go with that. Or, last point, another favorite topic of mine, is it, under certain circumstances, an unconscious bias, to offer a solution relatively quickly, and, since you as a coach guide through questions, giving the whole reflection your direction under certain circumstances? Mind you, I’m being a bit provocative now. Thank you.
Yes, wonderful, thank you so much. Yes, the exclusion criteria, or the various criteria that ultimately lead to that, are of course — it’s not that you sit in coaching and immediately apply a method, but as you said, primarily it’s about working with questions. And when you reach a point where you notice, okay, now we somehow need a tool, so to speak, to move forward with. How can we maybe open up different perspectives here, and so on, that then leans on the overall constellation. On one hand that’s to look at, who do I have in front of me as a person, so how are they, for example, linguistically and behaviorally too. You already pick up on that through the conversations. And then to look at what the topic being worked on is too, of course. Whereas, if I’ve then decided, say, to do something toward visualization, then, leaning on the topic being worked on, I can still decide. For example, is it more a mind map that lends itself here for what I want to work out, or is it about maybe having something drawn, or similar. So with visualization, I again have countless possibilities of methods, how I can proceed accordingly again here, so to speak, to have certain things worked out. So here, to some degree, always looking again and finding the fit on various levels. And what you meant with this possible unconscious bias, I don’t know if I’d consider that under unconscious bias, but there’s of course also a fit to the coach. That means, I wouldn’t apply a method, for example, or no mode of representation I’d engage with, that I, as a coach, so to speak, don’t feel comfortable with. Though with the types, I think, it’s not necessarily the fit yet. That’s more with the methods that then get selected. Because, for example, as I said, with visualization I have various possibilities, and then I have method A, B, C. And if method C, personally, doesn’t fit me, I don’t feel comfortable with it, then I’d rather offer A or B for selection at that point. Jürgen, does that help you there?
Yes, absolutely. And I’m looking forward to Frank’s contribution, I don’t want to go into this further, but with regard to unconscious bias, one small line of defense still. The coach, so a coach in the form of a consultant, a permanent consultant within a project, often doesn’t have the abundance of time to think for long, and it’s a different position when I get a coaching assignment, but might need to, say, an employee who came out of a meeting and said, or a department head, the board really got on my nerves, I’m so worn out, can you help me. But that’s really not a topic for this room. Up to you, dear Frank.
Yes, thank you so much. Frank, a very good morning. Let’s welcome you too, and take in your thoughts.
Yes, good morning. First of all, Yasemin, I discovered you here on Clubhouse over two years ago, and unfortunately the time slot you have here is a bit inconvenient for me, but I’m really glad you publish these things on your podcast, so I can listen in every now and then. I hadn’t seen today’s topic beforehand. That means, I came in today, this morning, this worked out today, and saw it, and was happy that this conversation about reflection exists. I’m also really glad that the conversation you and Jürgen just had was really clear, and, so to speak, highlighted your terminology more or less. I’d probably use the terms differently, and so on. I think that’ll probably be a bit different for everyone. And so I approached this by thinking there’s first a subject area for this reflection. So reflection is a thinking-about. I’d now describe this conversation itself as verbal reflection about reflection. So a thinking-about-the-thinking-about. And how can that be? And one thing that, for me, was still kind of missing at first — I don’t know yet, maybe not, maybe I’m also still understanding this wrong — would be something like their formatting. So if you take written reflection, for example, a diary, or a scientific essay, or a blog, then that also has a formatting, an introduction, a main part, and somehow a conclusion. So that would be the thesis part, which Jürgen, I think, has also somehow already touched on a bit. But that of course depends on the type of reflection, where it is that. Introduction, main part, and conclusion I’d probably have with a visual, with an artwork, or a photo diary, or with an infographic, with a storyboard. That’s then a collage, and that’s built differently than a text you then read through, where there’s something like introduction, main part, examples, analysis, and so on. So I think this aspect of formatting is probably what you want to address tomorrow, if I understood correctly, because that’s then the how, how these get carried out. So, and then, regarding today’s topic, I’d say that of course these types and forms of reflection dock onto our cognitive skills of sense processing, so hearing, touching, feeling, probably seeing. So this visual, or, well, verbal — there processing is of course already included. I hear something, or, to get to speaking, where you use language, which is also — the room, so the availability of certain words, so a language, is also relevant to think about, that we’re limited by that, or that we’re given possibilities by that, whether that’s for individual reflection, self-reflection, or also for social reflection, whether that’s a group discussion, or whether that’s a personal, individual conversation, which would now be a verbal reflection. Those would already be types of verbal reflection. If I go into a one-on-one conversation, whether that’s a consulting conversation, whether that has something therapeutic to it, whether that’s a presentation. That’s then, I don’t know, about a travel experience. I went somewhere and then give a presentation to a group about what I experienced, or something. Those would be types, for me. That’s of course the verbal, and written as well, that’s of course all tied to the abilities, so to speak, that we have, to process information at all. For me there’s always something where I notice that many people reflect very strongly visually. There’s often something said about that too, why that’s supposedly the first type of reflection. I’m personally a very acoustically oriented person, so that for me, a type of reflection is, for example, a podcast, or even a piece of music as such, where emotions, for example, are in there. I’m now applying a reflection to that, they get reflected in there. I can then connect with that, go into resonance, and then feel my way through how I feel about it. So that’s maybe a bit abstract, because that’s not like a text, which has the text content, or something visual, where that’s somehow represented in a collage, but that’s then something acoustic, but it’s also tied to the sense of hearing. And maybe to conclude, of course, nowadays these types of reflection possibilities are, through digital media, extremely, I’d also say, complicated, not just expanded, but there are also completely different intervention possibilities, which of course also make it harder somehow to decide, what’s actually the right form for me, if there are interactive elements in there, whether that’s for social interaction where different people can access something, or whether it’s also just that these are half-unstructured elements where you can somehow insert multimedia. I’m thinking now of various software that’s been on the market for years, all somehow offering that, if you use them, you can do all kinds of things with them, but then it often becomes nonsense too, because nobody really knows how to approach it. That’s why I find this conversation really important, and yes, I think that was it.
Yes, wonderful, thank you so much. Various aspects were included there now. One aspect I find really important is first this aspect with sense processing that you addressed. Basically, the types of representation are ultimately docked onto this, onto our senses. There we’re at hearing, touching, feeling, tasting, seeing, smelling. That means, all the methods in their representation, so the methods we apply afterward, which we can look at more closely again tomorrow, are, in their form of representation, coupled to our sense processing. That’s already the first thing we can establish here, I think. That means, if we now say, for example, I have someone paint something, then we can think about which sense that actually addresses. Or I have someone write something. Or I have someone work with symbols or similar. And depending on what’s chosen here now, that gets processed via the senses, so to speak, and accordingly then also coupled to prior experiences, and so on, that I’ve had, so to speak, also converted, for example, into feelings — yes, biochemical processes taking place here, which then set processes in motion in the brain, and thereby can enable new perspectives, and so on. So a kind of initial trigger, to then, in the next step, transition from reflecting into thinking. Maybe we can also gladly look at this interface briefly in this context too. Then with form, what you just said, for example with a blog or something, with an introduction, and so on, we can very gladly talk about that together too, whether we want to include that today too. Because that’s not yet the how, for me. So for me, the how is with the method, what I mean for tomorrow, really the technique. So there we’d then have maybe do this and that, and so on. And then that might get picked up there too. Write a blog article or something. But then, in this description, it wouldn’t already be somehow prescribed. Do, write an introduction, or also have a main part, or something. But it’s about the technique quite generally, so to speak. So which reflection methods actually exist that you can apply, and in that level of detail you wouldn’t necessarily define the specifications there at that point. And in that sense it could well make sense, if we want to define that as form, the format you addressed, that we might pick that up too. And then the third point I picked up from what you said is this aspect with digital media. You said, well, with all these interactive elements, and so on, some things have also possibly gotten more complicated there. And what first came to mind for me directly as an impulse, and I find that nice too — we can’t just differentiate here, for example, by aspects like online and offline, but we can also differentiate here by synchronous and asynchronous in the choice, so to speak, depending on whether I do that, for example, in a live session, in that just-in-time moment, so to speak, or whether the other person then uses the time and prepares something, or maybe it’s also, so to speak, time-shifted. And especially with these interactive elements in digital media, we keep having this, that we talk about synchronous and asynchronous media, because depending on what’s then chosen and applied, with the mode of representation too, in the moment, because that’s ultimately a stylistic device, so to speak, that I apply, then automatically — asynchronous would then be, for example, an email that gets written, we’re in the writing context there. An email gets written, for example, in which something gets depicted or whatever gets written. And then it takes time until it reaches the other person, gets processed, and then a response follows, for example. And then there’s also synchronous. And then we can also look at, if I do the reflection myself, is there also synchronous and asynchronous there? That would also be interesting to look at. Or is that only in the two-person or group constellation at that point. Jürgen, Frank, would you like to build on this too?
Gladly, Frank. Yes, I’ve been thinking about these things for a while too, yes, ontology, epistemology, and so on. Those are things I engage with too. So, what can you even know, and where can you even speak, and so on. And with these — well, we can now, especially here on Clubhouse, we can say, okay, now there’s a new form of technical enablement of reflection, has now made its way in. This — now I don’t know what we’ll end up calling it — I understood it yesterday as audio threads, these things where someone starts such a thread, such a recorded thread, which then also gets transcribed with artificial intelligence, where someone starts a topic, so to speak, and then others can react to that, and then apparently, as the creator, you can maybe also remove individual segments that don’t fit or something. I haven’t quite figured that out yet, we all have to work through what’s being offered to us there, but that’s a new form. But now it’s said, well, that’s asynchronous. I understand the distinction really well, and I’d also say that WhatsApp voice messages, which we might also know from group chats or something, would then be asynchronous in this terminology. But I have a bit of a small problem with that, because with multitasking ability, so the area in which multitasking is possible for humans, that’s relatively limited. Let me give an example. We can’t look at different things simultaneously. Sure, we have, so to speak, a field we look at, but that would be synchronous, so to speak. We perceive one and the same field at the same moment, but we can basically only focus on one content. That’s maybe also what makes visual media so powerful, because we then always talk about something targeted, so to speak — that’s one thing we visually concentrate on, because we then talk about that thing. Wherever, whatever that is, you point to it. Here, there, that’s what I mean, look there. That’s, so to speak, come into human interaction, evolutionarily too, that we point at something and then someone else looks that way. That would now be visual, and that would then be, I don’t know, synchronous. Conversations and so on, and I’d even say, even reflections or something, that’s always with messages, information, exchange, communication. Communication, in my view, is always asynchronous. There’s always a shift. We can’t talk at the same time at all. That’s a problem on Clubhouse. I always say, only one person can talk at a time. That’s consistent with this new form of reflection, with this new form of communication, so to speak. Here that’s not quite true anymore, because different people can record at the same time, but you hear that afterward in a newly compiled order. That’s why that’s definitely asynchronous, but also in this terminology that exists. But in any room we had before, that we could discover in the Hallway, when you enter there, ultimately, if more than one person speaks there — sometimes there are hundreds of people in there — but ultimately we can only listen to one person, and therefore only one person can speak. And that means the timing especially, and especially leaving pauses for thinking, and so on, that also defines the quality of a conversation, of a public conversation too. And that’s also something that happens in media post-production, yes, on TV, radio, and so on and so forth — that’s exactly about such structures, or that would then be a time formatting. That’s also thought about. So, TV presenters and so on, they specifically learn to bring their point somewhere with a certain voice modulation, and then maybe leave a certain pause at a certain point, and so on. And that’s why it’s given as asynchronous always. So this distinction that’s made here, and as I said, I see, or hear, how it’s discussed. I understand that somehow too, that we sit closer together and speak now — so, by their definition, our conversation would now be synchronous. But I don’t see it that way, because we speak one after another and relate to what the other person said before.
Let me hook in here, Frank. So with synchronous, basically nothing else is meant than that it’s this live situation we have right now here. It doesn’t concern whether we speak at the same time or not, and such an interpretation that that would then automatically always be asynchronous, but it just concerns the circumstance of whether my message reaches you immediately, and it does, at the moment I’m speaking now and you’re listening at the same time, or whether there’s a time delay, so to speak, in which my message reaches you. And if I sent a WhatsApp message now, I don’t know, it could be that we — a WhatsApp message can also be synchronous, in the moment when we’re both sitting in the chat at the same time and writing to each other, but if this message only reaches you an hour later, and you only listen to it then, and then reply at some point afterward, and then in turn I wait until I hear it, then that’s when this temporal component is in there, which is why that becomes asynchronous. It doesn’t mean whether we speak at the same time, but while I’m speaking right now, and that’s basically the main criterion, are you actively listening right now, so to speak, and out of this live situation this differentiation between synchronous and asynchronous arises at that point. And I think if we define it as such, then it’s relatively clear.
Yes, I agree with that. And that’s also what I meant, that that’s, so to speak, the understanding. I can go along with that. Personally I have a technical understanding of that, and especially of immediate. It’s just not immediate, because it goes through the digital medium. Yes, I absolutely understand what you’re saying and what you mean. I hear that now with a really, really short latency. You have a technical understanding of that. For me it’s just an immediate, in-presence thing, actually. Because everything else just goes through a medium. But I definitely accept exactly this general definition. We can definitely work with that. But that’s exactly the distinction I wanted to bring in.
I absolutely understand what you mean. And we know this, so here you don’t notice it with these slight delays that are there. Where you notice it really clearly is, for example, if you do livestreaming or something, on YouTube or something, and ask a question, then you first have to leave a proper pause, in quotation marks, because it takes a while until that reaches my counterpart. And then of course there’s also the delay again that occurs, until my counterpart has thought about it, answered, and that then reaches me again too. So I can totally relate to what you mean there. Yes, wonderful. Let’s see. Jürgen, do you have additional points here too, where you’d like to build on this at this point?
I’m still pushing forward another point I’ve had for a few minutes now, and specifically it electrifies me, mind mapping. We’re talking today about the mode of representation in reflection. And various types have now also been named, like writing, like painting, and let’s not forget speaking too. And let me also try to approach the question — if we know there are various types of representation possibilities of reflections, by which criterion do I choose, do I choose the one that fits the goal, or the topic, of the reflection. And in that sense here was the connection, I see, the connection to Marc’s remarks — wait, sorry, Frank’s remarks — who brought in this sensory level and said, put a bit more broadly now, hearing, feeling, tasting, and we don’t need to discuss that. That, in my view, has a really essential connection to which mode of representation I now choose. And I, as a declared fan of mind mapping, the mode of representation of a reflection in the form of mind mapping really appeals to me, because it basically, in its approach, completely mirrors the structure of our thinking processes, our thinking sequence. Whatever comes in, I enter, and then afterward establish certain connections. But it actually structures our thinking, so to speak, conversation, reflection. And in similar form, for those who don’t do mind mapping, I see writing in similar form. Writing might also, sorry, Frank said this too, and I’m a fan of that too, if I choose this path, there has to be an introduction, that’s nothing other, for me, than establishing what the topic is and what I want to achieve, in order to then get to the main part, to the discussion of the reflection, and then, at the end, to draw a conclusion and say, what have I learned from this now, do I see myself differently now through the reflection, and what are the consequences. And basically, for me, let me say this too, the essential benefit, the essential benefit from thinking about which mode of representation I choose, is, for me personally, really essential, that I can revisit this reflection again at some point, that I record it for myself, in order to reflect, in a subsequent reflection, on whether the reflection brought me anything. And there’s one really clear outlier, in my view, namely the type of pure speaking and the dialogue inward, without any medium recording anything. Because words are fleeting, thoughts remain — okay, check mark, but all thoughts, and also the thoughts I had in that moment, are the same ones I had afterward. So basically, actually, and I’ll take that as today’s benefit from our discussion, in turn a specification in reflection I hadn’t seen in that detail beforehand. Heartfelt thanks for that.
Yes, thank you so much. And above all it’s also really, really exciting. It’s often the case — and we can maybe pick this up again tomorrow too — that when we think, for example, of methods or something, then various aspects like mind mapping or whatever gets chosen come into use, so to speak. But what’s widespread is that the conversation itself, or asking questions for example, often isn’t really perceived as a method at all, in quotation marks, even though that’s actually the main instrument in coaching, for example, at that point. That means, the complete session with the pure conversation, so basically it needs, no additional methods at all, no enrichments. And that, by the way, was also one of the results from my dissertation, where experts from the coaching field were also interviewed. When do they actually apply an additional method at all? Only when they notice they’re not getting anywhere. That means, the process, within the process, stalls. The client, the coachee, somehow isn’t getting anywhere. It’s going in circles, and then it’s time — and that seems to be a criterion for the experts — to say, okay, now a method is needed. And then, of course, you try to select a fitting one according to various criteria. We talked yesterday about how that can also go wrong sometimes. If you notice you’re not getting anywhere with that either, you might also need to try something else, to untie this knot, so to speak, when it doesn’t work with the pure conversation and asking questions anymore. I find that a really exciting aspect. That means, the conversation and formulating questions is already a technique that’s being applied, and can also be identified as a method, and hardly anyone is aware of this. It’s often the case that, maybe even precisely against this backdrop, this leads to many people applying a whole lot of methods, because they somehow have the feeling they need such a diversity of methods, but that’s often not even necessary or required in many places, but only when the process doesn’t move forward.
Quick interjection.
Very briefly, Frank, I wanted to bring you in anyway. Very briefly, with a view to the time, I’d do the following now. Frank, you can gladly build on this again. If it’s a question, I’ll gladly address it too. Otherwise, just so you’re already prepared, with the remarks and also the length of the remarks, we’ll then transition directly into the closing round afterward, because we usually always aim to be through after about 60 minutes, and we should keep an eye on that time together too. Frank, go ahead.
You just discussed this diversity, now I’ve basically forgotten my question. So, you just gave me a spontaneous question about what’s just being said. I wanted to ask what you think the reasons are why many methods somehow get applied at the same time, or why few then maybe as a counterpart. So what, so to speak, reasons, patterns of justification are, why many methods get applied. Honestly, I don’t really have my own question anymore.
I can only voice a guess about that. I don’t have scientific studies or anything like that available on this. It’s often the case that, especially in training programs too, whether you’re working as a consultant, coach, or whatever, that value is placed on giving a diversity of methods into people’s hands, so to speak. And I believe, and I emphasize that I believe this, this is just a guess, this would be my thesis, that many people aren’t really aware of what power the conversation and the questioning techniques already have, so that possibly, especially with novices in the field, a diversity of methods gets applied, because there’s always this feeling, that was just a conversation. And I especially don’t want my counterpart to have the feeling, well, what did we actually do? And that’s why, in the sense of, let me reach into the bag of tricks now — and that’s also why these books sell really, really well, with these 100 tools, or whatever, or 1000 tools for coaches, or trainers, or whatever. So that’s a phenomenon you keep observing. I’m not aware of any study on this context, but I haven’t researched that either or anything, but that would be my really personal assessment. I don’t know if that helps at this point, Frank.
I think that’s exactly the point I wanted to bring out now. I see it quite similarly, that there are assessments, projections of evaluations of what’s supposed to be helpful, because we somehow hear from the internet what all exists, or from magazines, where that’s always written about. Nobody really knows what’s actually important then. That’s why I find it really good that this conversation exists. Thanks for that.
Yes, very, very gladly. And yes, then let’s gladly move directly into the closing round. As I said, if you want to add anything else, gladly. And then, what was your highlight from this room today?
Jürgen, let’s start with you, and then gladly Frank, and then I’ll wrap up.
In the sequence of your question, I’ll start from the back, at the last point, the highlight. Basically, essentially, among other things of course, the last finding with regard to communication. A witty note, the Nobel laureate in physics, Anton Zeilinger, said in his Nobel Prize speech that what basically holds this world together isn’t energy, and isn’t time, but it’s communication. I’m fully with you, dear Yasemin. Probably the key competency par excellence in coaching, if it’s supposed to serve a self-reflection, a support of self-reflection, is exactly this way, this core competency, how I communicate, how I ask questions, and how I in turn formulate answers and ask as a further question — the absolute outstanding position. Heartfelt thanks again to everyone, also to you, dear Frank, and of course to Yasemin for the moderation, and a nice Friday to you all.
Yes, wonderful. Thank you so much, Frank.
I don’t really know right now. So, I’m really grateful that the topic was raised and that I had time for it today too. But for your terminology, the way you use it, I’ll probably really have to listen again once it’s online at some point. And I’ll have to listen to the previous or following conversations about it in the same way, somehow, because unfortunately, God knows, I won’t have time tomorrow, and however it continues, to be here live. But the possibility of speaking here about this, I found that really good today.
Yes, wonderful. Thank you so much. Yes, when the rooms build on each other, it’s always a bit tricky if you’re there in between and might have already missed important aspects that we’re building as foundational, so to speak, and working on one after another. All the nicer that there’s this podcast, where you have the possibility to actually listen in again, and tune in. Not just if you missed an episode, but also in the sense of repetition. I like to keep saying this, it’s really important, also in the sense of repetition, that means, the neural networks that get built up and strengthened here now, on whatever topics, only stay maintained if we keep making sure there’s repetition, so they don’t regress again, because you haven’t engaged with the topics at all anymore. So, in that sense it also makes sense for those who are regularly here to tune in again and again too. It doesn’t always have to be the whole episode, also insights from neuroscience — one quote is enough, one sentence is enough to reactivate the neural networks again too. It’s just important that we do it regularly afterward, and that’s why it’s always a nice opportunity to use the podcast for that too. Yes, and I’d like to build on what Jürgen said too. Oh yes, Frank, by the way, I was really happy to hear that you listen to the podcast in between too, and that you were here today. So, thank you so much for that feedback too. That’s not a given, and we don’t get enough insight into to what extent that actually gets used, or by whom it actually gets used. So I’m happy about that. Thank you so much for that feedback too, I’ll gladly take that with me and pass it on to the team too, because we all appreciate that. And then I’d like to build on what Jürgen said again, with communication. And we’d differentiated between communication with myself, so within me, the inner monologue, dialogue, whatever you want to call it. Then we have communication with others. And now another new component is added, at the latest with the market penetration of artificial intelligence, namely communication with the machine, so to speak, with artificial intelligence. And that’s a really, really exciting topic, and a topic for many too. We’re of course allowed to look at that both positively and negatively, in quotation marks, in the sense of the evaluation that then takes place afterward. At the same time, though, we should first look at it neutrally, primarily, in order to first recognize what that actually means, what’s actually happening on the market, and not lean back and say, I’ll wait and see, but really be active here too, actively engage with the topics, because communication with the machine, with artificial intelligence, will, and I’m really, really firmly convinced of this, and isn’t just going to be, but is basically already, a future skill, so to speak. So we’re allowed to work our way into that. That’s going to become much, much more. And in that sense we should engage with this topic too. That’s why I pinned a link up here today. On September 14th I have a talk on this topic, which also touches on aspects on one hand of the brain, and on the other hand the topic of artificial intelligence. So, if you have time on September 14th at 7pm to join via Zoom, feel free to register beforehand. It’s free of charge, and just use this opportunity, in case you haven’t engaged with it more intensively yet, to look at it here again too. For those who’ve already engaged with it more intensively, it’ll certainly still be interesting too, because the components, how our brain works, what that actually means in this combination, and so on, we’ll look at more closely here too. And in that sense I’m looking forward to maybe having one or another of you join online at this event on September 14th too, and being able to see you, I’m just happy about that. Right, and with that we continue tomorrow with methods of reflection. We’ve been waiting quite a long time for that already. So, I’m really, really curious. I hope the one hour is even enough. We’ll manage it, I think, hopefully. And specifically, what helpful reflection methods are there? That’s the question we want to engage with tomorrow. Gladly, if you have the time and inclination, already think about it beforehand, and gladly bring a few concrete examples too, or a few methods we can pick up too. So it’s also about the exchange — on one hand, what have I had good experiences with? And also to generate a kind of diversity here too, so that one person or another might get the desire to try out this or that for themselves, whatever seems fitting, in some context too. We have it recorded on the podcast too, so you can also listen in later, if you no longer remember exactly how that was. And then on Sunday, and I’d also gladly, because this connects here too, the digital campfire, where it’s about unvarnished stories at the digital campfire. And there I’d gladly like to open up reflection part 2. And specifically I’d like to also address improper application of self-reflection methods and possible dangers, because especially when it comes to methods, and so on, it’s often the case — I already mentioned this — there are books with various tools, and so on. And there are methods that are relatively uncomplicated, easy to handle, you can just try those out. But there are also methods you should maybe approach with a certain caution, if you want to apply something like that, and not just do it arbitrarily, even if it’s accessible online. And what that concretely means, what examples there are, how they differ, I’d like to look at that together with you again, and in this context bring in this or that real-life example too, to illustrate what possible dangers can be here, to also develop an awareness here too, in dealing with methods, both for yourself and for applying them with other people. In this sense I wish you well, I’m looking forward to tomorrow morning at 8am, and then let’s see where the room takes us. Until then, ciao!
