Context generates content. Therefore, content reveals context. If I see orchids (content), I’m not in a desert (context). Conversely, if I’m in a desert, I will not see orchids.
Context
Context is a Latin word: con = together, text = weave. I.e, context means to weave together.
Context is often invisible and in the background, which gives it its power.
Context and content in separation is difficult to interpret. Context gives meaning to content. We make lots of Assessments to make meaning.
The prevailing context can assimulate other contexts into it. E.g, this happens with prevalent moods in companies.
This seems obvious once pointed out, but we can fall into operating from a particular context habitually in everyday life without being consciously aware of it.
Examples of context:
- OAR and BEL are examples of contexts. This context will determine the content (results) that you generate.
- Who said something, the time and place where something took place.
- Countries have context. The same person could drive differently - obeying the speed limits etc in one country while disregarding them in another.
- Companies have context. If you’re in a company for a long time, it is a context that you can fit into.
- In coaching, disliking someone is a context. The key is to be aware of it and not allowing that to affect what you’re doing.
- In coaching, the content (what the coachee says) reveals context. If the issue of not enough time always comes up in coaching, a typical solution is time management skills. In ontological coaching, the coach listens for the context of “there is not enough time / money / …” - which becomes a very different conversation vs one about time management.
- Wanting to be right is normal, but this is a context. Because of wanting to be right, there is less openness to any new information that would make us wrong. E.g, no one wakes up and wants to be wrong.
- Likewise with the tendency to look for answers. Once answers are obtained, exploration tends to stop.
Example
I did this exercise in a teleclass from Newfield.
Try to interpret this statement in isolation:
I think that there’s a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right.
Some possible interpretations:
- This statement is qualitative / vague
- The statement is correct
- Statement is judgmental
- What does morality mean?
Given some additional information, interpret the following:
Interviewer: One of the criticisms of you is that your math is fuzzy. The Washington Post recently (2018) awarded you four Pinocchios
Interviewee: I think that there’s a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right.
Some possible responses:
- What’s the connection to morality?
- Is the interviewee a right-wing politician in the US?
Given even more information, interpret the statement:
The interviewee is Donald Trump
Some possible interpretations:
- Given my assessment of Donald trump, I’ll write whatever he said off completely. This dismissiveness could also show up elsewhere.
- This sounds like something Trump might say
Given one more piece of information: the interviewee is actually Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s, and this is the article her quote was from.
Possible interpretations:
- Feeling betrayed
- Surprise that this was from a democrat instead of a republican
- Finally have the answer (and therefore, this predisposes you to being less open to more information or being curious)
- Attempting to force this new information to fit into your original assessments