Dierdre Sholto-Douglas wrote:
>True, as far as it goes, but do you notice the one thing this
>style of instruction *doesn't* teach? Not to put too fine a
>point on it, but it doesn't teach the student how to deal with
>a confrontational situation.
This is so interesting, and so true. But my question is, does throwing a
student, unprepared, into a confrontation necessarily teach them any better
how to deal with the situation? What if the person sinks instead of
swimming?
I have undergone a few "trials by fire," although not, thankfully, very
many. These experiences haven't helped me one bit handle the situation any
better the next time. In fact, the memory of how horrible it was the
previous time gets in the way and makes the current situation even worse
than it might have been on its own.
(snip)
> People
>who have not been exposed to 'trial by fire' tend to have a nasty
>habit of either breaking down or freezing up when they're suddenly
>hit with something outside their experience. Neither response
>does their reputation any good.
But some people who *have* been exposed to "trial by fire" have this habit
as well, and the "fire" makes it worse, not better. Instead of teaching
anything constructive, it leads to a kind of mild post-traumatic stress
disorder-like or learned helplessness-like constellation of feelings. I am
not arguing against your point at all, that neither response does the
reputation any good. What I am wondering is, whether you have any
suggestions for those whom the "trial by fire" burns?
Karen
