Discussion Pyramid

Below is a representation of the Discussion Pyramid which I have found to be useful working with groups and teams trying to reach agreement on some issue or proposition. I introduce it here because it is relevant to an upcoming post. It is relevant to children’s reading because much of the information that children imbibe is only beneficial to the degree that it is used and the Discussion Pyramid helps people organize their thoughts, facts and narratives towards some end which can be communicated with others who might not share the same assumptions or goals.

The faster we can determine where two parties disagree, the easier it becomes to determine what can actually be achieved. The Discussion Pyramid serves two functions. As a diagnostic tool, it allows a group to find where it is that they are talking at cross-purposes with one another, thus allowing them to resolve that which is most important. It also helps avoid unintended consequences arising when different parties understand different facts or assumptions differently.

The second function that the Discussion Pyramid can serve is as a prospective tool of determining how to make an argument or proposition. Given audience X, and what I think they know or assume, what are the elements of the story or analytical argument which I need to emphasize or elaborate and which ones can I skate over.

In both instances, the Discussion Pyramid functions to improve communication between heterogeneous individuals or groups towards some productive end.

The pivot point, at the top of the pyramid is some hypothesis, proposition or argument. Simply establishing the terms of the argument can be the bulk of the exercise. Many, many teams spend inordinate amounts of time working at cross purposes because they failed to establish a common and shared understanding of the argument.

At the base of the pyramid is the second most critical set of activities which is to inventory what are the assumptions, definitions, context, constraints, implications, measures, and trade-offs relevant to the argument. An example might be useful. Let’s start with a simple proposition – It is helpful to children to read a lot. Sounds straight-forward and uncontroversial.

But what do we mean by helpful? Fun, useful for something now, useful for later in life, etc.? Helpful to whom? Parent or child? What do we include in reading? Advertisements, comic books, traditional books, e-books? What is a lot of reading? An absolute amount (3 books a month) or a relative amount (more than their classmates)? These may sound pedantic questions but having a clear proposition which everyone understands saves enormous amounts of time. A refined argument might look something like: Habitual and voluminous reading during childhood encourages knowledge acquisition, empathy, and imagination and can foster desirable values and behavior traits which will increase the chances of a child being successful later in life (by such traditional measures as health, education attainment, and income).

So if that is the argument, what are some of the often unstated assumptions, context, definitions, constraints, implications, trade-offs, and measures. Several have already been alluded to. Define book, define reading, define success, etc. How would you measure voluminous reading? Pages per day, words per minute, books per month? Do assigned school books get counted or just books that are read electively. What is the context? Is the child in a reading family or a family of non-readers? Are they near or far from a library? Do they have the financial wherewithal to purchase books or not? Are there siblings? Are there extended family members? Is it assumed that it is an intact family or single parent? Much talking or little? Much schoolwork or little? Much time spent on TV, computer, activities or little? Is there much time that can be spent on reading? If more time is spent reading, what other activity will get less time? Is there a risk that if the child starts reading more enthusiastically that they will be the target of bullying? Etc.

Once the argument is established with clarity and once an inventory of assumptions, definitions, measures, etc. has been taken, then the five critical questions become much easier to answer.

Is it real? – What empirical evidence exists that supports the argument that habitual and voluminous reading . . . increases the chances of a child being successful?

Do we understand the causes? – Is habitual and voluminous reading actually causing success or are there traits associated with reading (focus, diligence, vocabulary, etc.) which are the actual enablers of success? What causes what?

Can we change it? – If a child is not currently an enthusiastic reader, what are the actions we can take which we are confident will successfully make them an enthusiastic reader?

Is it important? - Is enthusiastic reading associated with a 3% increase in future education attainment or income levels, a 30% increase, 300%?

Is it worth it? – Whatever the increase, is that anticipated increase worthwhile given the time, cost and effort that might be required to foster an enthusiasm for reading?

As you can see, most of the cognitive legwork is in clarifying the argument and then defining terms, measures, et al. Once those two major tasks are accomplished, there is still work to be done to gather the necessary information to answer the five questions but answering them is a very focused exercise. It is very common for teams to discover that their shared assumptions about the reality of something or their shared assumptions about causes are entirely misplaced. While that is frustrating, it also materially reduces risk.

The Discussion Pyramid is simply a tool for organizing activities, discussions and thinking in a fashion that will help people move towards clear communication, agreement and effective action faster and easier.