Dancing (Part II) – Agreeing on disagreement through a 3-gap model

[you may find Part I also interesting: Dancing Part I – the Artist and the Engineer]

Becoming a BETTER DANCER. Becoming a BETTER TEACHER. Becoming a BETTER HUMAN. Being people who love to dance at a professional or amateur level, we consider and reconsider from time to time all the above topics. There are also some inherent questions related to these... let’s call them desires.

Where to start? Which dance path or model is the best to follow? Whom I have to give my trust in order to receive personalised dance guidance? What does ”better” dancer/teacher/ human mean? And what a dancer/ teacher or dancing/ dance teaching even mean? Why become a better dancer/ teacher/ human (what is the in-depth motivation)? What are the real consequences of becoming a real dancer? How do you evaluate when you have reached your desired level? Which is the criterion to assess that better dancer you have become? Who is testing you: is self-assessment objective enough? etc, etc.

So many questions, so many dance challenges/ needs/ ’problems’.

In my case (a professional tango dancer, tango teacher, a dance artist and an ex-engineer), the inner artist has firstly realised that something was missing and I had to DO SOMETHING, thus I had to make a decision. In this process of decision-making I had to be aware that, in order to achieve my aims and my Dance LOs (learning objectives), avoiding my Dance LOLs, I had to:

1. See where I sat, where I wanted to go (why and what to reach and how),

2. Overcome my ignorance and my existing resources (cognitive and environment constraints), because “no problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.” (Einstein)

3. Allow me to ask for help externally/ internally and let me be helped (something seen as a week point in many cultures; but something that also means vulnerability, honesty and courage in many forms of arts, therefore, a strength).

The questions abovementioned (and their consequent challenges) may be understood starting from an engineer vision, a 3-gap framework:

1) The personal mental model (in my theoretical case, why/ what/ where/ when/ how I think to become a better dancer/ teacher/ human)

2) The best possible model (if exists!) (is there a pathway model, a successful general recipe or model to follow step-by-step for reaching my goal?)

3) The model utilised by other decision support systems/ agents (MAPP programme, technology, or other humans’ guidance) (this model can be integral, or partial, and assist you all along your journey or for only a small distance on your ongoing dance path/career).

For the ‘best’ decision (a utopia though! #theory of bounded reality) to be taken by me, I should analyse the differences between the three models, which should be all minimal. Little distances of the first two will motivate me, increasing adherence to my dance plan. The third model (like the one proposed by the MAPP dance programme) will bring me flexible guidance as well as model restrictiveness: that balance assures me that I have options, but not too many; I avoid confusion and I focus my energy in relevant distribution points. If the last two models (which are not only theoretical!) differ from my mental model, that will hinder my motivation, my adherence to the action plan and my personal enjoyment. I should then do an effort to analyse my way of thinking, my mental models, to think about how I think (#metacognition #epistemology). And consequently, do the right rationality adjustments (many times, how we see the problem IS the problem!).

Very often we interpret the information (data) in a way that confirms our beliefs and status-quo (comfort zone and cognitive safety/ certitudes). In my case, I must objectively monitor my tendency to rely mainly on what I have already learned and what I know for ‘sure’ in my dance reality/ realities (confirmation bias). To live more often in doubt, in the chaos that can be engineered and creatively modelled: expect the unexpected and have adaptive models of thinking, include or exclude relevant/ irrelevant dance variables to see what happens.

Using engineer-type models is not only for the sake of the outcome (become a better dancer/ person) but for the beauty of the process itself, shaping a “beautiful mind” in dancer’s body of organic beauty. That is why the Dance Artist and the Dance Engineer within me, both can agree, through this 3-gap model, especially when they don’t agree. That’s why I think the Master of Arts Professional Practice (in my case ‘Dance Technique Pedagogy’ as specialisation) is a friend, a good mental model to consider when I need to re-consider my dance. Victor Hugo said:

“Books are cold friends, but good ones.” 

Mental Models (with practical immediate effects) are cold friends, indeed, but good, reliable ones.