After Action Review Basic Class 6

A practical demonstration showing how helpers can become distracted by ideas, concepts, and explanations when the real task is to determine whether the idea belongs to the person, the request, or the helper’s own tendency to over-help.

Session Summary

Practical 6 focused on one of the more subtle challenges in helping conversations: the tendency to become captivated by ideas before understanding their role in the interaction. Throughout the session, Mike explored how helpers frequently assume that when a person mentions an idea, concept, solution, or possibility, the idea itself becomes the center of attention. The practical challenged that assumption and encouraged students to investigate the function of the idea before responding to it.

The session used an extended interaction with an AI assistant to explore the distinction between human learning and AI learning. Mike highlighted a response in which the AI stated that it could register corrections, preserve patterns, and adjust future responses, but that it did not learn in the same way humans learn. This distinction became an important point of inquiry. Human learning was discussed as a lived developmental process involving experience, meaning, emotion, identity, and change, whereas AI learning was presented as pattern recognition and adaptation.

As the discussion unfolded, Mike noticed a particularly interesting phrase generated by the AI: “First check whether ideas is the opening, the request, or the helper’s temptation to over-help.” This became a central teaching moment. Rather than treating ideas as inherently important, the statement suggested that helpers should first determine what role the idea is playing. Sometimes an idea is the actual topic. Sometimes it is merely a doorway into a deeper issue. Sometimes it becomes a distraction that allows the helper to demonstrate knowledge rather than understand the person.

The practical also revisited themes from previous classes regarding selective inquiry, interpretation, leverage, and fit. Mike emphasized that helpers often become identified with particular concepts and then begin coaching under the influence of those identifications. Once this happens, the helper may stop listening and begin pursuing the idea itself rather than the person’s experience. The result is often over-helping, premature teaching, or movement away from the person’s actual context.

Additional discussion explored Human-AI Concurrent Understanding (Haiku), APC, AGGI, Personal Operating Systems, and the Connectome. These concepts were not presented as beginner material but as examples of broader frameworks emerging from the inquiry process. Mike repeatedly returned to the importance of distinctions, noting that distinctions often create leverage because they reveal differences that would otherwise remain invisible.

The session concluded by reinforcing that inquiry should remain grounded in what is actually happening. Rather than immediately engaging every interesting idea that appears, helpers should first determine whether the idea represents the opening, the request, or merely their own temptation to become overly involved. This preserves fit, protects inquiry, and supports movement toward RightACTION.

Full Demo Exchange
To view – Click here

What Happened

The practical centered on an extended review of AI-generated responses and the distinctions they revealed about learning, inquiry, and helping.

Mike examined several AI statements and reflected on their implications for S:DISS-X, developmental learning, Human-AI Concurrent Understanding, and selective inquiry. Particular attention was given to the difference between human learning as a lived developmental experience and AI learning as pattern recognition and adjustment.

A key insight emerged when the AI suggested that helpers should determine whether an idea is the opening, the request, or the helper’s temptation to over-help. This observation connected directly to previous discussions about interpretation, leverage, fit, and inquiry.

The practical concluded by emphasizing that ideas should not automatically become the focus of helping conversations. Instead, helpers should first understand the role the idea is playing within the person’s experience and context.

S:DISS-X Forms Observed

IMULL Score

Overall IMULL Read

4.4 / 5

The strongest element was leverage. A single distinction—whether ideas are the opening, the request, or the helper’s temptation—created significant developmental value.

RightACTION Note

The RightACTION in this session was not generating more ideas.

The RightACTION was determining the role the idea was playing before responding to it.

This practical reinforced that helping is not improved by the number of ideas produced. Helping is improved by understanding which idea matters, why it matters, and whether it belongs to the person’s experience or the helper’s own interests.

Sometimes the most effective action is delaying action long enough to determine what actually requires attention.

TPOVs Surfaced

Reinforced TPOVs

New or Candidate TPOVs

Advanced TPOVs Mentioned

Suggestions for Improvement

• Add more beginner-level examples illustrating the difference between an idea and a request.
• Create a visual showing “Opening vs Request vs Temptation.”
• Include practical demonstrations using everyday helping situations.
• Clarify Human-AI learning distinctions with simpler examples.
• Provide additional examples of coaching under the influence.
• Add exercises focused on identifying leverage-producing distinctions.
• Reduce the number of advanced framework references during beginner sessions.
• Continue using AI responses as inquiry material because they expose useful distinctions.
• Include a short recap connecting this practical to earlier discussions about over-helping.

APC Source Candidate Notes

Candidate Source Title

The Opening, the Request, or the Helper’s Temptation

Source Type

S:DISS-X Practice Vignette / Foundational TPOV

Canonical Definition

The Opening, the Request, or the Helper’s Temptation is the helping principle that encourages helpers to determine the function of an idea before responding to it. An idea may represent the person’s actual concern, a doorway into a deeper issue, or the helper’s temptation to over-help.

Why It Matters

Many helping conversations become distorted when helpers automatically treat ideas as the most important element in the interaction. By first determining the role the idea is playing, helpers preserve fit, remain connected to context, and reduce the likelihood of over-helping.

The principle supports selective inquiry, stronger listening, better leverage, and more accurate movement toward RightACTION.

Do Not Collapse With

Do not collapse this with anti-intellectualism, avoidance of ideas, or refusal to explore concepts. The principle does not reject ideas. It simply encourages helpers to understand their role before organizing the conversation around them.

Join us,
Our team at Living & Loving Inquiry

Mike R Jay & Gary Gile
Founders @ The NEW LeadU

Subscribe @ leadu.com/news

PS: For clarification –

1. If you just want notice of the LeadU blog posts subscribe @ leadu.blog
2. If you want the blog content by email, our weekly newsletter, and breaking news, subscribe @ leadu.com/news.
3. Disclaimer

Mike R. Jay is a developmentalist utilizing consulting, coaching, advising and helping… emergent from dynamic inquiry as a means to cue, scaffold, support, lift, and protect; offering inspiration to aspiring leaders who are interested in humaning where being, doing, having, becoming, contributing, relating, guiding to produce resilience and wellth help people lead generative lives.