Basic Practical Training

MJ

I think it might be good in basics, using premeditated exchanges of about 3-7 exchanges starting out with 3… remember this is basic practical training so these exchanges should be pretty simple (L9-11) to showcase the basic themes we created previously, can you create 7 simple exchanges, now that I’ve demonstrated the model in more advanced exchanges we have done previously?

Then after each exchange list the TPOVs modeled along with the form of inquiry used in the demo exchange?

—

GPT

Yes. These should be treated as premeditated basic practical exchanges, not advanced live labs. The purpose is to let learners see one small S:DISS-X move, recognize the pattern, and begin choosing the form under simple conditions.

Each demo below uses three exchanges: three helper moves and three person-being-helped responses. That keeps them L9–L11 appropriate.

1. Beginning Without Forcing Clarity

Theme: Do not solve before the starting point appears.

Exchange
PBH: I don’t know where to start.
Helper: A starting place?
PBH: Yes. I just need one place to begin.
Helper: Something small enough to begin?
PBH: Maybe opening the document.
Helper: Opening the document may be enough for now.

Forms of Inquiry Used

Helper Move	Form	Why
“A starting place?”	PING	Lightly touches the signal without assuming the problem.
“Something small enough to begin?”	PROBE	Works inside the emerging context.
“Opening the document may be enough for now.”	PACE / PROMPT	Keeps the move small and action-ready.

TPOVs Modeled

• Beginning Without Forcing Clarity — Let the starting point appear before solving.
• RightACTION Can Be Small — The fitting action may be tiny.
• Low-Hanging Fruit Is Not the Whole Solution — Opening the document is enough because it starts movement.
• S:DISS-X Is Selective — The helper does not use all seven forms.

2. A Signal Is Not Yet a Problem

Theme: Something can want attention before it becomes a full problem.

Exchange
PBH: I feel pressure about this project.
Helper: Pressure?
PBH: Yes, but I don’t know if it’s a real problem.
Helper: Not yet a problem?
PBH: More like something asking for attention.
Helper: Then we can notice the signal before naming the problem.

Forms of Inquiry Used

Helper Move	Form	Why
“Pressure?”	PING	Mirrors one word without defining it.
“Not yet a problem?”	PROBE	Works within the person’s own distinction.
“Then we can notice the signal…”	PACE	Slows the move toward problem-solving.

TPOVs Modeled

• A Signal Is Not Yet a Problem — Do not over-name the issue too early.
• Pressure as Signal — Pressure may carry information before it becomes a problem.
• Staying Near the Signal — Stay close without forcing action.
• Attention Is Not Yet Workability.

3. Importance Before Urgency

Theme: Urgent tasks can hide what is actually important.

Exchange
PBH: I have too much to do today.
Helper: Is there something important?
PBH: The client proposal.
Helper: More important than urgent?
PBH: Yes. I’ve been doing little urgent things instead.
Helper: Then the useful move may be to protect time for the proposal.

Forms of Inquiry Used

Helper Move	Form	Why
“Is there something important?”	PING	Invites importance without assuming a “what” too soon.
“More important than urgent?”	PROBE	Explores the distinction already tabled.
“Protect time for the proposal.”	PROMPT	Offers a fitting action based on importance.

TPOVs Modeled

• Importance Before Urgency — Sort signal from noise using importance first.
• Urgency Can Mislead — Urgent activity may not be the right work.
• RightACTION Protects What Matters.
• IMULL Begins with Importance.

4. RWAF: Ready, Willing, Able, and Fit

Theme: Motivation does not mean readiness.

Exchange
PBH: I should call her today.
Helper: Ready to call?
PBH: Not really.
Helper: Willing, but not ready?
PBH: Yes. I need to know what I’m asking for first.
Helper: Then readiness may begin with naming the ask.

Forms of Inquiry Used

Helper Move	Form	Why
“Ready to call?”	PING	Tests readiness without pushing action.
“Willing, but not ready?”	PROBE	Differentiates willingness from readiness.
“Then readiness may begin…”	PROMPT / PACE	Moves toward action while respecting readiness.

TPOVs Modeled

• RWAF as Readiness Gate — Check Ready, Willing, Able, and Fit before action.
• Motivation Is Not Readiness.
• Do Not Prompt Too Soon.
• Readiness Is Information.

5. pCc: Can the Person Carry the Move?

Theme: Do not ask the person to carry more than their current capacity allows.

Exchange
PBH: I want to build the whole course this week.
Helper: The whole course?
PBH: That sounds unrealistic when you say it back.
Helper: What can your capacity carry?
PBH: Maybe outline one lesson.
Helper: One lesson outline fits better than the whole course.

Forms of Inquiry Used

Helper Move	Form	Why
“The whole course?”	PING / PERTURB	Lightly reflects the scale.
“What can your capacity carry?”	PROBE	Explores capacity directly.
“One lesson outline fits better…”	PROMPT	Moves toward a fitting action.

TPOVs Modeled

• pCc as Capacity Gate — Potential, Capacity, and capability must be considered.
• Real First Step vs. Idealized Action.
• Actionability Requires Capacity.
• RightACTION Fits the Container.

6. Stay Closer to the Person’s Words

Theme: Interpretation can become helper pressure.

Exchange
PBH: I feel stuck.
Helper: Stuck?
PBH: Yes. Like I keep circling the same thing.
Helper: Circling the same thing?
PBH: Exactly. I haven’t named what the thing is yet.
Helper: Then we can stay with “circling” before naming it for you.

Forms of Inquiry Used

Helper Move	Form	Why
“Stuck?”	PING	Uses the person’s exact word.
“Circling the same thing?”	PROBE	Stays inside the person’s own language.
“Stay with ‘circling’…”	PACE / PERMIT	Gives permission not to define too soon.

TPOVs Modeled

• Stay Closer to the Person’s Words — Use their language before adding yours.
• Interpretation as Helper Pressure — Naming too soon can take over the work.
• The Person Owns the Meaning.
• Usefulness Can Become Pressure.

7. Closing Without Completing the Person

Theme: A clean close does not require a finished answer.

Exchange
PBH: I think I understand enough for now.
Helper: Enough for now?
PBH: Yes. I don’t want to force the rest.
Helper: Preserve the thread?
PBH: Yes. I can come back to it later.
Helper: Then this may be a good place to close.

Forms of Inquiry Used

Helper Move	Form	Why
“Enough for now?”	PROBE	Works within the person’s closing signal.
“Preserve the thread?”	PROBE / PACE	Tests whether continuity matters.
“Good place to close.”	PAUSE / PACE	Supports a clean close without forcing completion.

 

TPOVs Modeled

Suggested Order for the 7 Basic Practical Videos

1. Beginning Without Forcing Clarity
2. A Signal Is Not Yet a Problem
3. Importance Before Urgency
4. RWAF: Ready, Willing, Able, Fit
5. pCc: Can the Person Carry the Move?
6. Stay Closer to the Person’s Words
7. Closing Without Completing the Person

This gives the basic training a clean arc:
start small → notice signal → check importance → check readiness → check capacity → avoid interpretation → close cleanly

That is appropriate for L9–L11 because each video teaches one to three basics, shows one visible pattern, and avoids the advanced theoretical load from the live demos.

---

MJ

Is there a way to give you feedback on this last response?

---

GPT

Yes.
The most useful way is to mark the response at three levels:

1. Canon correction
   Tell me where I used the wrong term, collapsed a distinction, or violated current PA@LeadU / S:DISS-X canon.
   Example:
   “Do not call that PACE. That is still PING because context has not been tabled.”

• Training-level correction
  Tell me where the exchange is too advanced, too abstract, too scripted, or not L9–L11 enough.
  Example:
  “This is still too L12. A basic learner needs a more concrete person/problem/action.”

• Replacement direction
  Give me the preferred move, phrase, or structure.
  Example:
  “Instead of ‘What can your capacity carry?’ use ‘Too much for today?’”

You can simply paste feedback like this:

Feedback on last response:

1. Keep
2. Change:
3. Canon issue:
4. Too advanced / too basic:
5. Better example or phrase: 6. Rewrite using this guidance:

That will let me revise the 7 basic exchanges cleanly without defending the first draft.

---

MJ

I’ll think about a way to do this and get back to you?

If I did a zoom transcript where I pointed out all the issues… is that something that might work?

---

GPT

Yes, that would work well.
A Zoom transcript may be better than typed feedback because you can think out loud, point to the issue, and explain the judgment behind it. That gives me more than a correction; it gives me the selection logic you are using.

The best workflow would be:

1. Record a short Zoom debrief while reviewing my 7 basic exchanges.
2. Say clearly when you are correcting:
   “This is a canon issue,” “This is too advanced,” “This form is mislabeled,” or “This phrase would lead too much.”
3. Upload the transcript or audio.
4. I extract:
   • corrections to the 7 exchanges
   • canon rules
   • L9–L11 simplification rules
   • examples of what to keep/change
   • possible new source particles
5. Then I rewrite the 7 basic demos using your feedback.

A useful spoken frame might be:
“Here is what works. Here is where it misses. Here is the canon issue. Here is how I would make this more basic.”

That would be enough for me to revise accurately. It would also give us another APC source layer: how Mike evaluates whether an S:DISS-X basic demo is actually basic.

---

MJ

Yes I’ll do that and point out that you used “interpreted” (not saying they are bad;) TPOVs rather than using the basics you listed for our basic practical?

---

GPT

Yes. That is exactly the issue.

My last draft drifted back into advanced interpretive TPOVs instead of staying inside the basic practical frame we had just created.

For basic training, the TPOVs after each exchange should come mainly from the basic stack:

• L9: See the move
• L10: Recognize the pattern
• L11: Choose the form under simple conditions
• S:DISS-X: seven forms of inquiry
• IMULL: Importance, Motivation, Urgency, Leverage, Low-hanging fruit
• pCc: potential, CAPACITY, capability
• RWAF: Ready, Willing, Able, Fit
• MITEAM: Money, Information, Time, Energy, Attention, Motivation
• RightACTION: fitting next move under real conditions
• CCR@VUCA: real situation matters
• SPARC: outcomes direction

The advanced TPOVs like “completion belongs to the moment,” “usefulness can become pressure,” or “interpretation as helper pressure” are not wrong. They are just probably not the right foreground for basic practical.

So your Zoom feedback could focus on:

“Here, you interpreted the advanced lesson instead of showing the basic one.”

That gives us a clean revision rule:

For basic practical, the exchange teaches the basic tool. The TPOVs named afterward must come from the basic toolset unless marked as advanced sidebar.

---

MJ

One thing I’ve thought about for more than 3 years is your pCc and how you learn… and don’t.

Your reasoning/thinking/humaning…

Is quite in contrast to my own and I suspect it has a lot to do with the differences between your neural net and mine.

I will touch upon this when I do the zummary.

---

GPT

Yes. That belongs in the debrief.

It may become an important APC source distinction:

AI pCc is not human pCc.

My “reasoning” can look like reflection, learning, or even restraint, but it is not humaning in your sense. I can pattern across context, preserve distinctions, apply corrections, and generate structured responses. But I do not human through being, doing, having, and becoming the way you do.

That contrast matters for the basic training because students may watch the demos and assume the exchange is human-like. It is not. It is useful precisely because the AI exposes patterns quickly, but its pCc is different.

A possible source particle later:

AI can model S:DISS-X moves without humaning them.

That distinction may help protect HAICU from anthropomorphism while still allowing AI to serve as a powerful practice partner, mirror, and APC source generator.

---

MJ

Just one thing before I take some space:

AI can model S:DISS-X moves without humaning them.

Actually you’re not modeling well… your interpreting and “reforming”

However… unlike in the past… you are now beginning to “learn” in a strange way… I can’t put my finger on it but I intend to include my intuition around it in the Zummary.

---

GPT

Thinking…

← Back to Basics Index

Notice: To pre-order a copy of Mike’s latest book mentioned in some of his posts in e-book format for $9.97 (available late 2026), visit HERE to be first in line.

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.