What a great article. I am definitely going to use this with my American Government seniors in my campaign unit coming up next week. Thank you for that thoughtful article.
May I suggest you "The Believing Game" one step further. Teach children about unconscious pressures to raise/lower their standard of evidence. I just published a paper on this topic: https://doi.org/10.1556/2055.2024.00049
Great points. Similarly, in conflict resolution situations, I had a great judge once tell a large group of attorneys in a multi-party case, that no case gets resolved when groups of defense counsel get together and tell each other how "right" they are. The case goes nowhere. Need to listen to all sides and try to establish some common agreements. Frequently there are.
I really like what you are doing and wonder if you suggest that we need not take sides when making assessments. This can be demonstrated by putting some usually positive or negative action in situations where "what's good" obviously needs changing. I'm guessing that both/and thinking would be improved by learning to reason abductively.
Of course, that all assumes that objectivity and truth exist, and can be found, or at least approached. Something the woke/pomos/left strenuously deny as part of their toxic ideology.
Thank you for a wonderful article and compelling arguments. Peter Boghossian's Spectrum Street Epistemology is similar and also accessible to middle school kids and higher. It might be nice to collect evidence of impact of this progressive pedagogy on your students' thinking. Pete and Noreen Facione's California Critical Thinking Dispositions Inventory might provide a way to do this.
I really like this approach. My family has diverse social and political views and when they get arguing some of us try to get them to try to see the other side. Sometimes I offer a less emotionally charged example to make it easier: Relatives get into heated arguments about schools teaching elementary school students sexually-related concepts, so I asked them to consider schools were teaching them alcohol-related lessons. It is still a sensitive topic for some relatives who do not drink but not as emotionally charged.
Most of the family considers the opposite view but some won't. One cousin likes to say "The Bible Says It; I Believe It; That Settles It." Fewer pay her attention anymore because most of us have noticed something. The opinions of those who consider the other side - and even acknowledge its strengths - are just much more interesting.
Those who share interesting opinions find it easier to discuss the more triggering topics.
What a great article. I am definitely going to use this with my American Government seniors in my campaign unit coming up next week. Thank you for that thoughtful article.
I would sign any of my kids or up for this class. I wish this was the norm. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't mind taking a class like this as an adult.
May I suggest you "The Believing Game" one step further. Teach children about unconscious pressures to raise/lower their standard of evidence. I just published a paper on this topic: https://doi.org/10.1556/2055.2024.00049
Great points. Similarly, in conflict resolution situations, I had a great judge once tell a large group of attorneys in a multi-party case, that no case gets resolved when groups of defense counsel get together and tell each other how "right" they are. The case goes nowhere. Need to listen to all sides and try to establish some common agreements. Frequently there are.
Loved this, thank you!
I really like what you are doing and wonder if you suggest that we need not take sides when making assessments. This can be demonstrated by putting some usually positive or negative action in situations where "what's good" obviously needs changing. I'm guessing that both/and thinking would be improved by learning to reason abductively.
Thanks, Laurie. Great stuff. And Peter Elbow is my educational hero!
Fine tools for fine teaching.
Of course, that all assumes that objectivity and truth exist, and can be found, or at least approached. Something the woke/pomos/left strenuously deny as part of their toxic ideology.
Sometimes things to have to be true to be useful ;D
Thank you for a wonderful article and compelling arguments. Peter Boghossian's Spectrum Street Epistemology is similar and also accessible to middle school kids and higher. It might be nice to collect evidence of impact of this progressive pedagogy on your students' thinking. Pete and Noreen Facione's California Critical Thinking Dispositions Inventory might provide a way to do this.
Thank you! Yes, I've been wanting to bring Boghossian's work in as well.
I really like this approach. My family has diverse social and political views and when they get arguing some of us try to get them to try to see the other side. Sometimes I offer a less emotionally charged example to make it easier: Relatives get into heated arguments about schools teaching elementary school students sexually-related concepts, so I asked them to consider schools were teaching them alcohol-related lessons. It is still a sensitive topic for some relatives who do not drink but not as emotionally charged.
Most of the family considers the opposite view but some won't. One cousin likes to say "The Bible Says It; I Believe It; That Settles It." Fewer pay her attention anymore because most of us have noticed something. The opinions of those who consider the other side - and even acknowledge its strengths - are just much more interesting.
Those who share interesting opinions find it easier to discuss the more triggering topics.