As I think about my entire school experience (including college), one thing that strikes me is how anemic the discussions were--not just because students didn't give a shit (although this is a large part of it), but also because there was an underlying assumption of academic neutrality--that all viewpoints are valid and worth discussing.
It may sound like a nice idea, but in reality, this is not how the world is: it's filled with real issues, with real consequences, and answers that are right and wrong--or at least, more and less beneficial. To treat controversial issues as merely topics for "playing discussion" is to completely miss the point of discussion in the first place--to get to the truth. There is a certain extent to which teachers make students feel like simply having an opinion is enough. It doesn't matter what the opinion is, as long as it comes with "supporting details."
People seem to interact in two different modes with respect to controversial issues, depending on whether they're interacting in person or online: When in person, many people (at least in the States, and perhaps especially in the Midwest, where I live) avoid any discussion whatsoever of controversial issues, particularly with strangers and also generally with anyone who might disagree with their point of view. People generally do not like to create a negative social environment; they don't like conflict. (I will say that, in my experience, people from some coastal areas, like California, Boston, New York, etc., tend toward the more direct, confrontational end of the spectrum.) If anything, people talk amongst their own group, with people who already share their point of view. Mostly, they're just looking for a sounding board for their existing preconceptions, not looking to rock the boat or challenge their own preconceptions or anyone else's. After all, it's uncomfortable to challenge others and be challenged. Even in my college classes, it was extremely rare for any student to criticize another student's idea directly during discussion, or for a professor to challenge a student's idea. I remember distinctly that only two of my professors ever responded to the essays I wrote by saying that they thought my thinking was wrong-headed, and those were the most helpful comments that I ever received.
The virtual space is obviously much different and I don't need to explain it very much. Online, people are much more willing to voice their disagreement with others, sometimes very uncivilly (probably because it's simply harder to be mean to someone when you have to see their facial reactions and suffer the immediate consequences of the breakdown of civility; in-person interaction feels much more vulnerable compared to the relative anonymity of social media). People are often not shy about disagreeing and challenging each other, and you might think that, theoretically, this should help to shape and sharpen people's thinking. However, it is extremely rare to see any positive result from all of this discussion: at best, everyone typically leaves with the same ideas they held before; at worst, everyone leaves even more polarized and radicalized than before. It is extremely rare to see people actually trying to get to the bottom of things: conceding each other's points, deciding who has the better points, drawing real conclusions... this is just not something that people do. Really, if we accept the idea that, for one person to be (more) right, another person must also be (more) wrong, real discussion should theoretically involve much more concession, negotiation, etc.
Is this just human nature? Or does our upbringing and school have something to do with it? I understand that teachers do not want to abuse their authoritative position to promote certain points of view--that such abuse is assumed to run the risk compromising the free, critical thought that school discussions are supposed to promote. And yet, paradoxically, it seems that by refusing to recognize any point of view as irrational or incorrect, teachers lead students to believe that all points of view are valid--again, that any opinion will do, as long as you have one. Anyway, if we really wanted to prepare students to enter the world of ideas and controversy and to be able to draw their own conclusions, why should we shelter them from real thought, treating them as though they don't have brains and can't think for themselves? At any rate, if all teachers were to be open and honest about their opinions, wouldn't the varying opinions from different teachers counterbalance each other?
Certainly school, whatever its effect may be, is only one piece of the puzzle. This phenomenon definitely varies greatly across cultures (and I do think it's a particularly American problem). However, I don't think school is helping us to become better collaborators in truth seeking.
Agree or disagree?
Submitted March 19, 2019 at 10:13PM by whichnamecaniuse https://ift.tt/2YaYPkv
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario