I have a weird realization. Congealing (concentrating) a bunch of discordant ideologies into one small cramped location does NOT lead to open-mindedness.
We hear all the time from obscure modern political floating heads that a mixture of differing ideologies is somehow good for the growth of society. Uh, are you sure about that?
This lofty ideal is supposed to be the basis of committee meetings and, indeed, it is supposed to be the foundation of democracy.
Thus far in my general education credit requirements, I have taken a Soc course, a Psy course, a Poli Sci course, a History of World Civ, and an Eng 102 argumentative writing. As you might imagine, this was concentrating a bunch of wildly differing opinions into a five-hundred cubic foot area of space.
In all these classes, a common thread or theme was woven through all of them. The majority of the people simply thought that [[[[that they should be heard, I have as typing opinion and I'm a strong capable person in charge of my own life, or something like that.
What was happening is that they did not listen to anyone else. No one wanted to hear what anyone else had to say. <They> had the aspiration that they wanted to be heard, but they didn't think anyone else should be heard. Each person thought he or she alone had the stage, and therefore did not need to afford anyone else much respect or attention. There was not a whole lot of the hypothetical, mythical, “ohh this person has a different opinion from my own, so I will be open-minded and listen to what they have to say. After all, it might broaden my horizons and help me grow my world view.” Nope, not hardly. Noone was really crazy about the idea that a sociopolitical opposite might offer new insights, etc.
Whereas interaction betwixt students was much more pleasant in the science courses. I've seen that there is much better cohesion amongst students in the hard science courses. It seems that that this is precisely because this is a science course, and not one of the social studies courses. There are definites, there are absolutes. There _is_ such a thing as a right or wrong answer. This does not leave room for any indignance, misunderstandings, hurt feelings, perceptions, taking something someone said the wrong way, inferring a different meaning from a speaker than what the speaker intended.
None of that miscommunication mess. So therefore there is no political disagreement, no taking things personally. All that leaves is the facts. All that leaves for students to engage in -- is cooperation.
We hear all the time from obscure modern political floating heads that a mixture of differing ideologies is somehow good for the growth of society. Uh, are you sure about that?
This lofty ideal is supposed to be the basis of committee meetings and, indeed, it is supposed to be the foundation of democracy.
Thus far in my general education credit requirements, I have taken a Soc course, a Psy course, a Poli Sci course, a History of World Civ, and an Eng 102 argumentative writing. As you might imagine, this was concentrating a bunch of wildly differing opinions into a five-hundred cubic foot area of space.
In all these classes, a common thread or theme was woven through all of them. The majority of the people simply thought that [[[[that they should be heard, I have as typing opinion and I'm a strong capable person in charge of my own life, or something like that.
What was happening is that they did not listen to anyone else. No one wanted to hear what anyone else had to say. <They> had the aspiration that they wanted to be heard, but they didn't think anyone else should be heard. Each person thought he or she alone had the stage, and therefore did not need to afford anyone else much respect or attention. There was not a whole lot of the hypothetical, mythical, “ohh this person has a different opinion from my own, so I will be open-minded and listen to what they have to say. After all, it might broaden my horizons and help me grow my world view.” Nope, not hardly. Noone was really crazy about the idea that a sociopolitical opposite might offer new insights, etc.
Whereas interaction betwixt students was much more pleasant in the science courses. I've seen that there is much better cohesion amongst students in the hard science courses. It seems that that this is precisely because this is a science course, and not one of the social studies courses. There are definites, there are absolutes. There _is_ such a thing as a right or wrong answer. This does not leave room for any indignance, misunderstandings, hurt feelings, perceptions, taking something someone said the wrong way, inferring a different meaning from a speaker than what the speaker intended.
None of that miscommunication mess. So therefore there is no political disagreement, no taking things personally. All that leaves is the facts. All that leaves for students to engage in -- is cooperation.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment