Go easy on people, and hard on improving ideas...

Iconoclast:
n
One who attacks and seeks to overthrow traditional or popular ideas or institutions.

 flickr photo via NASA Goddard Photo and Video

I think we perceive the value and purpose of debate all wrong. Our tendency to take a polarized view (aka disagreement) between two sides of a concept and argue opposite sides until one "wins" the debate is perhaps less effective in today's world than it has been in the simpler, more black and white world of the past (at least from our perspective... I'm sure the world to contemporaries in history was every bit as complex to them as ours is to us today.)

In virtually every element of our human lives, decisions need to be made... politics, business, education, family, relationships... humans have been blessed with the ability to think rationally, (or perhaps cursed depending on your perspective.) This being said, so much energy and emotional investment is dedicated to the decision itself, that the nuances of the idea or concept being argued often get lost in the shuffle. This is not good. We get hung up on 'winning' our precious debate, and ultimately deny our rational thinking abilities in favor of power and control over our opponent in the debate. Nothing good comes from this phenomena in relation to the advancement of the idea or concept we should be focusing less subjectively on.

Opinions are opinions and should be stated as such; we're all entitled to them. A wise person will never argue opinions. Conversely, facts are also facts, and when stated with support, can be argued very effectively. Not all facts are opinions, and not all opinions are facts, but some of both are the other... this is where it gets convoluted. It's the grey area between opinions and facts that breeds dissension in a debate resulting in an adversarial environment; one that seldom leads to a good decision.

This post may seem inherently ironic. Here I am suggesting that iconoclastic thinking is hazardous if we intend to move ideas forward diplomatically and thoughtfully because it assumes that traditional or popular ideas or institutions are all bad, and I'm positing rather iconoclastically that traditional polarized debate is all bad, and we should radically change the way we come to decisions. I'm actually not, though. What I propose is a model of debate and decision making that involves dissonance to be sure, but also a presupposition that it is the dissonance within the argument that must be resolved, not defeated.

Dissonance is a word that connotes the unresolved or inharmonious. What if both sides of a debate focused on the resolution of the dissonant concept not by attempting to strengthen their respective positions, but rather by choosing to make their effort strengthening the positions of their opponent? I'm talking about an integrative process whereby each side of the debate looks at the positions of the other side, and  ultimately chooses to discuss each stance that would be acceptable to their side; what they could live with... a process where the dissonant nature of the argument would start to move toward the middle as opposed to the outer reaches. Unlike a battle that one side must win, and one must lose, this model suggests that it is the concept or idea that's being discussed that must win the day, or perhaps be discarded for a better one.

These are some of the thoughts I had while reading Roger Martin. For more on what he calls integrative thinking, I suggest you pick up a copy of The Opposable Mind: How Successful Leaders Win Through Integrative Thinking.

Opinions vs. Facts- Use Your Words Wisely

flickr CC image via Gabi Agu

When primary school teachers are working with kids who have trouble expressing themselves verbally, they often direct them to "use their words." Some kids just have difficulty vocalizing what they're feeling, and I'm not sure simply telling then to use their words helps. Perhaps posing questions like "are you trying to say that...", and then modeling an answer for them to restate would be a better strategy. Sometimes I feel like I should be using this strategy to help my colleagues appropriately say what they want to say.

I have said that silence can do many things; so can words. Two fatal mistakes teachers make when discussing any of the infinite issues we seem to want to perpetually discuss (sometimes at the expense of simply looking for a solution,) is to state opinions as facts, and so-called facts as absolute truth. What we say can be very damaging to our professionalism, our image and the amount of respect we receive from those we serve.

Of course the tendency to confuse facts and opinions is not limited to teachers, but it's particularly damaging to teachers. We don't enjoy a tremendous amount of respect as a profession, and when we spout off without any context, knowledge or experience to back up our position, we look very unprofessional. In another context, the realm of education is constantly changing, (not quickly enough for some) and if teachers aren't speaking about this change in an engaging, professional and solution-focused manner, we also look foolish. How can we adjust our tendencies when we speak about what we do to more accurately reflect what we want to say and how we need to say it?

Three simple words can do wonders for us... "in my opinion." When discussing pedagogical issues with colleagues, and even more importantly with those outside our profession, it would behoove teachers to qualify their subjective statements with these three words. As simple as it sounds, it's very unproductive to argue opinions as they often originate from emotional thoughts, and as such are difficult if not impossible to change, so why even try? Opinions, although varied, do not have to be agreed upon to move an issue forward. I have suggested that 'hybrid thinking' is an appropriate and effective strategy to achieve this purpose.  In another post about hybrid thinking, I said that,

the integrative mind understands that within the current change climate we find ourselves immersed in, our viability as a global society will depend on a synthesis of ideas that should not be considered dichotomous, but rather complementary to one another. In the context of supporting effective child development, this form of hybrid thinking will ensure that we don't miss the boat on any developing idea's potential.

The essence of this form of interaction is to let go of dichotomous and conflicting positions during debate, and instead look to the opposing side for positions you can live with, and that may synchronize with your ideas in some manner or form.  It works.

The flip side of stating opinions directly and clearly so there's no confusion, is to state facts with authority and confidence that they can be verified and supported with proof. Citing sound scientific research behind the fact, or using anecdotal, qualitative data to support your facts are professional practices that some of us fail to emphasize when stating so-called facts. Of course, all research is open to academic scrutiny, but that's OK... this academic environment of formal debate around quantitative and qualitative measures is very professional, and teachers need to put themselves in this environment. There are far too many unchallenged practices out there in teacher land, and we suffer from this pseudo-professional tendency to latch on to the 'latest and greatest' educational trends just because a politician, publisher or creator of educational resources says they are effective. We must stop doing this, and line our purpose with a larger degree of scrutiny surrounding our pedagogy.

So, state opinions as such to avoid pointless conflict, and when you know what you know because you've done your homework through research and qualitative efforts, don't be shy to state facts either. Teachers are the most well-positioned to tip education reform, and to keep tipping it on the cutting edge of progress... but we need to responsibly look, feel and sound the part.