C&L Book Chat: The Death of Why by Andrea Batista Schlesinger
By Nicole Belle Wednesday Jun 17, 2009 9:00am
Why?
Just a simple one-word sentence, yet it conveys probably the most anarchic, the most radical, the most provocative and the most democratizing thought in the world. The ability to question....no, the right and responsibility to question is the very cornerstone of our democracy. The Founding Fathers set forth programs and laid the groundwork to check the workings of our govenment by requiring it to answer to the people from which it was composed.
And yet, somewhere in the last forty years ago or so, we've lost our way. We, collectively as a nation, have decided that we needed to focus on the answers rather than ask the questions. We opt to live among others who share our values, rather than stand to have them questioned by other points of views. We select our media sources from those with which we share an ideological point of view, so our preconceived biases never are challenged. We pour money into the self-help industry, looking for someone to give us the answers that we seek, rather than do the hard work of finding our own path or questioning if we need measure our success in the same way. We gravitate towards politicians who appear to us to have the answers, even though the issues that face us cannot be "solved" by simple answers.
Our lack of appreciation of the power and value of questions leave us mostly disengaged from the democracy of which we're a part. Fewer and fewer people have any notion of how government works and that lack of engagement enables life-changing legislation to get passed with little public discussion.
Where did we lose our way? When did questioning stop being an act of democracy and become unpatriotic? How does this bode for our collective future as another generation is raised with fewer skills to look deeper at issues and analyze and synthesize information to consider solutions? Drum Major Institute's Executive Director Andrea Batista Schlessinger looks at this issue in her new book The Death of Why and she joins us here today to discuss it.
It is Andrea's position that so much of the policy debate is won in the framing. How are issues discussed? Through what lens do we approach debates about government and its role in our lives? Are we creating the capacity/will/desire in our young people to question? Are the tools that we give children to learn actually limiting their ability to really think?
These are questions that go right to the heart of where we find ourselves today and some fairly frightening prospects for our future if we don't reintroduce the value of questioning to the next generation.
Please welcome Andrea Batista Schlessinger to C&L and let's discuss The Death of Why:
Login or Register to post comments.
Thank you so much for being here.
Thanks! I'm really glad to be here. My first book chat!
We'll be gentle, I promise.
While we give the C&Lers a chance to catch up to the new post at the top of the page, let me just say that I found that the subject of The Death of Why was very near and dear to my heart, not only in how it applies to my blogging career, but also in my function as a parent and part-time teacher. I think that the shift in our culture to value having answers above learning to think critically has significantly led to the dumbing down of the populace.
What spurred you to write The Death of Why?
Well thanks for saying that.
I wrote the book because I'm obsessed with questions. And because I honestly believe that we've become an answer obsessed society, and that this does not bode well for the progressive movement.
As I worked with and observed young people, as well as our changing culture, I began to become concerned that we weren't cultivating the value of inquiry. And I wanted to explore this. So I considered this book my exploration.
I'm gonna get that book!
So..here's my question...
Do you think, that given the current political climate in the US today, do we the people even have a say anymore in how our government operates?
Because, I tell ya...I'm not very pleased with things the way they are now.
Well, that's a good question. I think that there is a strong disconnect between people and their government. I think this is aided and abetted by this broader cultural shift, and how it reflects in public policy, some of which I write about in the book.
I would venture to say, that very few politicians do more than pay lip service to the people...they say what we want to hear, then as soon as they get into office, it's to hell with the peasants, let them eat cake kinda BS...I'm becoming quite tired of it.
It really examines the way in which our culture discourages questioning and participation.
I'm reading "Lies My Teacher Told Me" right now...also a good read.
n/t
and is mentioned in that book as well.
Where did we lose our way? When did questioning stop being an act of democracy and become unpatriotic?
Very easy to answer. The answer is very clearly pointed out in the last three books written by one of my heroes, John Dean.
It happened when we allowed authoritarians and their enablers to hijack all objective political discussion in this country.
I write in the book about our presidential debates. I don't know about you, but I had mixed emotions during this year's debates. ON the one hand, I was so happy to have two presidential candidates who were capable of critical thinking (how did we sit through debates with W.?). On the other hand, the questions were scripted -- in fact, everything was scripted, down to where the water glasses went and the height of the chairs. My feeling was that the debates themselves didn't create a sense that questions mattered to our political process. Unfortunately, this is only one example.
Americans love scripting. They want a clear beginning, plot and ending. Everything has been contrived around the limited attention spans created by the non stop onslaught to our senses by mass media, advertising, etc.
Bottom line. Americans have forgotten how to think.
...or worse...we've been programmed NOT to think.
to believe that dissent is evil.
I like that characterization. I think that really what got me into blogging here: my frustration that I didn't see honest discussions taking place in the media and to question that was considered unpatriotic.
Let's start with kind of the underlying principle in killing our ability to question: The Big Sort. What is “The Big Sort”? Although not officially included in the description of the Big Sort, you posit that the means by which people get information is also subjected to a media Big Sort as well. How do you see this self-selection and isolation affecting Americans?
I start the book by interviewing psychologists who study children. I wanted to understand how we cultivate inquiry in infants. And the number one lesson? Children learn to question when they bump up against the unknown. I think that as we segregate ourselves -- I call it, by click or clique in the book - in a way that keeps us away from the unknown. And this has a negative impact on our desire and inspiration, frankly, to question.
At least, through observing my kids and the kids I teach. They are naturally curious, and as long as they get the message from the adults in their world that this is an acceptable behavior, they continue to question as they grow to understand their world.
But we tend to suppress that inquiry in kids, don't we? "Because I said so!" doesn't really foster a continued love of questioning.
also tends to inhibit inquiry. Follow ups become pointless. Then you just give up. Much like the MSM.
They LOVE stupid questions, because then they can get stupid answers which are great tv but add nothing to real debate. Which is Andrea's whole point.
It makes the lowest common denominator seem mainstream and drags everyone else down to their level.
inhibiting inquiry in children.....
it's the MSM L&P was talking about...children seem to be a bit smarter that the MSM.
Hi Andrea, thanks for coming out and participating in this discussion with us.
You spoke of segregation by click or clique, how would you characterize the influence the Internet has had on political discourse in this US?
You know, I expect that I'm going to get some negative feedback from progressive bloggers who don't take kindly to my assertion that those who stick to learning about the news and talking politics strictly through the lens of those whose politics they share is problematic. I imagine I will. But I think it is worth talking about that we can spend all day online and not encounter an opinion that we disagree with. This doesn't mean that people like me, and you, who spend a lot of time on progressives blogs don't think critically. Of course we do. But as we spend more time in these places, and less time on general news sources as the newspaper dies, I do wonder about our ability to question ourselves and create dialogue with those across the spectrum.
Very salient point. Thank you for making it. I have so often found myself thinking about and wondering about the same thing.
Echo chambers can only be so productive. People share links and knowledge with one another but mostly with those of a similar mindset.
I see it as a serious limitation.
How does one get published now days?
I've written loads of short stories and cartoons only to get them turned down, presumably sight unseen.
I'm currently working on a novel 1992-1995, resumed editing 2008, but then I figure, why bother?
There are plenty of resources online for that information.
Well, I was lucky. I have a great publisher: Berrett_Koehler. I worked with them on every step of the process from the proposal to today. Took about two years. I do think a lot of is relationships. I also was encouraged and helped by my friend Rinku Sen, who wrote a book The Accidental American with Berrett Koehler. So try talking to someone who has had success.
Andrea - thanks for being here.
I had not heard of your book before reading this, but the blurb in this post raised an issue for me that I was glad to see you seem to have addressed.
As described in the post, "It is Andrea's position that so much of the policy debate is won in the framing." I wanted to ask about this from the perspective of "how do we fix this?"
I think this "framing" issue has a calamitous effect on the country as a whole, and often leads to some of the most dangerous and irresponsible behavior in our political arena. Some recent prime examples of issues/policies suffering from the triumph of framing over substance (as I conceive of the issue): Terry Schiavo, the War on Drugs, Iraq War Funding,Immigration, Prison Reform, Global Warming/Climate Change, Don't Ask Don't Tell/Gays in the military, and, especially, the current debate over torture and the treatment of detainees.
These are areas in which I believe our country has been harmed and continues to be harmed by the way in which the public debate has taken place - by the movement of the Overton Window in which we frame which arguments are acceptable and which arguments are "fringe" in the public discourse.
Do you have any suggestions for how we might combat the whole political process of framing the debate and start to move public discussions back into an arena in which facts matter more than flash?
I know that is kind of a ridiculous question - but it is also, in some sense, the only one that matters, so I figured I had to ask.
SChnick - I'm currently on a leave of absence from the Drum Major Institute, which I led for seven years. A lot of work was about how we frame issues to build the broadest possible public support for a progressive position. I don't think framing is optional. Framing is the story that we tell. It's the lens that we offer. And everyone sees life through the lens. I believe that it is possible to both think strategically about the lens -- and that's the job of strategists and operatives like myself -- and to enable people to think deeply about the issues at stake. Both are possible - we have to do them at the same time.
I don't mean to offer a blanket condemnation of the integrity of those people - strategists, operatives, concerned citizens alike - engaged in the process of framing debates.
But I think the concept and the strategy of framing often leads to some real ugly conclusions - such as a strategic focus on building a "Permanent {insert party of your choice here} Majority." Thus an individual issue, right or wrong, is subverted to some grander goal, whose real purpose serves no objective good if it is not to objective address the issues. A Democratic majority that exists primarily to perpetuate a Democratic majority is useless. Same for Republican, Libertarian, Progressive, Green Party - any of them.
Sorry if I seem to be talking in circles - I am not being very eloquent today.
I don't think for a minute that Andrea suggests anything of the sort in the book. In fact, I tend to roll my eyes at anyone who uses that phrase, because quite simply, they have absolutely no grasp on history if they think that's possible.
But it is true that he who sets the framing, wins the debate. It's the same as asking leading questions in a court of law. You lead others to the conclusion you want by framing the debate to benefit you.
The value of inquiry allows you to question the integrity of the framing and forces the other to defend his view from a divergent point of view.
Like I said above, I don't think I am explaining my question very well. I didn't mean to imply that Andrea was suggesting that.
I think my problem/issue/question is related to the fact that the framing has taken on importance completely out of proportion to its relation to the issue.
I am not, in any way, trying to imply that I have a solution for what I am asking about, nor am I implying that people who engage in framing are, de facto, the problem. As I see it in my head, and am obviously not doing a very good job of communicating, framing is what gets people to the table - it is how you engage people to become interested in your issue - and provides a set of answers to common questions and assumptions for the discussion around the issue.
But it should not be what wins the debate. Framing is the surface of an issue, it is not the issue. As I understand what is being discussed in the rest of the posts (in general far more well-thought out than my own poor attempts here), Andrea has captured and analyzed some of the discontent with why [sic]people do not continue to ask "Why?" once the framing is stated, processed, and understood.
It is thus with the eternal Process Story that American Politics has become - I am asking "why"?
Why is it unacceptable to introduce the concept of legalizing Marijuana into a Presidential Forum without being ridiculed by the President? Why is it unacceptable to discuss Prison Reform without being labeled soft on crime? How on earth did the Republicans come to the conclusion that torturing federal law to mandate federal review of the Terry Schiavo case was an issue that would benefit them?
I feel like in these three cases, as in many like them, the "framing" is a prime culprit in making the quality of the political discussion as toxic and disappointing as it is. That is what my question is about.
I don't want to "question the integrity of the framing" - I want to discuss the issue itself - and the omni-present framing and process discussion is getting in the way.
Sorry if I seem argumentative or belligerent - I am just excited to see someone addressing a question, or a part of a question, that has been bugging me for a while.
Seems to me there's a dearth of religious questioning now days: some may call such questions superstitious, and others heretical.
One of the most glaring examples of the death of inquiry has to be in our school system. With NCLB, our schools are often forced to literally teach answers to test questions (“teaching to the test”) instead of teaching critical thinking skills and teaching children how to find answers for themselves.
Ironically, this reminds me of a story a very respectable attorney told me about failing the Bar exam the first time out. He said that he tried to show his skill in applying the law by coming up with creative defenses and arguments. But then he discovered that the Bar wasn’t interested in arguing prowess. He downshifted the next time he took the Bar exam to simply regurgitating case law, and passed the Bar with flying colors!
What do you see as the larger manifestations for the future, when our education system merely looks for regurgitated answers rather than analysis and synthesis thinking skills?
What would be a typical passing answer to a CIA exam?
I could answer that, but then I'd have to shoot you?
Andrea, what role, if any, do you think our educational institutions play in breeding incuriosity?
I think they play a huge role. The biggest chunk of my book is about schools. I characterize the situation as the result of a fundamental question that has gone unasked: do our schools serve to produce citizens, or consumers and workers? The answer will determine how you structure schooling, what your expectations are, how you measure success. Success today, in my view, is based on how we can best prepare workers and consumers. So cultivating curiosity is viewed as secondary. This is, however, a huge mistake, as employers and others will say that they can't find prospective employees with the critical thinking skills required to make it in our new economy.
You pay special attention to the lack of civics education as a crisis point for children not learning the basic functioning of our democracy. Certainly, civics education has declined since the Vietnam era, but was dealt the final death knell by the Bush administration.
Ironically, at the same time that they were eliminating the funding for civics education, Margaret Spelling, Bush’s Education Secretary, was crowing about the success of “trickle down” learning of civics in NCLB curriculum.
Can you speak to the reality of the decline of civics education, and why it’s so important and how the Bush administration missed the boat in their attempt to positively spin it?
I have been discussing this very topic with a friend, who lectures at a few universities...I sent her the link to this particular thread, I hope she gets it in time to check it out.
Civics is essential to preparing young people to question their democracy. Like Project Citizen, an initiative of the Center for Civics Education. It teaches young people to navigate their local democracies in the effort to create change in their community. Civics requires attention. Preparing for citizenship requires attention. We used to put more attention to these notions because we thought that the schools served to prepare citizens. Not so much anymore. My hope is that civics will fare better, but unfortunately, I haven't heard President Obama say a thing about civics, during his campaign or since his victory.
...of programming? Of fear? Of apathy?
it just stops you from asking the questions.
Truth can always withstand questioning
That argument is one that I make about schools. These right wing folks from the Manhattan Institute, like Sol Stern, are raising huge fits about schools like the School for Democracy and Leadership in BRooklyn New York, that teach young people to engage in their communities. He calls this "social justice" education; I consider it modern day civics. He thinks such activities are lefty propaganda. My view is that our democracy can always handle questioning - even from young people, and especially from young people. There's a real right wing resistance against this. Not surprising.
They can't raise an army of uneducated cannon fodder for their holy wars, if people get a buncha book larnins.
►[ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGOcKzhFmg8 ]
If ya get a chance? (10:04) :)
"The Birth of Whateva"
SChnick - I'm currently on a leave of absence from the Drum Major Institute, which I led for seven years. A lot of work was about how we frame issues to build the broadest possible public support for a progressive position. I don't think framing is optional. Framing is the story that we tell. It's the lens that we offer. And everyone sees life through the lens. I believe that it is possible to both think strategically about the lens -- and that's the job of strategists and operatives like myself -- and to enable people to think deeply about the issues at stake. Both are possible - we have to do them at the same time.
you don't like my title???
♥
LOL. Yes, I do, but I think mine illustrates more the general flippancy of our culture when it comes to thinking about very important ideas that don't seem to have an immediate relationship to one's own bubble of interests.
n/t
will ask the question and wait for a response then overcome the objection by responding to the clients answer. The media is trained to only ask a question to get the response they want. You as a client do not have the opportunity to respond with an objection.
Another danger of the lack of inquisitiveness is ironically the vast amount of information available to us via the internet. You point to Google (although, obviously not limited to that single search engine) as reducing young people’s ability to truly research any more.
This seems counterintuitive on the face, but really has surfaced in my own dealings with children doing research for papers. Can you explain how Google and the like are de-skilling children in research?
I think that there is a dangerous cycle taking place. Young people need an answer, they type in some terms into the search box, they take the first three responses that come up, print, rinse and repeat. I've read the studies that monitor the searching behavior of children, and there are a lot of danger signs. Children don't take the time to formulate their question. They don't discern - a key aspect of inquiry - by evaluating the information they receive. They don't then take the information they get back from Google or wherever, analyze it, and decide what is relevant and what isn't. Children believe that the search engine "understands" them and their question, and will only give back what they need. Search engines are an essential tool - of course - but we have to train young people to use them as tools, not as the devices that render answers.
I remember having to research things utilizing a card catalogue.
The bane of my existence for years!
All the paper cuts...and the dust mites GAH!
The Sears X-Mas catalogue. :)
I interview a librarian in the book! You'll enjoy that chapter. She talks about how the card catalogue actually required more critical thinking skills than the search engines of today.
wondrous...
It also does not build intellectual curiosity...it makes us humans even lazier and more anti-social than we already are.
One thing I found interesting in the old style research is sometimes you didn't find what you wanted, but found something even better.
I remember once in college having to do a research paper on the Scarlet Letter, when every College English class as well as High Schools must've done the same, so most on the books on the subject were already gone. There were large gaps on the shelves.
So I quickly analyzed the story in my head, and pulled books on comparative religion, history of Puritanism, the psychology of Depression etc., and got an A.
I did something the teacher wasn't expecting in presenting a Hester Prynne who was somewhat selfish in her self-imposed martyrdom.
If you haven't seen them before, all three of James Burke's Connections series are up on YouTube. They're the ultimate in tangential history.
I will own them all one day!
Somewhat over wrought, but interesting.
I've seen it with my own kid.
They take the top 3 hits on their keyword search as the extent of the research, without looking critically if that's really going to help them.
Why? ;)
We probably, at some point, did it ourselves, the only difference being that we were using card catalogs and microfiche.
My kid hates it when I read rough drafts of his papers because I'll critique them much more keenly than will his peers. He doesn't think it fair that he does all that work only to hear dad ask, "What the hell does this paragraph have to do with anything you're talking about?"
They tend to start to get it after a while. Be patient. ;D
very thing...
trying to stop doin it too...but damnit, it's so much easier to be lazy!
:)
Moi?
I'm already goin, I'm the new tour guide.
Thread ~~~~~ formatting distortion I'll presume?
PS. I'll bring the marshmallows' :P
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGc5iWuUNDs
That is scary, I repent!, I repent!
Now that Bob Guccione is getting up in years he's starting a new magazine
Repenthouse.
But you always was a smarty.
GIGO... ↔
I also believe that the search engines are redefining our relationship to questions. And, frankly, our understanding of curiosity. I spend time on this in the book because I struggle with it. Do we become more curious because of Google? Or do we just change the types of questions that we ask?
Couldn't Google be part of dividing us all into our own little enclaves?
I do think that our media, like politics, has begun to use questions as a device. That isn't inquiry. That's a distortion of the intent of real questioning. I write about my experience on Lou Dobbs where the question was always a statement, always. Reminds me of that saying - When I want your opinion, I'll give it to you. In the book I talk about other times and places where we saw more questioning in the process.
...to the TEDTalks. :D
From your lips to god's ears...
Hi, Andrea, thanks so much for this book, and thanks for coming to C&L.
We shared duty on a panel on violent rhetoric last year at Netroots Nation. Now that we've had this spate of predicted right-wing violence (and more to come), I'm wondering if you think that the right-wing framing on this -- these are just "isolated incidents" that we had noooothing to do with! -- is going to be successful.
Hi David! Great to "see" you again. I'm not sure I can predict where this frame is going to go. I think it does depend on the progressive movement's ability to offer a counter narrative and the background and statistics to back it up. Ultimately, though, I think we transcend right-wing framing when we enable people to feel connected and engaged enough to ask questions. Of course I'm going to say this, considering my book, but I genuinely believe it. A lot of the work we did at DMI was trying to connect people to policy in the belief that this would increase their support for progressive policy approaches.
Just today at lunch I was reading trying to discuss articles I read in the NYT during break: I mentioned new genetic research undercutting an earlier one on the connection between seratonin and depression, as well as the Iran demonstrations, and no one seemed interested. They probably wonder why in general I say nothing at all.
While on the bus, I'm usually the only one reading the paper, or currently Darwin's Descent of Man, while everyone else seems to be talking on cell-phones or playing games on them, or occassionally reading the Bible.
In my chapter "What's black and white and dead all over" I write about the importance of preserving a culture of reading the print newspaper. I helped create a program, DMI Scholars, that prepares young activists from across the country to pursue policy careers. I start the day with them at our summer institute teaching them how to read the newspaper. I write about this experience in the book. I think it genuinely opens them up - I know it affects them personally because they are so proud to learn how to fold the paper, and they write me, even a couple of years later (the program is new), to tell me that they continue to read the paper. It gets them out of the habit of just clicking on what they want to learn about, and allowing themselves to be surprised by what they find. Without serendipity, we cannot truly have inquiry. That sounded far more pretentious than I intended...
I'm one that doesn't want to see the traditional newspaper die. On line, I tend to in effect channel-surf for whatever briefly catches my attention, whereas with a paper I might read an article I might otherwise overlook, like in the business section, and it seems relevant. I think it's actually having something tangible in my hands.
on or in your HDD and or storage compartment(s)? ;)
I feel the exact same way, ybs.
Do you think they invented "Books on CD"? I forgot to welcome you and thank you for your time... Consider it done. ;)
certain factions of capitalism do routine business with the strategy of deception. this business of deception doesn't want question(s) of why. they want a "Just Do It" mentality. deception has been a
strategy of survival and continues at very sophisticated level(s). linguistic framing is used against and for people. your lead to believe that if you ask( why?) you'll miss an opportunity. to me the question started to get in the way of capitalism during the industrial revolution. presently corporations/financial elites have successfully taken "we the people" out of the process in order to enhance speculation and predict human consumption. critical thinking was commonplace it's now left to others.
I am sorry I have not read your book yet.
When did the death of WHY begin?
First with the class struggle which has always existed but changed dramatically with the age of fossil fuels, Capitalism and industrialization.
In America, in the recent modern era, that is post World War II, the class struggle morphed when the Oligarchs pushed back against the Social Democracy that have developed in response to the Great Depression but was in stasis during the war.
The Oligarchs created the National Security State, the CIA, the Military Industrial Complex and Perpetual War to keep the war bucks flowing.
The Perpetual War that we still have today.
They created the freedom to consume, the freedom to shop and stifled the freedom of an alternative vision.
The propaganda against anyone who asked 'Why' was vicious.
Your thoughts.
Alice X...
Spot on, as usual.
for doing this chat. My question - do you feel that this lack of inquiry is any worse in the political realm than it is anywhere else? This is purely anecdotal, but just on a personal level since there are so many questions that don't need to be answered by a person (i.e. I can ask Jeeves or Google) that people generally have less patience for inquisitiveness.
In the book i write about three "theaters" in which I think this stuff plays out - in our culture, in our politics and in our schools. I don't know that one wins over the other. In our culture we see an ideological segregation that inhibits our ability to ask question, a media that opines rather than report, and of course, the rise of the search engine. In the schools, as I write above, we see a movement away from viewing curiosity as a value that must be cultivated in schools if we want to raise people who can succeed in our democracy. And, of course, our politics.
I think we have to distinguish between the kinds of questions that Google can answer, and the kinds of questions that force us to analyze, synthesize, etc. As I write in the book, with the INternet, we think we can just locate truth. But we have to construct it.
I ask the same thing about the popularity of the Jonas Brothers.
The newest buzzword in educational circles is teaching children “financial literacy”, as if somehow the economic crisis in which we find ourselves would have been mitigated or avoided if more people understood how to balance a checkbook.
But you point out that there are some very big corporate names getting on board to teach our children financial literacy…but maybe not with the same hopes that parents like myself might have. Can you elaborate?
Sure - though my fingers are growing tired. Lots of questions! In my chapter, No Piggybank Left Behind, I write with alarm about this growing movement to teach young people financial literacy in the schools. My view is that the movement is funded by those who most want young people to accept the market as it is.
Because I'm here among friends, I have to tell you about one thing that just drives me nuts: there's an annual survey undertaken by a financial literacy group. The questions that they ask to assess if young people are "financially literate" are, in my view, dangerous. Like, David works at a factory. What is most likely to happen if his state raises taxes? The answer is, of course, that the factory will move to another state. Whose agenda are questions like this serving?
that's some serious propaganda!
This country is so damn screwed up...
My problems with "Financial Literacy" is will they teach to the test too, and will we have even more people making false analogies between government spending and chequebook spending?
instilling the ability to think for oneself are two critical things we must teach our children. Our reliance on TV is making idiots out of most of us.
It's not just political, or even philosophical. In school we learn to answer–-if not to ask–-WHO, WHAT, WHEN, and WHERE, but almost never WHY.
WHY did Hitler rise to power?
WHY should I find the square root of 81?
WHY are humans self-aware and curious?
WHY did life begin?
Some of my favorites:
o Is this gonna be on the test?
o What is this good for anyway?
o Can I use that tomorrow?
Is it TRUE!
on the right who will not dialogue with you. this is the most frustrating thing I have confronted in my 60 yrs of life. I say here is my opinion now tell me yours ..silence. I say show me where you get you information , okay , here's why I disagree ...silence. Maybe its my fault but when they reference The Gang Of Fox, Malkin, Limbaugh, or Blackfive , "I Ask Why"...silence or you wouldn't understand and that is generally when I become very counter productive to my query. I'm talking friends for many years and they have always known where I stand but the most I get from them is " I'm not that political " I just vote.
my rightwing friends down here, LOVE to debate with me. I can't get them to shut up!
until they change their mind!
thanks for joining us on C&L.
Thank you. This has been terrific. I just wish I could type faster!
The nastiness of the debate is probably one reason why people are segregating themselves. The right is thoroughly demonizing anyone not on the far right and they see defeating them as a sacred mission. The major mouthpieces for the far right can't even interview someone without insulting them, shouting them down, silencing them ("cut his mike"), etc.
How do we get engage with people who won't even conform to basic norms of civility?
We're running out of time, Andrea, and I don't want to monopolize it too much, but going back to the self-selection of people towards the media, one of the features of this new media is one we at C&L rail against daily: the supplanting of the reporter with the pundit. There’s little investigative reporting on news programs and most cable news shows fill their content hours with pundits (who may or may not have some expertise in the area) asserting opinion as fact.
This was not always the way it was. I was really struck by your example of George Denny’s televised town hall meetings…can you describe Denny’s approach to issues of the day?
The internet has supplanted the town hall to an extent. I’ve taken part in several “townhall” online meetings myself, though because it is the internet, they are somewhat less civilized. Can you foresee the internet being used as a tool to bring back civilized (but disagreeing) discourse?
Yes! I can. In fact, I think that we can use the Internet to model deliberative democracy. I don't have one answer for you on that - the book isn't so much of a how-to, as you know - but I think that we first have to acknowledge the problem before we can fix it. Groups like AmericaSpeaks, which I profile in the book, are working to do town hall meetings online, engaging people in discussions WITH stakes - where people have to come together and talk and question each other and themselves in order to come up with the ideas that will influence their communities.
What do you recommend to parents like myself to foster a love of questioning and inquiry in children? How can parents take a more active role in schools to enable teachers to foster a love of inquiry in their students?
You save the hardest for last! I think realizing that inquiry is important is a first step. As I write in the book, children will feel safer to explore new things when they have an attachment to at least one adult. YOu dont' have to worry about that. Ultimately I think it's about praising children for their effort in discovering what's out there, not just in getting the answer "right." And, as for schools, force them to offer a civics class!
I have taught my son to ask one simple question..."Why?"
Which is where this discussion began.
Except nothing as the absolute truth. Ask questions. Look for answers, even if you don't like them.
WHY is the most natural and instinctive question of all.
"Except nothing as the absolute truth"
Before or after they pulled a gun?
I can see you're a Republican.
:)
PS. Thanks 4 your time.
Isn't that like saying you'll accept partial truths?
but my girlfriends love when I take my partials out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvxPNs8xBQU
That when my 7 y/o nephew asks me a serious question, I answer as I would an adult.
And he keeps comin back for more.
Having no kids of my own, it seems to work on nephews and nieces.
I want mine engaged and active.
They volunteer in the community (even my 6 y/o goes to the battered women's shelter with clothes and toys), they're encouraged to question my authority even. If I can't explain to my kids why they should listen, then I'm probably not doing it for the right reasons, right?
And trust me, I talk to them as if they're adults. They have very precocious language skills. It unnerves people to hear my 6 y/o talk as she does.
My brother...which is another story altogether...he answers his kid with some of the dumbest stuff I've heard.
I get pissed when I hear it. And my brother knows he's not giving a serious answer...and gets pissed at me when I tell him that will not help his kid as he gets older.
My niece however, is I think, goin to be a genius, she is the smartest kid I've ever seen.
Your nephew might not be old enough for it yet, but you should think of getting him The Dangerous Book For Boys at some point down the line. I got a copy for my 9 year old nephew last December, and he loves it- especially the chapter on girls. :D
just yet...and he's already doin dangerous stuff, lol!
The kid is a natural on 4 wheelers, dirt bikes, skateboards...very physically gifted...unfortunately...his father is not a very intellectually curious person..unless it has to with mud trucks, it ain't cool to him.
They rarely ever read to him, and that's VITAL IMHO.
My sister wants him to play for the Packers, but if Jace has his way he'll be a professional snow-boarder. ;D
Check out the link, though. The book isn't as dangerous as you might think. Lots of history and biographies(Julius Cesar, Scott of the Antarctic) in there, as well as magic tricks, knot-tying lessons...and the aforementioned chapter on girls that will come in handy when its time for your nephew to start going to school dances.
not a damn thing wrong with it...
I just don't want my nephew growing up to be an intolerant lout like his father.
I want him to want to know how things work, why they work, and for what purpose...
Right now, he's just a typical 7 year old kid...
But, I have noticed, my reading skills were a good bit farther along than his when I was 7...and my folks read to me before I went to school...I know that's the difference.
His dad...well...I will say this...his dad cares more about his kid being tough than smart.
I remember reading about a school board that was under fire because a group of righties was upset that one of the educational objectives was to develop critical thinking skills. I guess they were afraid that the schools would have their kids questioning Mom and Dad's world view rather than taking it as gospel (perhaps literally).
always makin sure Murkan kids is larnin rite.
But not Diet Rite.
And don't forget to help out a first-time author by buying the book! (am i allowed to say that?)
friday by golly!
(am i allowed to say that?)♥
Andrea, thank you so much for being here and I think this has been a spirited discussion....
Final thoughts before we wrap up?
Thanks for the opportunity. I hope you like the book, and I appreciate this conversation. You've asked questions that I need to think about!
to a second book!
Thank you so much again, Andrea.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjWIulVqiCg&fe...
nice illustration of what stifles curiosity: http://www.wimp.com/humansociety/
"If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers."
Thomas Pynchon
Why..the death of Why?
Why stand up for the common good? ..err...look around...
what happened to those that did?
Their lifes got ruined by the people running the system (remember total power corrupts totally).
Just look at the people that tried to stop 9-11 from happening...FBI agent that called it...run out of the agency.
Terror Czar...just recently blamed by past (still pulling the string inside government...wink wink nod nod) VP Cheney for not stopping 9-11. The reporter has no spine because he did not expose this as a lie during the interview. Everone knows that it was Cheney and Bush that ignored the Czar's warning. Presumably because they were to busy planning IRAQ's oil grab war. (How'd that turn out??)
Because everyone is aware of what happened to the people that stood up for the constitution, warned that the patriot act will ultimately ruin our country and do orders of magnitude more harm that the terrorist could ever do.
If everyone is aware of what people in government have done to individuals, just for the sake of total control, but no one in the public media will openly talk about it, talk to the victims to find out the real truth, rather that the priming and framing of them by the criminals within our government protected by their own secret networks. Enabled by all the other government workers to scared to speak up about wrong doing. Looking the other way because they cannot afford to loose their benefits and health insurance for their families. Insurance and benefits no longer enjoyed by most anybody in the private sector.
If people have had their spine removed either temporarily or permanently by their associations with special interests or just because they are no longer rational and are governed by fear.
If no one in government will stand up and hail those thrown under the bus as heroes of our country. Then this country is doomed to get much, much worse. Because without this realization and accountability of those responsible and the vindication of the victims that have been primed and framed by the criminals within the government there is no hope for this country. If rapist are the only ones at the discussion table then there will be consensus that rape is OK. If these people are powerful people in government either by election or by position then what do you think will happen in society at large? Just act stupid and you will get away with everything now. Hey if the president can act stupid and deny breaking the law why can't I? (This is the crux of our collapse as a country.) (You can be called a hero if you go fight wars in other countries but only get permanently labeled by lairs and crooks positioned within the system if you tried to protect the country and its prime standard, the Constitution. (You know that thing the president broke his oath with the american people and the lord he sworn to on a bible to protect. (Does not matter if they act in an official manor or do it illegally under the radar using the system and loyal assassins. Because with everyone to scared to speak up (= Loose their Job-promotion-cushy perks). And with the government whistle blower program a total sham without protections or recourse for retaliation against them no-one dares rock the boat.
Occams razor folks Occams razor (scientific parsimony.)
Obama, find your spine, you need it to change things for the better, without it you can only change things for the worse.
Thank you.
for putting this together. I'll put this book on my list...
in time to participate in the discussion, but I thought I'd just attach one of my favorite quotes:
"It is not the answer that enlightens, but the question."
Eugene Ionesco (Romanian poet and playwright)
"I vant to suck your blood..."
rich little doing an imitation of Bela Lugosi doing a rich little impression.
In the episode of "The Prisoner" titled "The General", McGoohan's Number Six asks the Village's "General" (a computer system in charge of providing instant televised propaganda immersion to the inhabitants of said village) the question "why?" and causes it to self-destruct in an attempt to answer the question.
Which is, I guess, what the media would cause the government to do were it to attempt the same thing.
"Questions are a burden to others. Answers are a prison to one's self." -- The Prisoner
Login or Register to post comments.