The Vagaries of Social Interaction
Aug. 14th, 2014 10:54 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shipperxIs it cowardice or the necessary grease for social interaction when someone makes a vaguely political comment and I respond:
"I haven't researched that subject in depth, but what actually is the/your/her problem with ________ ? I've never understood the controversy," as a way of trying to understand where they are basing their position. (I then make only a somewhat oblique questioning comment (not even mild criticsm) rather than actually debate the topic in a this situation/context... or, God forbid, voice my actual gut feeling which would be "I think that position promotes willfull ignorance and is therefore DUMB."
Yet, I realize that by couching my already rather deferent tone with "I haven't researched the subject in depth..." I've conceded the 'debate' should there have been one, reinforcing the person's concept that the one voicing oblique concerns has not 'researched the matter.' (Which isn't to say I'm Jon Snow and know nothing. I've read stuff, just never made it an in DEPTH topic of study).
It strikes me that sometimes ignorance wins because-- for reasons unknown -- it has no problem with certitude... which was actually the core of the controversy in question which was "Common Core Curriculum" in public schools* (of which there are several modes of criticism -- some criticisms worth making, some less so -- hence my question to pin down exactly which one was in question). My question had returned the answer that apparently the 'problem' this person had is that it teaches 'certain thought patterns/processes.'
Which, if I remember correctly, is listed as 'critical thinking skills.'
Hence, my gut felt response.
(Unless, of course, 'the thought process' in question is that it teaches science as SCIENCE, in which case 'Gut Felt Response X2'... or eleventy.)
* subject arose out of a story of someone having pulled a child out of a well-rated public school system to enroll in a local private Christian school.
"I haven't researched that subject in depth, but what actually is the/your/her problem with ________ ? I've never understood the controversy," as a way of trying to understand where they are basing their position. (I then make only a somewhat oblique questioning comment (not even mild criticsm) rather than actually debate the topic in a this situation/context... or, God forbid, voice my actual gut feeling which would be "I think that position promotes willfull ignorance and is therefore DUMB."
Yet, I realize that by couching my already rather deferent tone with "I haven't researched the subject in depth..." I've conceded the 'debate' should there have been one, reinforcing the person's concept that the one voicing oblique concerns has not 'researched the matter.' (Which isn't to say I'm Jon Snow and know nothing. I've read stuff, just never made it an in DEPTH topic of study).
It strikes me that sometimes ignorance wins because-- for reasons unknown -- it has no problem with certitude... which was actually the core of the controversy in question which was "Common Core Curriculum" in public schools* (of which there are several modes of criticism -- some criticisms worth making, some less so -- hence my question to pin down exactly which one was in question). My question had returned the answer that apparently the 'problem' this person had is that it teaches 'certain thought patterns/processes.'
Which, if I remember correctly, is listed as 'critical thinking skills.'
Hence, my gut felt response.
(Unless, of course, 'the thought process' in question is that it teaches science as SCIENCE, in which case 'Gut Felt Response X2'... or eleventy.)
* subject arose out of a story of someone having pulled a child out of a well-rated public school system to enroll in a local private Christian school.
