Dialogue ain’t for Sissies!
Human discourse seldom goes beyond adolescent styled discussion, debate, or argument. Intellectually, judging by our discourse, few Americans have the sophistication to undertake dialogue. I am 74 years old and have never experienced dialogue either as a participant or as a spectator. Our discourse seldom takes us beyond tacit (only a vague feeling) knowledge.
I am convinced that until we can dialogue we will never be safe from self destruction and perhaps even destruction of the planet for any life forms.
Few Americans are prepared to dialogue. Dialogue is much different from discussion and debate. To dialogue requires much preparation and our educational system have not prepared us for the practice of dialogue.
Our educational system is almost completely dedicated to rote teaching. Our system is almost totally a system of teaching by telling. Why is this so?
A didactic technique of educating young people is the most efficient way of inculcating facts into the memory of children. It seems to me that it is necessary to teach facts to children as quickly and as efficiently as possible during their early years.
It is vital that we have knowledge of many and varied types of algorithms. The more our lives are controlled by technology the more algorithms we must know.
However, there are no known algorithms for many problems that we face daily. Where we fail to have algorithms we must find ways to facilitate understanding.
How does the Socratic technique, or as it is more often called the dialogue method, enhance understanding by a student?
A classroom that is focusing on a dialogue technique of instruction would be one wherein there would be the usual teacher and a number of pupils. A question or a matter of interest would be introduced and pupils would be asked to give their opinion on the matter. Each student voicing a point of view would be subject to questions by members of the class and the instructor and each would be expect to defend the opinion as best they can. Such a class program would require, in many cases that the students come to class well prepared and ready to become an active participant.
The subject might be the American war in Iraq, for example. One can imagine in such a case that there would be many different points of view. Some students might be from homes wherein varying political affiliations might be held. Some students may be Muslims or Jews of Protestants. Such a question would elicit many and strongly held views. The views of all students would be subjected to questions focusing upon the quality of the argument supporting a view and perhaps questions that might focus upon the biases exposed by the view. Assumptions would be examined and questioned. The whole process is directed toward establishing a critical habit of thought in all students.
How does a young person who has finished their schooling develop their own value system?
How does a young person develop a sound intellectual foundation upon which to build a life?
What is a sound intellectual foundation?
How does a young person learn to ask the important questions?
Dialogue ain’t for Sissies!
Dialogue ain’t for Sissies!
Many good points coberst.
One of the elements of successful dialogue is the ability to listen. Everyone is taught how to talk, but how well are we taught to listen. I know many people for which the only purpose of listening is to find a gap where that can start talking, without ever really hearing a word being spoken.
80% of communication is not verbal, which means that expression, body language, tone is all built into our communication process. If this is true and there is growth in written communication as in forums such as this, how much is open to miscommunication,
mis-interpretation, intent or even tone?
One of the elements of successful dialogue is the ability to listen. Everyone is taught how to talk, but how well are we taught to listen. I know many people for which the only purpose of listening is to find a gap where that can start talking, without ever really hearing a word being spoken.
80% of communication is not verbal, which means that expression, body language, tone is all built into our communication process. If this is true and there is growth in written communication as in forums such as this, how much is open to miscommunication,
mis-interpretation, intent or even tone?
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Dialogue ain’t for Sissies!
coberst: Seems to me you have described what a decent university education ought to be about. Certainly it used to be - it's what tutorials were for. Whether it still is these days is a different question...
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Dialogue ain’t for Sissies!
Clodhopper;846684 wrote: coberst: Seems to me you have described what a decent university education ought to be about. Certainly it used to be - it's what tutorials were for. Whether it still is these days is a different question...
Eduction in America has become a commodity--an object of commerce. Vocational education might better describe a college education today. Perhaps that is all anyone wants. That would work OK if adults recognized that their learning never ends and they became self-actualizing self-learners after their school daze are over.
Eduction in America has become a commodity--an object of commerce. Vocational education might better describe a college education today. Perhaps that is all anyone wants. That would work OK if adults recognized that their learning never ends and they became self-actualizing self-learners after their school daze are over.