So, I’ve been thinking a lot lately about how to conduct conversations with people, you know, different than myself. Allow me to elaborate. I operate as someone trying to figure out the world around me. This manifests itself in two ways: a deep love of science as a means of explaining natural phenomena, and a love of psychology, philosophy, and sociology as a means of understanding how humans operate within their natural reality.

Now, having said all that, we’re human. We’re different, and we disagree. That’s reality. How to respond to those that vehemently disagree? I’ve come to the conclusion that ground rules matter when having intellectual debates. So, in no particular order, the requirements:

1. Constructivism matters. I appreciate your viewpoint. I need to respect, prima facie, that you are rational and well thought out. We’re coming from completely different lived experiences that color how we perceive reality. Your story matters, and so does mine, and we need to respect what each brings to the table.

1a. I am often wrong.

1b. Consiliency may be fruitless. My friend Ed studies the evolutionary mutations that occur during DNA transcription in the HIV virus. He equates talking about evolutionary science with creationists to playing chess with a monkey…and then the monkey eats your queen. I’ve learned over time that I simply cannot have conversations with people that aren’t willing to accept a common set of logical underpinnings, especially the scientific methodology.

2. Ad homeniems are weak. It’s way too easy to simply resort to personal attacks instead of taking on the rationality of the argument. Remember, your thoughts are usually bigger than yourself. They should be criticized as such. Whenever I criticize someone’s world view, I try to couch it in terms of the policy or the philosophy, not the person holding the viewpoint. We’re really more similar than different, and that’s what matters.

3. It’s too easy to see a movie like Fahrenheit 9/11 or Expelled or Jesus Camp and think that they represent all neo-cons or religious believers. It’s easy to label someone as “liberal” or “conservative” or “religious”, even though those categories are often difficult to define these days. We label as a way of simplifying our world, even though reality is much more diverse and confounding than that simple reduction or dichotomy.

3a. I’ll be the first to admit guilt here. I used to essentialize a lot, but I think I’m emerging from that way of thinking. I will still slip up from time to time, but I’m really trying to work on this.

4. Krista Tippet knows what she’s taking about. If I learned anything from her amazing book, it’s that you can never disrespect the beauty of what people are bringing to a conversation. Perception is reality, and you have to build from there. Oh, and Dina, thanks. Seriously.

4a. It’s the conversation that really matters. Never forget that.

5. There’s always hope. Hope matters. I hope that people can have rational conversations about the ways of the world. Know hope.

What am I missing?

Why I love Science:

Regardless of the type of hierarchy, subjects’ brains were influenced by their place in it. Just viewing a picture of a “superior” player activated an area in the frontal lobe that is associated with making judgments about people. The effect was more pronounced in the unstable hierarchy, with brain regions implicated in emotional processing and social anxiety chiming in.

Like I said earlier, increased socioeconomic inequality leads to social unrest. Obviously.

I love evidence.

Remember that time I proposed some doctoral work aimed towards bringing environmental education into the public schools? Yeah. My spider-sense is that the people in charge weren’t really into that.

Sigh.

Some perspective:

I will do this work someday. It’s just a matter of time. We need to figure out how to educate for environmental sustainability. It’s really that simple.

Start here with David Gruenewald.

Tras and I are wedding planning this weekend. This seemed apropos.

I’ve been bouncing around the country lately, and have been sitting on some thoughts about social class. It’s been hard to avoid thinking about this topic, given the current state of the economy and education. Many things have crossed my radar recently, so here’s a quick list to check out, in no particular order. Enjoy… I guess.

1. Dina’s losing sleep. Remember, the whole “accountability” discourse is representative of a larger, framed ideology that’s permeating society.

2. Speaking of which, how’s that whole ideology working out for, you know, the entire world?

2a. Salaries of Hedge Fund managers are in outer space. Paulson made about 1.7 million dollars per hour last year. Mmmm…basic fairness. Awesome.

2b. Greenspan reads Ayn Rand, then plays cut and run. The buck stops…somewhere else.

2c. Global food prices are through the roof. Enter social unrest. Food pantries are running out of food, and reporting that working families can no longer afford even basic staples. Yet again, government helps out the special interests.

2d. Speaking of special interests, gas prices will be well over $4 by this summer. Great regressive poor tax. Having said that, gas is still relatively cheap in this country. The problem is that most of our economy is based on petroleum. Perhaps higher prices might spur some alternative energy development. Still waiting for the “invisible hand” on that one. In the meantime, I’ll be the first to admit that I’m still burning carbon. Sigh.

2e. Wages have not kept up with GDP among the working classes. Neighborhoods segregate along class lines. A microcosm. Recipe for social unrest.

3. Kos nails the whole “elitism” and politics issue. What a load of crap. Remember, stay distracted America. Don’t actually focus on things that matter. Your corporate media can be trusted.

4. Bring it home for me Hodgman.

5. Back to schools, the new issue of Educational Leadership has a great new piece by Paul Gorski. Money quote:

This classism is plentiful and well documented (Kozol, 1992). For example, compared with their wealthier peers, poor students are more likely to attend schools that have less funding (Carey, 2005); lower teacher salaries (Karoly, 2001); more limited computer and Internet access (Gorski, 2003); larger class sizes; higher student-to-teacher ratios; a less-rigorous curriculum; and fewer experienced teachers (Barton, 2004). The National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (2004) also found that low-income schools were more likely to suffer from cockroach or rat infestation, dirty or inoperative student bathrooms, large numbers of teacher vacancies and substitute teachers, more teachers who are not licensed in their subject areas, insufficient or outdated classroom materials, and inadequate or nonexistent learning facilities, such as science labs.

It seems to me that this is the most salient issue facing social systems right now. My sense is that we’re beginning to enter a time that might finally be right to have the “courageous conversation” about social class. I hope we’re capable of having this conversation… I hope…

Here’s an excellent place to start.

More from me later.

Well, I’m still down in North Carolina. We’re getting pummeled with TV ads for the new Ben Stein movie that further confuses science and religion by setting up another false dichotomy. If you want to spend some time thinking about this stuff, spend it with Ken Miller:

More when I get back.

Whelp, Tras and I are heading to Charlotte, North Carolina to see some old friends and maybe do some rafting. Every time I venture south of the Mason-Dixon line, I get told I’m going to hell for teaching science. We’ll see how it goes. Full report in a few days.