Well Informed 2.0 Politics and Campaigning

For my post this week, I decided to look at how the presidential debates are set up and why we only have the two frontrunners participating in tonight's debate. The Commission on Presidential Debates was cofounded by the two primary parties, Republican and Democrat, to manage the terms of televised discourse. According to debates.org "Under the CPD's non-partisan criteria, no candidate or nominee of a party receives an automatic invitation. The CPD's objective criteria are applied on the same basis to all declared candidates, regardless of party affiliation or lack thereof." The article I will mainly focus on from reason.com addresses how while this sounds good in theory, it ultimately doesn't benefit those candidates who aren't Republican or Democrat. Last October, they decided to "maintain as a participation threshold the unreasonably high average of 15 percent in national polls - a level no third-party candidate has attained in September of an election year since 1968."

It is designed in such a way that it's almost guaranteed to exclude any third party candidate. Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party nominee, is currently polling around 9% and will be on the ballot in all 50 states, but he has to resort to social media to be have a part in the debate that will take place tonight. He will be live-tweeting during the debate, which brings up another interesting point. Johnson is the highest-polling presidential outside since Ross Perot in 1992 and I think we can attribute much of that to his use of media. Johnson was able to receive a lot of attention for his "Dead Abe Lincoln" video last month. It still seems a bit twisted that he's excluded from the debate in person, but at the very least, now we have so much social media that's able to give him a voice when a commission won't.

The author, Matt Welch, believes that the following issues won't be taken seriously without Johnson's participation: the country's grim long-term fiscal outlook, federalism, trade, military interventionism, domestic surveillance, free speech, and prohibition. Welch says, "Remove the Libertarian and there goes fiscal sanity, federalism and free speech." I agree that we could benefit a lot from the alternative perspective that Gary Johnson would be able to offer in the debates, but I don't think it's fair to say that the issues won't be treated seriously due to his absence. We've all witnessed how much character bashing the two frontrunners use against their opponent while maintaining a very broad stance on issues that coincide with their political party, but I believe with how close we are to the election that Trump and Clinton will be a little smarter with their words. Welch also says, "In many important ways, there will be no adult on stage." Trump is known for his unpredictability and Clinton has made quite a few childish references and jokes in an attempt to win over a younger demographic. We can guess what will take place tonight, but we'll ultimately just have to wait to see.

I definitely think change needs to happen so that we include more candidates in the presidential debates. As someone who does not identify with any political party, I feel that I could benefit greatly from a more inclusive debate. Most of my social group says they will vote for one candidate because they do not want the other to win, but maybe if there were more candidates in the debate, people would actually find someone they would like to represent them. The CPD has a goal of voter education, but I agree with Welch that this goal will not be met without including Johnson, and possibly other third party candidates.

Well Informed: Learning and Thinking

I began preparing for this post by watching the video "The Future of Learning" but didn't get very far in because one of the first things I heard took me elsewhere. They start discussing how students learn differently. So while this focused on how, I started thinking about the what people know. What they want to learn and what they like to have knowledge about. I thought of the quote "Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid." I wanted to be able to reference the quote correctly, but my google search took me to an article called "Why we should forget Einstein's tree-climbing fish" by Professor Todd Pettigrew from 2013. I was able to take a new perspective because of this article.
He makes some excellent points. He says, "But worse, lines like the supposed Einstein quote above reinforce an idea that is actually quite dangerous to education generally: the idea that some people are just good at some things and some are not. This notion is anathema to education because the whole notion of learning is that you can, well, learn things." He goes on to analyze why he believes this is never something Einstein would have said anyway and he has a point. In an address, Einstein said, "The development of general ability for independent thinking and judgment should always be placed foremost." I believe he's saying that at least in the mandatory education and core classes (K-12) that we should not be focusing so specifically on peoples' innate abilities. That time is later, but general learning that will help a person overall needs to be the focus before that time comes.
Where I think Pettigrew gets some of his argument wrong is when he says, "For while I would concede that various people have various relative strengths and weaknesses, it's quite clear to anyone who really looks, that there are a great many people who are not geniuses in anything." I think this is slightly ridiculous to say because no one is going to observe every aspect of a person and reasonably reach that conclusion unless it is about a person who they interact with almost daily. People have hidden abilities. Some people are math geniuses, but they don't have regular opportunities to share that ability, which means that the notion suggesting simple observation of a person to determine whether they are geniuses in anything is often inaccurate. Maybe if he could elaborate on what he means by "really look" his argument here would have more support.
"We all like to imagine that we are all, somewhere deep down, geniuses, and that the only reason we fail in school, or indeed, in life, is that our teachers and bosses can't see our natural brilliance. We're fish and those ignorant bastards are making us climb trees!" This quote from Pettigrew's article is what resonates most with me. I agree with this because my personal experiences as a student have given me evidence to support the truth of this attitude in people and the problems it causes. There have been many instances in school where I have heard people say they're not going to try in a certain subject because it's not their thing. Why go to school then? We go to school to learn. If something is not your thing, you can try to make it something you at least understand instead of whining about a teacher or subject. I mean, how dare the schools try to make you more intelligent overall and give you a good base for a variety of subjects.
Other evidence that backs up this attitude is the fact that I am part of a generation that receives participation trophies for everything. We're awarded for not being good at something. This notion reinforces the idea that if something doesn't come naturally to someone that they don't need to try because the world will say that showing up is enough. This attitude does not promote learning. It does not promote growth. Feelings of incompetency are not enjoyable, so learning can be hard. Education is not meant to be easy though. You are not in school to get a participation trophy. You're there to learn.

On The Media #1

This week, I listened to the podcast called Kids These Days, and decided to focus on the story called “In Defense of Trigger Warnings.” Trigger warnings have been a very hot topic as of late, particularly as this new fall semester began and there were universities who issued letters to their students stating that there would be no trigger warnings on their campuses. This professor in the podcast, who teaches philosophy at Cornell, defends the use of trigger warnings. She believes that by issuing them, she can help prepare students for controversial or sensitive subjects that her students will learn about and discuss in her classroom, which is an environment that frequently discusses touchy subjects. She believes it is in the best interest of the students’ mental health to use trigger warnings. Everyone deserves a chance to have their voice heard, but to be able to interact and discuss with a class, some people might need a little extra warning so their thoughts can be properly presented and can be valued as well. She acknowledges that her role as a philosophy teacher is different than a lot of other professors because they don't really have a need for trigger warnings. An algebra class, while very hated by many, is not an environment that would benefit or even have a place for these warnings. However her class delves into issues like rape and combat training, so those who have experienced such have a different psychological approach to dealing with the topic. The professor hits on the idea of culture playing a role when she talks about those who have a more privileged background feel that their free speech is being curtailed. It seems more acceptable for those people who are marginalized to speak about these topics. Trigger warnings may reinforce this idea that those in the center shouldn't contribute in some cases, but that's why the professor believes they shouldn't be mandatory and they should be carefully constructed.

I believe trigger warnings can be a good thing because of how they can help those who have struggled with the topics to be discussed. If someone suffers with an addiction or panic attacks, having the knowledge ahead of time that sensitive issues will be part of the class can prevent these negative occurrences. It gives them a chance to reflect on how their personal experiences will play a role in the discussion. I can only emphasize that the professor noted that these warnings are not to discourage participation or attendance, but to mentally prepare the student. I think that is what we need to focus on with them. They are not here to coddle students or baby them. They are here to help protect the mental health, and often physical health as well, of the participants. Controversial and sensitive issues need to be discussed, but it’s courteous and reasonable to let the students be made aware in advance. I don't see how issuing these trigger warnings disadvantage those students who may not have the sensitivities to the topics, so it can only benefit. It's not coddling. It's a responsible and rational decision that's made to help the students.