We were discussing fast and slow thinking today in class based on our readings of Kahneman's book, and I think that what was highlighted in our discussions made me think about what we're doing in this class and how we formed evaluations of even the very environment we are sitting in. Michael raised the argument about what we perceive about this class being a function of fast thinking. I think that this was extremely pertinent, because it really helped me understand how the internet-infused framework used in this class is built towards generating self-efficacy that is intrinsically based. When we talked about students skipping blog posts and asked why some of us skip posts sometimes, it became evident to all of us in class that day that the reasons that one would take the liberty to be flexible in this class could be based on 'System 1' evaluations of Michael's instructional demeanor, the fact that we're assuming that everyone will get an 'A', and that there are other things to do that are more 'high stakes'. Again, this is all speculation, but it is pretty sound.
But, if you're someone that is researching this, and is using 'System 2' to analyze why we have these liberties in this class, it points to an extremely pertinent notion of building intrinsically guided self-efficacy and actually posting something that is personally pertinent to us, in order to embark on a journey towards creating a collective efficacy. Now let's go a bit further and ask, did we think about this class in this manner? Or was it just something we 'required' and 'had to do', based on our immediate evaluations of our program sheets and fleeting perceptions of Michael as a 'chilled out teacher'? Kahneman makes the point that we use fast thinking not as a function of intuition. This is a term that we sugar-coat our own thinking with to make ourselves feel better. The fact is that we are making decisions when we may not have the adequate funds of knowledge about something, because it's easier to do that and move on, being as ignorant as we were at the outset. Is ignorance really bliss though?
Another facet of our behavior that we discussed pertained to the notion of social belongingness. While Kahneman mainly talks about cognition, we decided to take this to the social dimension in order to evaluate the decisions that we make using fast thinking. When people talk about popular culture that they don't know of just to belong, they use fast thinking, and whether this works or not entirely depends on the group. You have to step back, gain more information, and see what you can do to feel a sense of belongingness. It's pretty evident that fast thinking can get you into a really embarrassing social situation.
Let's take this to the realm of academia to look at how we often just disagree with others simply because we 'abide by another school of thought'. Do we have adequate information about things outside our realm, or do we raise circular arguments just to 'belong' to a school of thought that we've had success with over the years? I think I have a tendency to do this myself, as do all of us. While belonging to a school of thought and doing anything to defend it is associated with collective efficacy, which some of us think is beneficial, using fast thinking to defend it is a risky game that can make one seem difficult and obstinate. Accruing adequate funds of knowledge and adopting a 'system 2' configuration about things we don't know as much might be the best way to deal with such situations by being the bigger person, and accepting that learning is lifelong. Such an approach might let us be less judgmental about the people around us. We discussed how today, sticking by a single school of thought makes you a 'go-getter'. If you favor many things by actually evaluating things, you're often considered a 'flip-flopper' in Michael's words. To be honest, I'd rather be a flip-flopper for the sake of being more knowledgable.
We often think that people that don't agree with us are 'wrong' and 'no good at what they do', based on fast thinking. Is this really the best way to figure out our social interactions, or are we throwing ourselves under the bus?
No comments:
Post a Comment