On Thu, 14 Mar 2013, James Weinheimer wrote:
> Well, lots of people have been complaining about their "broken
> societies" from the earliest days of writing and we have muddled
> through.
Well (ahem), (1) we didn't know what broke societies in the past (broken
brain structures and neurophysiological conditioning); (2) we didn't have
ubiquitous media presence being used as the principal tool by people
intentionally breaking societies for personal benefit in the past; and (3)
the *potential* damage to societies and their support structures has never
before been recognized as so extreme and permanent that we can no longer
make addressing the problem a peripheral concern.
> our societies will get more broken before anybody wants to really try
> and fix them, but that is a painful topic.
Let's consider that a "working hypothesis." What's wrong with it (as an
example of a "critical thinking" lesson plan)?
1st, we should be considering "societies", with "ours" as just one
example. What is typical and/or atypical about the example?
2nd, "will" presents an invalid scenario-- it cannot be a "working
hypothesis" because it cannot be tested or proved BUT the merits of the
concept can be discussed. What would be the *possible* effects (positive
and negative) of waiting for the problem to worsen before doing anything
about it?
3rd, it imparts an invalid observation on people in general, implying
that *nobody* wants to do anything.
4th, it introduces "pain" as an *effective* inducement to not do
anything.
5th, the above traits make the entire statement formally *glib* (lacking
any factual basis) and allow it to carry an emotionally manipulative
*effectual* value: "Oh, good, then I really don't have to do anything
right away, and I shouldn't because nobody should, and it would be painful
anyway, and I want to avoid pain even if only a possibility, so lets' just
ignore the problem altogether."
> I want to try to limit myself to trying to get catalogers just to
> recognize that the tool they have spent their entire careers building is
> broken.
You statement is logically invalid and glib in that is all-encompassing,
absolute and not grounded is facts. I'll believe it when people who use
the tool start complaining about it in droves and then I'll start fixing it
in relation to the specific problems addressed by the complaints.
> brow-beating people just makes them angry and even more resistant.
Duh! That is exactly how manipulative media and terrorists (the NRA
publicity campaign is a good example) take apart societies for their own
benefit-- by appealing to fear and triggering emotional reactions
(aggressive narcissism) rather than encouraging critical thinking.
> Still, if catalogers do not want to recognize how the public relates to
> their catalogs, it is very difficult to find a way out of the morass.
Remember "Show me the money"? Show us the public complaints to give us
some objective points to address specifically.
> The pro-RDA people, I think, are finally recognizing that RDA is no
> solution and have been very reticent to go public with the changes,
> because the changes will be seen as incredibly silly to the public and
> will make precisely zero difference to people, other than banishing the
> New Testament and Old Testament, which I can imagine would make some
> groups very angry if they find out.
Can that whole statement (and those that follow) or parts be made into
actionable "working hypotheses"? Such confrontational speculations can
otherwise have a divisive rather than constructive effect.
> I think no research is being done because nobody wants to know.
Or perhaps it's because (a) it wouldn't be profitable or as
self-satisfying as griping in our broken society that depends upon such
things, or (b) people in the social sciences need to be trained in how to
apply critical thinking and "working hypotheses" to social problems rather
than just griping?
> I don't think that is the information people want from our catalogs.
> People want something else.
So find out what people want. It's not rocket science, but some similar
research principles could be applied.
Cheers!
John G. Marr
Cataloger
CDS, UL
Univ. of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM 87131
jmarr_at_unm.edu
jmarr_at_flash.net
** Forget the "self"; forget the "other"; just
consider what goes on in between. **
Opinions belong exclusively to the individuals expressing them, but
sharing is permitted.
Received on Thu Mar 14 2013 - 13:21:42 EDT