Skip to main content

It's all about Bloom

My wife (she's a Gifted and Talented teacher, for those that don't know) and I sometimes chat about important concepts in teaching, but I think this concept is an important life one:  Bloom's Taxonomy (specifically, of the cognitive domain).  Here's a random link: http://www.officeport.com/edu/blooms.htm

Why is this so important?  Because having a meaningful conversation without following this pyramid is virtually impossible.  People try it all the time, though.  See, the bottom of the pyramid is knowledge, and the top is evaluation, but a lot of folks get those mixed up.  I'll give a few examples.

1)  Talking heads.  See your average interview on CNN/Fox/etc.  Someone will be asked a question and that person will try to give you a value judgment.  "This was the wrong course to take in healthcare," "We should have left Iraq earlier," etc.  Did he have the facts?  Has she been to Iraq?  If you can't handle even the lowest level, you shouldn't try to hop to the highest.
2)  Your average teenage conversation.  "That's just stupid!"  How many times do we hear that?  Or "That sucks," etc.?  Teens intuit the idea that judgment/evaluation is the highest, and that they have the ability to do so ... but, man, actually learning all that stuff to make the opinion *valid*, then having the mental discipline to comprehend, analyze, etc. ... well, that's just asking an awful lot ....
3)  Most political discourse.  You know, this is really the same as category 2.  People on the left will say silly things about nationalizing healthcare without considering the types of disincentives that follow, and people on the right respond with tea-party platitudes without considering how the current system has failed.  The tough issues (healthcare, death penalty, abortion, Kirk v. Picard) are ... well, tough.  But it's much, much easier to try to skip the bottom Bloom layers and jump directly to the top.

And this is one of the reasons that my wife rocks.  She tries to teach kids that, while opinions might not be WRONG in that you really do hold that opinion, they can absolutely be INVALID because you haven't done the mental work needed to gain facts, comprehend, apply, analyze, and synthesize ... before you tell me that it sucks.  If you just tell me that, and can't back it up ... well, then your opinion sucks.

And I've done the research to back that up.  :-P

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How to read the Bill of Rights

The legal rights in the Bill of Rights didn't exist until the 20th century Social media has been abuzz with the Bill of Rights, and in particular the 1st Amendment, recently. Many posts, explicitly or implicitly, trace the Bill of Rights to the Founders.  That's wrong and leads to a poor understanding. A proper reading of the Constitution and the law reveals that, while the text was written then, these rights did not apply even on paper to the states until 1868, in fact until the middle of the 20th century, or even into the 21st century for the 2nd Amendment. “It is a Constitution we are expounding.” The Constitution sets out principles and goals, structures and limitations, and we must never forget that . It is law -- the highest law of the land , in fact -- but it is not code , which is detailed and often attempts to be exhaustively complete and explicit. The Constitution was written to provide a framework of balances by a group of  flawed aristocrats trying to rebel from ano
Post a Comment
Read more

Election 2016: Why Hillary’s conflated scandals are unconvincing #ImWithHer

This is part of a series of posts on Election 2016 . To be honest, I’ve stopped listening to most of the scandals about Hillary. That’s not because I think she is perfect or would never do something scandalous, but because the noise of obvious crap, generated over 3 decades, has made me jaded about spending any time investigating stories by people who think Killary is a fascist Communist. To be clear, I think she is an imperfect human. We don’t subject most politicians to the kind of scrutiny that Hillary has faced – how much do we know about George and Laura’s relationship, or his struggles with addiction, for instance?  But she isn’t perfect.  I think she is a bit paranoid and has a tendency to “circle the wagons” at the slightest sign of problems, and I think she is a fierce competitor that swings first and asks questions later. Like all successful politicians, she is willing to spin the truth to meet her needs, and she comes across, in crowd settings, as a bit fake.  Unlik
Post a Comment
Read more

Astrologists and racists, or this is where the party ends

How are astrologists like racists?  There could be a funny one-liner response to that, I'm sure, but the answer I'm looking for is simple:  They are lazy thinkers. I'm going to spend a few paragraphs here doing a cursory job of debunking both viewpoints and showing why they are lazy, but I'm not going to go into much detail, as that's not the real point I want to make. Astrology:  Really?  You honestly think that 1/12th of the human race will have the same general set of experiences based on when they were born?  (This is assuming the "normal" Zodiac, though a similar thing can be said about, for instance, the Chinese Zodiac, and this is ignoring the silliness added in by distinguishing between "Sun signs" and "moon signs.")  Do you realize that these signs were based on people believing some quite inaccurate things about the stars (like virtually anything besides that they are gaseous giants that are light years away)?  Did you kno
2 comments
Read more