Intellectual Character

[coberst]

Intellectual Character
The Socratic questioning technique exposes each participant to probing questions forcing the student to become conscious of the thinking structure behind any assertion of opinion. Basic issues are introduced and discussed in a controlled forum and through questioning the assumptions, prejudices, points of view and other inherent thought structures are exposed. This helps all members of the dialogue to develop an understanding of their own modes of intellection. Another important feature that becomes exposed is that there may be many points of view to every question, points of view that may not even have been anticipated by other members of the dialogue group before exposure.

In such a dialogue group each participant is forced to listen carefully and constantly develop the habits of intellectual focus and critical thinking. The student becomes conscious of the assumptions and prejudices that permeate everyone’s thinking.

The standard teacher/pupil teaching technique accentuates the importance of acquiring knowledge. The Socratic technique accentuates the importance of understanding and critical thinking. Being knowledgeable of a matter and understanding a matter are very different categories of comprehension.

I thought I might compare and contrast the professional journalist with the professional military officer in an attempt to focus upon the difference and importance of these two intellectual traits of comprehension.

What might be the ideal character traits of these two professions? It seems that the military officer should be smart, well trained, obedient and brave. The journalist should be smart, well trained, critical and honest. The journalist must have well-developed intellectual character traits and be skillful in critical thinking. The military officer should be trained to act somewhat like an automaton in critical circumstances.

The officer’s behavior in each conceivable circumstance should follow precisely a well-established code of action. The officer is trained to follow well-established algorithms in every circumstance. Even those instances wherein the officer is authorized to deviate from standard procedure are clearly defined algorithms. The officer deviates from established behavior only when absolutely necessary and that ad hoc behavior should follow along prescribed avenues. The officer obeys all commands without critical analysis except in very unusual circumstances. Bravery and obedience are the two most desired character traits of a military officer.

The role of the journalist in wartime has evolved dramatically in the last 50 years. During WWII the journalist acted as cheerleader and propagandist. During the Vietnam War the journalist often played the role of critical analyst. While one can see some positive reasons for the cheerleader and propagandist I will assume that overall this is not a proper role for the journalist in a democracy. The ideal journalist must always be a critical analyst and communicate honestly to the reader the results of her investigation.

Since most people unconsciously seek opinion fortification rather than truth they become very agitated when they find news which does not fortify their opinion. Thus, most people have low opinions of journalists. Nevertheless, it is no doubt the ideal journalist who presents the facts fairly, accurately and in a balanced manner. The ability ‘to connect the dots’ in each situation is of primary importance for the ideal journalist. Knowledge is important but understanding and critical thinking is more important.

We certainly want our military officers educated more in the didactic mode than in the Socratic mode whereas we would find that journalist educated in the Socratic mode would be the better journalist. The journalist must be able to recognize the prejudices of others as well as recognizing his/her own biases.

What might one say as regarding the contrasting importance of understanding and knowledge for a teacher, engineer, accountant, nurse, factory worker or secretary? With consideration we probably will find that knowledge is more important than understanding when thinking of the individual as a worker. The credentials that appear on most resumes are those testifying to a degree of knowledge by the job applicant.

We do not even have a metric for understanding.

[ELF]

Maybe because we still use the English system of measurement, and not metric.

[SOJOURNER]

Originally Posted by ELF

Maybe because we still use the English system of measurement, and not metric.

Oh, ELF!

You are soooooooooo insightful.

Santa doesn't appreciate ALL your talents.

[lady cop]

sorry co, but this is a crashing bore.

Sorry but this is so bloody pompous. In your scramble for this unending knowledge you missed one or two lessons, the important one being the ability to communicate without being so depressingly dull. Why use one simple word when several clever big ones will do.

Its a form of snobbery when you actively exclude so many people from a conversation. Rather than enjoying the sound of your own voice it would be nice to hear the sound of others through the act of conversation, the sort of which, we indulge in here. Purile and childish at times but if you push that aside you will find wisdom, the likes of which, seems to be lacking in your posts.

Climb down from your high horse and join the rest of us round the table. I'm sure that on a level ground we could all learn a lot from each other

[coberst]

Arnold

On the Internet we do not know anything about the reader. The writer does not know what kind of a common knowledge pool that is shared with the reader. I write as I understand. I have discovered that writing is, for me, a necessary part of understanding. I often get complaints that I am too verbose and often that I am too cryptic so I guess I have found a moderate median.

Originally Posted by coberst

Arnold

On the Internet we do not know anything about the reader. The writer does not know what kind of a common knowledge pool that is shared with the reader. I write as I understand. I have discovered that writing is, for me, a necessary part of understanding. I often get complaints that I am too verbose and often that I am too cryptic so I guess I have found a moderate median.

Coberst

My appologies if I seem a little ungenerous, this is a philosophy thread after all. On a public forum such as this, with a community such as ours, we like to feel that everything here is accessable. Given my education, its evident, that the philosophy thread should not be on my priority list of prefered reading. The knowledge pool that you refer to is probably not as common as you would imagine. It's evident that some of us, not least myself, drink from a different cup. You'll be be please to know however, that there are plenty more that will fulfill your expectations, Jives and Far you have already met. Other present members will surely follow and will impress.

Dont let me frighten you away

Originally Posted by coberst

Arnold

On the Internet we do not know anything about the reader. The writer does not know what kind of a common knowledge pool that is shared with the reader. I write as I understand. I have discovered that writing is, for me, a necessary part of understanding. I often get complaints that I am too verbose and often that I am too cryptic so I guess I have found a moderate median.

Translated....
We are all strangers on the internet. And it's hard to pigeonhole all the potential readers of anything you may write. I write because I can and because it helps me to understand what it is I am trying to do. Folks whine that I'm too highbrow or confusing, but I like to think I've found some middle ground.

Originally Posted by coberst

Arnold

On the Internet we do not know anything about the reader. The writer does not know what kind of a common knowledge pool that is shared with the reader. I write as I understand. I have discovered that writing is, for me, a necessary part of understanding. I often get complaints that I am too verbose and often that I am too cryptic so I guess I have found a moderate median.

Translated....
We are all strangers on the internet. And it's hard to pigeonhole all the potential readers of anything you may write. I write because I can and because it helps me to understand what it is I am trying to do. Folks whine that I'm too highbrow or confusing, but I like to think I've found some middle ground.

Originally Posted by ArnoldLayne

Coberst

My appologies if I seem a little ungenerous, this is a philosophy thread after all. On a public forum such as this, with a community such as ours, we like to feel that everything here is accessable. Given my education, its evident, that the philosophy thread should not be on my priority list of prefered reading. The knowledge pool that you refer to is probably not as common as you would imagine. It's evident that some of us, not least myself, drink from a different cup. You'll be be please to know however, that there are plenty more that will fulfill your expectations, Jives and Far you have already met. Other present members will surely follow and will impress.

Dont let me frighten you away

Ever notice how you can't help but start to use big words when someone like this talks to you?..