Comment

You simply apply your problem solving skills as an adult. You want students to understand how to do these things. Well, how do you do these things? Then teach the students the method that you use. That’s the simplest version. But there’s been a lot of research about how to teach things, so following the best research is the better version.

I think I gave a small example of teaching problem solving in my 3rd paragraph where I described tutoring math. But you can use any problems instead of simply math problems.

Really, I say this as a very introverted person with a strong STEM background, I think the most important skills children learn from school are their interpersonal skills, but we rarely teach them directly. So, you can work through typical problems in class, like for problem solving, say, you want to use the gaming console, but your sibling is using it. What can you do?

Similarly, how do YOU know when something is misinformation? Just teach the children to take the same steps you do. “I doubt this information because based on these previous incidents, I’ve seen that this person has a reason to lie about this.” Or, “If I think about it, there is somebody who is profiting from people acting on this information, and so I that makes me dubious about this.”

How do you know when a conspiracy theory is very unlikely? The more important it is and the more people who must participate in it, the less likely the theory is to be true. That’s why you can write off flat earth theories almost instantly with very little knowledge of science.

You can teach critical thinking via debate class, for example, but I think there are some other methods, too. Critical thinking is probably the hardest to imagine a way to teach.

source

Sort:hotnew top

Digit@lemmy.wtf ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
Imagine we learned the spirit of egalitarian pedagogy in school, instead of the many toxic social-domination/social-survival lessons learned.

source
Digit@lemmy.wtf ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

How do you know when a conspiracy theory is very unlikely? The more important it is and the more people who must participate in it, the less likely the theory is to be true. That’s why you can write off flat earth theories almost instantly with very little knowledge of science.

For a start, probably more sound footing not to start with a presumption presented in a pejorative, to be truly open minded and enquiring, seeking the truth.

The flat earth stuff’s fascinating…

Bare with me. LOL.

There are several allusions being masked by the dumb litteral.

And I don’t mean the under-the-fundament or matrix simulation stuff.

For one,

Maps.

For another, arguably even more intriguing,

Legal fiction. (And all bureaucracy and its reductivism (~ see, not just “flat” because it (once was) on paper)).

“The flat earth”, being a term used to refer to these.

But, if all you ever hear about is the dumb literal stuff, and presume to know, and believe your beliefs, unwittingly being naive realist, then you never get to the deeper stuff.

Non-belief ftw.

It helps you look deeper, beyond the shallows.

“It is the mark of an educated mind, to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting nor rejecting it” – … Who said that?

Far few babies get flung out with the bathwater, with this approach.

Then also, it’s easier to see more of the lies within lies, and the lies so vast that not even their inverse are true, and can easier cease identifying with any position on any matter, and watch, unscathed, as strawmen are felled all around you.

source