Cultivating Constructive Dialogue: The Science Diversity Method

Source: jambulboy/Pixabay

In the current polarized environment, having friendly conversations with individuals who have different ideologies and viewpoints can be challenging. A growing number of Americans find discussions with those they disagree with to be stressful and exasperating. In academic circles, "affective polarization" describes individuals harboring favorable sentiments towards their own beliefs while feeling negatively towards contradictory beliefs. Essentially, they experience emotional polarization.

For example, person A believes that immigration contributes to the economy and enhances the cultural landscape of the nation, evoking a sense of optimism and pride in a multicultural society. Person B, however, perceives immigration as a risk to employment opportunities and the security of the country, leading to feelings of unease and a desire to safeguard their community. Each individual regards the other as either overly idealistic or dangerously narrow-minded, resulting in a profound divergence in their viewpoints and a sense of mutual dislike and suspicion.

Thus, the divide between people is not just about differing opinions but also involves a growing tendency to see those with opposing views as inherently flawed or immoral. This widening gap is causing a loss of confidence in institutions and contributing to social and political instability, making it increasingly difficult to find consensus on important issues. As individuals isolate themselves into their own ideological bubbles and dehumanize the "other side," the potential for constructive discussions diminishes.

Within university settings, polarization is making it more challenging for academic discussions, particularly on divisive diversity topics. Students often come into discussions with deeply ingrained beliefs, making it hard to facilitate open dialogue without provoking emotional reactions or confrontation. Consequently, professors are tasked with delicately navigating these divisions, striving to promote critical thinking and respectful discussions while managing the tension and suspicion that can undermine the learning environment. The heightened sensitivity surrounding controversial diversity subjects is also causing some students to restrain themselves, thereby further stifling meaningful conversation in academic settings.

What steps can we take about the current situation?

In this article, I will detail how applying the Science of Diversity Method ® enhances learning and metacognition and enables individuals to approach and discuss divisive subjects in a fair and unbiased way.

The science of this educational method employs scientific reasoning, which entails methodically understanding the world through observation, hypothesis testing, and evidence evaluation, forming the foundation for metacognition. Metacognition, or the process of thinking about one's own thinking, requires being aware of one's cognitive processes, allowing us to adjust and improve our thinking hence making engagement in collaborative conversations on divisive topics more probable

For example, one way to bring the science of diversity method into examining immigration issues is to start by collecting factual information related to economic measures, such as employment generation, wage patterns, and GDP expansion in regions with substantial immigration.

By taking this approach, a detailed analysis can be conducted to understand how immigration may or may not positively contribute to economic growth and, on certain occasions, affect or not affect job prospects. Cultural research could also be utilized to explore how immigrant communities potentially enhance or not enhance cultural diversity while also addressing concerns about crime, social unity and integration, thus presenting a fair, evidence-based viewpoint on both sides of the discussion.

Utilizing the science of diversity educational method to comprehend immigration supports metacognition by prompting individuals to critically assess their own cognitive processes, predispositions, and presumptions. Emphasizing evidence, information, and rational examination shifts the discourse away from emotional or ideological contentions to a more impartial exploration of the realities. This method encourages a more cooperative conversation, as participants are urged to consider different outlooks, challenge their own convictions, and collaborate on solving problems, diminishing the chances of discord and fostering a more profound, shared comprehension of the matter.

For example, consider an individual who strongly supports immigration. Whenever they come across a news article about immigration, they consciously focus solely on the positive aspects and tend to overlook any negative elements. However, one day, they catch themselves engaging in this behavior and begin contemplating, "Why am I always seeking information that aligns with my opinions? Am I intentionally avoiding viewpoints that challenge my beliefs?" The realization dawns on them that their selective attention could be reinforcing their bias, prompting them to commit to reading a broader spectrum of articles to gain a better understanding of different viewpoints. This recognition and modification in their thought process serves as a clear demonstration of metacognition—reflecting on their own thinking and evaluating how it might be shaping their beliefs and decisions.

Scientific thinking is not just for “scientists” or limited to the sciences; it is a useful skill across fields. It fosters a mindset of curiosity, reflection, and intellectual humility that can be applied to any subject of inquiry. Teaching scientific thinking involves instilling intellectual humility—recognizing that one’s knowledge is limited and often wrong and that learning is a continuous process. This mindset is crucial for reflective learning, as it encourages us to seek out new information, question our assumptions, and remain open to revising our opinions.

Cognition Essential Reads

Left-Handedness and Cognition: New Insights

Men and the Hidden Costs of Overthinking

Conclusion

By teaching students to use scientific reasoning, construct hypotheses, evaluate evidence, and formulate limitations, educators provide students with the tools to engage in reflective learning. In his famous 1974 commencement address, Physicist Richard Feynman discussed the principles of scientific thinking and reflective learning by saying that we must “search most diligently, and with the greatest effort, in exactly those places where it seems most likely that we can prove our theories wrong. In other words, we are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible because only in that way can we find progress.”

Our ability to employ this principle when discussing polarizing emotionally laden topics is crucial to navigating the abundance of contradictory data readily available today. The science of diversity method, which I derived from my insights from research and teaching, has allowed me and my teaching fellows, Brian Chin and Menna Saleh, to create the type of learning environment required to collect and analyze data in ways that promote collaborative data gathering and questioning, which leads to open discussions.

Through collective data gathering, we learn how to approach questions by relying on data from various sources that often yield conflicting results or biased conclusions. Embracing this conflict deepens our understanding and empowers us to navigate any issue, be it emotionally charged, such as immigration or racial bias in policing, or less charged, such as nutrition requirements for school lunches.

Our willingness to question ourselves, collect data, and analyze conflicting data fosters a collaborative climate. When repeated, this process gives us strategies and engages us in a reflective learning process, enhancing our capacity to adapt to new conditions and challenges.

In summary, the practice of the science of diversity method is a useful approach for encouraging collaborative constructive conversations as it promotes introspection, analytical assessment, and flexibility, thus equipping us with the ability to navigate emotional, polarizing diversity topics. Additionally, by delving into scientific thinking and controversial diversity subjects, students can acquire a more profound comprehension of themselves and others, participate in impartial and equitable conversations, and embrace a lifelong dedication to learning. Nurturing scientific thinking skills holds the potential to enable us to think critically, ponder thoughtfully, and behave respectfully in an ever-evolving society.

Copyright 2024 Mona Sue Weissmark All Rights Reserved.