HOMEMADE MODELS

[Note:  This posting is the second of a series of posting regarding adolescence.  The reader is invited to click on the previous posting – and any other postings – that leads to the content of this one.]

Probably most important, when one considers how secondary students – made up of adolescents – approach social studies and, more specifically, civics, is their ability to think abstractly at a much higher level as compared to younger children.  This, given the goals and aims of a federalist guided curriculum and given how this thinking operates is both good and bad.

Or better stated, it both allows instructors to pursue and explain the complexities of the social world to a high degree of sophistication but also deal with students who rely on any “theories” their thinking produces with a lack of questioning.  This two-faced challenge needs an explanation.

          As to the cognitive development of this change, knowledge of it in psychological literature can be traced to the work of Jean Piaget.  His and subsequent studies in the field identified that the ability of young people to think abstractly is highly dependent on them acquiring the facility to think deductively.[1]  In turn, once deduction is possible, a person can engage in planning the future, anticipate consequences to actions, and think of optional outcomes and explanations about what has happened or what will happen.

          Depending on how good they become at these mental skills, they can take effective roles in debates.  Suddenly parents find their adolescent off-springs questioning their, the parents’, assumptions or judgements concerning probabilities; for example, “if you don’t do what I tell you, you will suffer (blank) consequence.”  Well, “maybe not” can suddenly be the response. 

These young people discover figurative language – puns, metaphors, and analogies – and can decipher it.  They might even use sarcasm.  Language becomes more of a tool beyond just communicating observable facts or feelings.  With that tool, they can more readily apply higher level reasoning in which they can question social, political, and economic claims. 

They can also understand, appreciate, and support the use of values or ideological precepts.  But they are hindered by both a lack of experience in their attempts to make sense of the world and a lack of dispositional sentiments to learn from that experience.  That is, held beliefs or attitudes are not easily dismissed or changed.

One can deduct from these more general capabilities adolescents being able to form and test hypotheses.  If one thinks about it, a hypothesis demands a person to look at some problem, abstract from it those factors that either create, support, or accentuate the problem, and then test that judgement in a “if/then” supposition against reality.  And in this, one finds how central these skills are in students being able to inquire about civic problems or other social conditions of interest. 

But here is the rub; along with these skills, a youngster is subject to prejudicial thinking – the dispositional bias just mentioned.  And this possibility leads those who study cognitive development to various theoretical approaches.  In one approach[2] this duality is highlighted by pointing out the positive and negative turns these acquired capacities entail. 

In accordance to that approach, one can describe the above mental process as a mental simulation of reality.  And a lot goes into that thinking on the part of a subject including what one wants reality to be.  That is, one can call that simulation the function of biases in which one hypothesizes not to test a preference but to confirm a bias regardless of its veracity. 

This can undermine the validity of those mental processes.  This takes various forms depending on how formal the test of a hypothesis is.  Sometimes people test hypotheses very informally in day-to-day life; people just dismiss this as normal thinking or conversation.  In those cases, one readily sees biased thinking demonstrated by what people say about their dealings with common problems. 

But there are those who go about this quite formally – scientists and other scholars.  And yet, even with them one can find cases where biases are confirmed or assumed without enough grounds.  Or, as Jonathan St. B. T. Evans reports, they agree with a fallacious argument in their deductive reasoning. 

For example, ungrounded biases can infect statistical analysis at any stage in which statistics are used (in designing a study, in collecting the data, in analyzing the numbers, or in reporting the “findings”).[3]  Consequently, strict protocols are used to minimize the effects of any biases the scholar might bring to his/her efforts.  Apparently, the motive to find what one wants to find is a strong motivation indeed.

So, if that describes what professionals – who are paid to be objective and have acquired the education and training to perform objectively – worry about, what can one expect from adolescents?  One should remember that most of what young people know has come from experiences; what one can call heuristic – hands-on – experiences.  And reflecting upon this state, a reputable model is often cited in the literature.

Again, citing Evans,[4] one can utilize a heuristic-analytic theory or reasoning.  That model identifies three principles.  The first is that a person, in his/her reasoning and accompanying judgements, relies on epistemic (degree of validation) mental models.  They reflect take-aways from singular experiences a person encounters.  They affect a person’s thinking process at a preconscious mental level.  They function to contextualize subsequent relevant challenges. 

How?  These mental biases heighten simultaneously felt goals.  This is the second principle.  Yes, the individual can evaluate a held model or explanation, but he/she is prone to accept it and defend it to him/herself and to others even when it is being challenged.  It reminds one of how parents protect their own; that is, he/she gave “birth” to the biased explanation.

But then there are experiences that more seriously challenge the held model and if the immediate realities are sufficiently incongruent with the model, the person can potentially reject it.  This judgmental process constitutes principle three.  These challenging events can simply present themselves to a person or they can be programed by others such as teachers and their planned lesson experiences.  Of course, this can be of varying degrees of importance to a student. 

This writer can report he has gone through two major, life-changing (transforming) experiences or set of events in his life – the first when he was nineteen.  They can be monumental to one’s sense of self and can prove to be quite the determining factor in subsequent decisions as to how one defines personal relationships or job/career seeking decisions.  Sometimes they prove to be beneficial, sometimes they don’t.

So, the three principles are the singularity principle (from where models are generated), the relevancy principle (the relation to personal goals), and the satisficing principle (the judgement over a model’s functionality).  Evan’s abstract states,

At a minimum, analytic processing of models is required so as to generate inferences or judgements relevant to the task instructions, but more active intervention may result in modification or replacement of default models generated by the heuristic system.  Evidence for this theory is provided by a review of a wide range of literature on thinking and reasoning.[5]

All this indicates that adolescents are open to instruction that can call on students to recognize the mental models they have formulated, evaluate those models, and either modify or reject those models.  This in not to say that they are predisposed to do so; they harbor allegiance to the models they have created.

          At a more practical level, one should not see these models as totally dysfunctional.  They do serve as “advance organizers” that assist the young person – or anyone – to categorize and be able to place in priority stimuli as they become apparent.  At a very basic level, this is essential.  The question becomes:  can one dislodge harmful advanced organizers?[6]  Apparently, they, the students, can and that, when one reflects, is a basic aim of education, and, when the topic is social, is the aim of social studies.

---

[1] Gertrude G. Zeinstra, Maria A. Koelen, Frnas J. Kok, and Cees deGraaf, “Cognitive Development and Children’s Perception of Fruit and Vegetables; A Qualitative Study, International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 4, 30 (2007), online version accessed January 8, 2020, https://ijbnpa.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1479-5868-4-30 AND Kendra Cherry, The Formal Operational Stage of Cognitive Development, Very Well Mind, June 24, 2019, accessed January 8, 2020, https://www.verywellmind.com/formal-operational-stage-of-cognitive-development-2795459 .  This latter cite is a popular version of the former.

[2] In regards to the effect of biases on hypothesis testing see Jonathan S. B. T. Evans, “Hypothetical Thinking:  Dual Processes in Reasoning and Judgement,”  Psychology Press, 2007, abstract accessed January 8, 2020, https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2007-02337-000 .

[3] In regards to the effect of biases on hypothesis testing see Jonathan S. B. T. Evans, “Hypothetical Thinking:  Dual Processes in Reasoning and Judgement,”  Psychology Press, 2007, abstract accessed January 8, 2020, https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2007-02337-000 .

[4] Jonathan S. B. T. Evans, “The Heuristic-Analytic Theory of Reasoning:  Extension and Evaluation,” Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 13, 2006, 378-395, abstract accessed January 9, 2020, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6746428_The_Heuristic-Analytic_Theory_of_Reasoning_Extension_and_Evaluation .

[5] Ibid.

[6] A subsequent important question is:  what constitutes harm?

GETTING TO KNOW

Let there be no doubt, all secondary teachers benefit from the knowledge and beliefs shared by biologists and social scientists concerning adolescence.  That is, they, those teachers, should investigate what these scholars have discovered and speculated over concerning the span of years lodged between childhood and adulthood.  But no field of instruction can benefit more from such investigation than social studies and particularly civics education.

          This blog has in the past addressed adolescence and, with this posting, will begin a renewed reporting as to what the field of psychology and other fields have found.  One place to begin is cognitive development.  The cognitive capacities of young people from the ages of twelve to twenty-one increase significantly.[1]  Physical studies, including magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies, of the brain support this claim as one can detect the changes of the prefrontal cortex and how it functions regarding blood flows and other bodily processes.[2]

          Derived from such research, certain researchers and theorists have developed the dual systems model.  That model strives to explain various observable behavior patterns one can associate with adolescence.  Namely, the model focuses on risk-taking.  It posits that those behaviors result from a higher degree of sensitivity for rewards and a less than optimal level of impulse control and further, these patterns are “encouraged” by biological factors.[3]

          With that very brief overview of the biological, one can judge how productive more theoretical thinking has been concerning these young people’s changing character.  Beginning with Jean Piaget, prominent psychologists have added to what has become the current state of understanding regarding these perplexing years.  From cognitive development to emotional development, a rich literature exists. [4] 

          Psychological studies of cognitive development have centered on various aspects of that development.  They include attention,[5] memory,[6] pace of thinking,[7] the ability to organize thinking,[8] and the ability to reflect on one’s own thinking patterns.  This last topic will be emphasized in future postings.

          As for this posting, the purpose is to introduce the reader to the various concerns one can associate with adolescence.  This should be of interest to those who are charged with instructing mostly teenagers about civic matters.  It is felt here that such information for those educators can be relevant and useful. 

This posting is but the first of a series that will further develop this effort.  It contains some initial samples of a literature teachers can delve into to further strengthen the choices he/she makes in the designing and delivery of lessons.  In short, this series will aim to further enrich what this blog has already shared in this field of interest.

          The next posting will highlight the development of hypothetical and abstract thinking.  Useful is a familiarity with the concept, structure of knowledge.  Here is what this blog shared about this concept in a previous posting,

Knowledge, that is the knowing of truth, has been described as a structured, mental content.  That structure, commonly referred to as the structure of knowledge, has occupied the attention of some of the most prominent thinkers in the field of education.  That includes Jean Piaget, Lev Vygotski, and Jerome Bruner.  A more recent educator is H. Lynn Erickson.

A common description of this structure includes, in an order from the most concrete to the most abstract, the following:  facts, concepts, [topics,] principles or generalizations, and theory.  This progression indicates that facts, logically associated, form concepts; concepts form principles or generalizations, and, one can guess, principles or generalizations form theories.[9] 

One can add to this last category models or hypothesized explanations.  The reader, by reading this quote, has done his/her homework. 

Oh, to add a visual, he/she can click onto https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS861US861&sxsrf=ACYBGNSfu8yJD6BCNpZmkoV1Zzc6sVwpjg:1578364262168&q=structure+of+knowledge&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjjsLCJufDmAhWDZd8KHcT4BacQsAR6BAgJEAE&biw=1536&bih=754

or just “Google” structure of knowledge for various visual representations of how humans organize what they know.

---

[1] Steven R. Smith and Leonard Handler, The Clinical Assessment of Children and Adolescents:  A Practitioner’s Handbook (New York, NY:  Routledge, 2007).  An overview of this book can be found online; see https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781315831473 , accessed January 5, 2020.

[2] Suparna Choudhury, Sarah-Jayne Blakemore, and Tony Charman, “Social Cognitive Development during Adolescence,” Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 1, 3 (December 2006), 165-174, accessed January 5, 2020, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2555426/ .

[3] B. J. Casey, Rebecca M. Jones, and Leah H. Somerville, “Braking and Accelerating of the Adolescent Brain, Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21, 1 (March 1, 2011), 21-33, accessed January 5, 2020, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3070306/ .

[4] An instructive review of the various theoretical approaches to this field of interest (behavioral, information processing, and constructivist), can be found in the textbook, Educational Psychology:  Theory and Practice.  See Robert Slavin, Educational Psychology:  Theory and Practice (12^th Edition) (Boston, MA:  Allyn and Bacon, 2018).

[5] For example, Andrew R. Schiff and Irwin J. Knopf, “The Effect of Task Demands on Attention Allocation in Children of Different Ages,” Child Development (JSTOR), 56, 3 (June 1985), 621-630.  This study compares attention capacity between 9-year-olds and 13-year-olds.

[6]  For example, Daniel P. Keating, “Cognitive and Brain Development,” in Handbook of Adolescent Psychology, eds. R. M. Lerner and L. Steinberg (Portsmouth, NH:  Heinemann, 2004), 45-84.  This work found association between reasoning and memory.

[7] For example, Robert V. Kail and Emilio Ferrer, “Processing Speed in Childhood and Adolescence:  Longitudinal Models for Examining Developmental Change,” Child Development (SRCD), November 3, 2007, abstract accessed January 6, 2020, https://srcd.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01088.x .  This is a review study of various longitudinal models that purport to describe change in processing speed among children and adolescents.

[8] For example, Ann L. Brown, “The Development of Memory:  Knowing, Knowing about Knowing, and Knowing How to Know,” Advances in Child Development and Behavior, a series of books, Volume 10 (1975), 103-152, abstract accessed January 6, 2020, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0065240708600099?via%3Dihub .  The focus of this work is to look at how memory affects self-reflection over what is known by the individual child and adolescent.

[9] Robert Gutierrez, “It’s Not All Good or Bad,” Gravitas:  A Voice for Civics, October 24, 2017, accessed January 6, 2020, https://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/2017/10/its-not-all-good-or-bad.html .

LEGACIES PERSIST

This blog, in November 2018, reported on Abigail and Stephan Thernstrom’s[1] work that cites studies regarding sociological/historical factors and how they have affected racial and ethnic groups.  Specifically, that research looked at these groups’ ability to prepare their offspring to succeed in school. 

That posting, “Disadvantages Beget Disadvantages,” compares the relative disadvantages African Americans have as compared to what white, Asian Americans, and Hispanic families face.  The history of African Americans has been measurably more challenging than that of these other groups.

          This posting will continue this report.  An influential work that reports on the relative strength of various ethnic-racial groups in preparing children for schoolwork is that of Christopher Jencks and Meredith Phillips.  They provide often cited statistics in this area of concern.  Summarily, they state,

Change in parenting practices might do more to reduce the black-white test score gap than changes in parents’ educational attainment or income. … Cognitive disparities between black and white preschool children are currently so large that it is hard to imagine how schools alone could eliminate them. … Changing the way parents deal with their children may be the single most important thing we can do to improve children’s cognitive skills.[2]

The previous posting made the argument that this current situation is clearly the product of the history these groups have experienced.

          Of importance, Jencks and Phillips highlight the amount and character of verbal communications between parents and children.  This can be analyzed according to the amount and type of communication that transpires.  One effort to measure the effects of that history is provided by Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment (HOME) group and its scale.  That study unfortunately reveals significant differences among white, Hispanic, and black households.

          Broad comparisons (in rough numbers) on a testing scale found the following:  in terms of cognitive stimulation, whites scored 104, Hispanics scored 94, and blacks scored 93; and in terms of emotional support, whites scored 103, Hispanics scored 99, and blacks scored 91.[3] But before one is tempted to listen to racial bigots who cite such statistics to “prove” there exists inherent differences among racial and/or ethnic groups, deeper study proves them to be wrong.

          As the Thernstroms argue, such factors as parental education, occupation, and income do make a difference.  One can also add to those more cited variables child’s weight at birth and age of mother also correlate with school performance.[4]  When one controls for these factors, one finds no difference among these groups.

They further suggest that a researcher could probably conflate these other measured variables by just counting the number of books in the home – the more the better.  On this last factor, the Thernstroms report that in a 1998 study of kindergarten students, whites had on average 93 books at home and black kids had half that number.  How many books a child has access to at home does not make the difference, but that number is a telling one for other factors.

          Can school systems control for these factors?  Directly, they have little to no control.  But they can be aware of them and tailor their efforts accordingly.  Of course, in dealing with challenged students, their strategies should reflect knowledge and sensitivity to what is; what the challenges their students bring through the front door of the schoolhouse. 

But more importantly, perhaps, is the responsibility of informing the general public – and their children – what these sociological factors are and to what extent they exist locally.  And this needs to be done sensitively.  The last thing challenged students need is fodder material that can be used in bullying or other derogative treatment by fellow students. 

But generally, if there exist inordinate obstacles that confront portions of the student population, the whole community needs to be made aware of them.  They need to be instructed on how the community can address the unjust conditions that face any grouping within their midst.  And civics education can and should play a central role.  It should, at the secondary level, lead to a productive response by teachers and administrators with the aim of truly federating all families.

---

[1] Abigail Thernstrom and Stephen Thernstrom, No Excuses:  Closing the Racial Gap in Learning (New York, NY:  Simon & Schuster, 2003).

[2] Christopher Jencks and Meredith Phillips, The Black-White Test Score Gap (Washington, DC:  Brookings Institution Press, 1998), 24, 45-46; a version of this work can be found online, https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Black_White_Test_Score_Gap/Ywb7r1oOxJYC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PP1&printsec=frontcover, accessed January 2, 2020.

[3] David J. Armor, Maximizing Intelligence (New Brunswick, NJ:  Transaction Books, 2003); a version of this work can be found online, https://www.google.com/books/edition/Maximizing_Intelligence/nR0uDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover .

[4] Abigail Thernstrom and Stephen Thernstrom, No Excuses:  Closing the Racial Gap in Learning.

NEGATIVE RESIDUALS

Malcolm Gladwell,[1] in his book Outliers, describes the effects cultural experiences have on people generations after their initial occurrences.  He points out the effect rice-growing cultures have had on generations, even in America, as to the manner these descendants conduct their affairs.  That is, a people who is known for its discipline, these Asian Americans are noted for their hard work, high grades in school, and tenacity in business.  Another highlighted group is Scots-Irish Americans who descended from sheepherders in the old country.

          This latter group is known for being distrustful, withdrawn, and not open to social arrangements where cooperation and coordination might be called for and even expected.  Herding sheep involves dealing with a commodity that can be easily stolen and those who own or work them can be easy targets.  Gladwell writes,

So [the sheep herder] has to be aggressive; he has to make it clear, through his words and deeds, he is not weak.  He has to be willing to fight in response to even the slightest challenge to his reputation – and that’s what a “culture of honor” means.  It’s a world where a man’s reputation is at the center of his livelihood and self-worth.[2]

After centuries, this type of work has its effects.

This group is pointed out to introduce J. D. Vance’s treatment[3] of his cultural background, that of what in popular parlance is referred to as hillbillies.  They are low-income whites in the Appalachian states.

          Here are some of Vance’s descriptions of his people:

“Americans call them hillbillies, rednecks, or white trash.  I call them neighbors.”[4]

“Their family structures, religion and politics, and social lives all remain unchanged compared to the wholesale abandonment of tradition that’s occurred nearly everywhere else.”[5]

“We do not like outsiders or people who are different from us, whether the difference lies in how they look, how they act, or, most important, how they talk.”[6]

And, “… it is in Greater Appalachia where the fortunes of working-class whites seem dimmest.  From low social mobility to poverty to divorce and drug addiction, my home is a hub of misery … we’re a pessimistic bunch.”[7]

These descriptors, while not ideal in terms of soliciting from them federalist attitudes and values, seem reasonable given the historical backdrop of their cultural foundations.

          But years have elapsed since this group first made its way to American shores.  Surely all these years have softened their inward or anti-social biases.  If pessimism reflects these other leanings, then the news is not good.  Recent surveys have found that this population measures as more pessimistic than other “low-income” groups including black Americans or Latino immigrants.  Yes, as a group, Vance’s “neighbors” do have economic challenges, but not greater than those facing these other groups.  So, what’s up?

          According to Vance,

We’re more socially isolated than ever, and we pass that isolation down to our children.  Our religion has changed – built around churches heavy on emotional rhetoric but light on the kind of social support necessary to enable poor kids to do well.  Many of us have dropped out of the labor force or have chosen not to relocate for better opportunities.  Our men suffer from a peculiar crisis of masculinity in which some of the very traits that our culture inculcates make it difficult to succeed in a changing world.[8]

This posting’s effort to highlight Vance’s group is not to make a case against them.  They just seem to exemplify many common parochial-tribalistic attributes that can be ascribed to other groups.  By looking at Vance’s hillbillies, maybe because of the heightened degree they exhibit, one can come closer to understanding why American politics has devolved into a state of “tribal” conflict.  That conflict, in turn, undermines the nation’s ability to be federated.

          Therefore, Vance provides a useful case study that serious civics teachers should come to respectfully study and attempt to derive insights as to what ails various cultural groups that find it difficult to be integral parts of this vibrant nation.  These groups are human entities that harbor all the potential resources that that reality represents. 

From a merely reciprocal sense, therefore, one should demand finding out how to encourage these people and other estranged groups to be less tribal and more integral to the grand partnership – the citizenry of the US.  Beyond reciprocity, isn’t it natural to feel the supportive sentiments that motivate such study and policies that promote and advance this end?

[Note:  Wishing a Happy New Year to all.]

---

[1] Malcolm Gladwell, Outliers, (New York, NY:  Little, Brown and Company, 2008).

[2] Ibid., 166-167.

[3] J. D. Vance, Hillbilly Elegy:  A Memoir of a Family and Culture in Crisis (New York, NY:  Harper Collins Publisher, 2016).

[4] Ibid., 2 (Kindle edition).

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid., 2-3 (Kindle edition).

[7] Ibid., 3 (Kindle edition).

[8] Ibid., 4 (Kindle edition).

FAMOUS (OR INFAMOUS)

This is a short holiday read.  It addresses an oft ignored element of federation theory.  That is its support for individualism.  Oh, that’s not the individualism one finds glorified by the natural rights view, but a more, what this blogger considers, substantive view.  It sees individualism as every person self-fulling his/her potentials. 

          Perhaps this shift to this concern is prompted by the nation shifting from what one can a consider a more communal holiday, Christmas, to the more raucous holiday, New Year.  This might be a comparison only held by this blogger, but Christmas always seemed as that day one visits family and even neighbors, sharing gifts and best wishes.  A wholesome emotional state of mind pervades and seems to be, to a great deal, consumed by the American public. 

Heck, people see films like “It’s a Wonderful Life” and donate a lot of money to all sorts of charities – one knows this since it’s one ad for such charities after another on TV.  But now that all those gifts are open and all those gatherings are done, one looks forward to that night of “debauchery” – New Year’s Eve will be here within the week.  Family-“shamily,” it’s time to have a good time and that means favoring what one finds as a good time even if it skirts the outer limits of “appropriate” behavior.  One word of caution:  “be safe out there.”

So, what can one say about individualism that still falls within the more communal sense that federation theory promotes?  Federation theory, as presented in this blog, supports the individual pursuing his/her interests.  What it asks is only that those interests not offend the common good by harming it or hindering it.

Those who hold on to natural rights values, in part, defend their policy choices – minimal government programs, low taxes, and a scarcity of regulations especially on businesses – as claiming such policies intrude on mostly individual economic choices.  This is the part of natural rights one can categorize as its conservative face while it’s aversion to governmental laws restricting personal choices – e.g., alternative lifestyles – is its liberal face.  In short, one should be able to do his/her own thing as he/she defines it if by doing so he/she does not prohibit others the same latitude.

And that might mean – if truly sough after – to be exceptional in some endeavor such as a skill or occupational pursuit.  That is, to seek success in a competitive environment.  One might ask:  what allows one to achieve success in any endeavor that one might consider challenging such as a sport, a technical field of employment, or some area of voluntourism? 

As this blog has stated before, John Rawls, the philosopher, has something to say about this.  Rawls identified his idea of success via his view of equality.  He argues that what leads to success can only be attributed to a person’s effort to a limited degree.  Most of the factors are really beyond a person’s ability to acquire or control.[1]  They are present in one’s life or they are not.  A more recent writer, who picks up on this claim, is Malcolm Gladwell.[2]

Gladwell accepts Rawls’ argument, but he qualifies it by citing his famous (or infamous – for those who see it as a drudgery) 10,000 hours of practice in which one needs engage to become proficient in any demanding skill or endeavor.  And this goes for naturally talented practitioners as well.  Gladwell writes:

The question is this:  is there such a thing as innate talent?  The obvious answer is yes … Achievement is talent plus preparation.  The problem with this view is that the closer psychologists look at the careers of the gifted, the smaller role innate talent seems to play and the bigger the role preparation seems to play.[3]

And this blog has cited the work of Carol S. Dweck whose work has demonstrated that even the common view of intelligence – usually measured by I.Q. testing and seen as each person having a given amount – can improve with the right practice which, in part, convinces a subject that intelligence can be improved.[4]

          But even here, even with an individual putting in the effort and time to achieve those 10,000 hours, community has its role.  One benefits by having the parents who encourage a youngsters putting in a lot of those hours.  The person needs the wealth base to allow time away from non-related employment to be able to practice.  And then there is the program at school or after-school where one can practice under appropriate supervision or coaching or tutoring that point out the mistakes and demonstrate the “correct” ways of motion or thinking.

          And probably to top off what a community can offer is exposure.  That is, exposure to the skill or sport or profession in which the practice occurs.  If one is fortunate and one can run across that activity that spurs the interest that reflects what one is willing to do for those 10,000 hours, then one can count him/herself truly fortunate.  This blogger has not run across a truly successful person who at some level doesn’t enjoy the activity he/she performs.  10,000 hours is a long time.

---

[1] See Chandran Kukathas and Philip Pettit, Rawls:  A Theory of Justice and Its Critics, (Stanford, CA:  Stanford University Press, 1990).

[2] Malcolm Gladwell, Outliers, (New York, NY:  Little, Brown and Company, 2008).

[3] Ibid., 38.

[4] Carol S. Dweck, Self-Theories:  Their Role in Motivation, Personality, and Development (Philadelphia, PA:  Psychology Press, 2000).  Dweck goes on to even claim that a belief that intelligence is held by individuals at a given amount functions as a negative factors when a person eventually encounters a challenge, he/she cannot readily solve or achieve.

WHEN THINGS GET BEYOND “STICKY”

[Note:  Happy Holidays to All!]

This posting continues the theme of the last posting – entitled “It’s a Rainforrest Out There.”  That is, that posting addressed how a polity needs for its citizens and other residents to share certain motivations to initiate and sustain a general communal society – a society in which people generally cooperate.  Citing Michael Sandel,[1] it identified three types of motivations toward that end; those being reciprocity, sentiment, and self-fulfillment. 

Richard Dagger’s[2] view concerning the function communal modes of behaviors play chooses to concentrate on reciprocity as a baseline motivation that one can count on if the other types fail.  The other types are great, but one can realistically get people to worry about how they will be treated by others whether those acts are reactions to positive or negative experiences when either sentiment is missing or lacking, and self-fulfillment is ill-defined or not appreciated. 

Being able to anticipate an enjoyable treatment or a punitive treatment will get most people’s attention; they will seek the former and avoid the latter.  Therefore, they are apt to behave in ways to solicit the former and stay clear of the latter.  And the last posting reported what the implications of these reactions are even when one is observing a group or individual dealing with conflicting interests.

That is, the last posting delved into what these general dispositions need to confront in what could possibly be challenging interactions between or among individuals or groups.  While these less than optimal situations were looked at, the assumption was that generally the overall social landscape in which they take place is fairly tranquil.  It is one that can be described as cooperative and not experiencing, say, common violence and terror.  But what if that is not the case?  What if that landscape is characterized by turmoil?

First, one needs a comparison.  How is one going to treat a fellow organizational or association-al person – a person one has joined in a common effort like a fellow citizen – as compared to someone else – a person, for example, of another country?  Does one place in priority the needs of a co-participant over a foreign person?  Intuitively, one is disposed to do so.  But is this a blank commitment?  If the needs of one of them is not extreme, but within the normal needs of life, then claims of co-participants will likely be placed in a higher priority.

This comparison is important because societal efforts depend on cooperative relationships especially from co-participants.  Therefore, biased choices in favor of co-participants enhance the probability – on merely reciprocal grounds – of cooperative results.  But that is in normal conditions.  If instead, say, a polity is one experiencing excessive violence, or high levels of terror, or the people live lives that demonstrate little respect for law and order, then one finds it less likely that any intuitive priority toward co-participants – fellow citizens – is felt as a viable motivation. 

This priority to favor co-participants relies on a cooperative social/political landscape.  And when this general sense is challenged or, in the extreme, evaporates, then other means to secure general “cooperation” in carrying on the essential societal requisites – such as cars stopping at red lights – relies, in the main, on exploitation. 

In short, in those cases people do what is necessary out of fear of oppressive police actions.  Of course, this does not only refer to traffic.  It particularly becomes a contentious issue when what is at stake are those policies having to do with the distribution of resources.  Dagger writes:

When access to property or wealth or positions of political power is effectively denied to some members, those without access will have little choice but to labor for the benefit of those who dominate their lives – hardly the hallmark of a cooperative enterprise that gives rise to special rights and obligations among its participants.  There is critical edge to the argument from reciprocity, then, an edge that suggests that fellow citizens in many cases simply have no moral claim to priority.[3]

That is, when the choice arises between choosing the interests of a co-participant and a foreign person, the co-participant has no priority claim when the motivation is to avoid the punishment of an authoritarian power.  And given how basic reciprocity is in motivating cooperative behavior, one can see how uncooperative such social landscapes can become.

          For the sake of placing such an understanding to everyday American experience, consider the workplace where the rules of the game either are insufficient or not respected.  How will the workforce react?  No, it will not usually shift over to violence, but unless a policing regime is put in place, one that can detect deviance and has the resources to impart hurtful punishments, the workers will not act or feel they need to act cooperatively. 

They will instead strike out to either advance only personal interests and/or act in ways that seek revenge for abusive acts of others.  The mindset of each abandons any sense of “we” and only thinks in terms of “I.”  Conditions will definitely devolve beyond sticky or uncomfortable, but reach in what one can, at least, consider exploitive.

          Therefore, if one wants to advance the motivation of co-participants toward modes of behavior that allow for a cooperative organizational or association-al arrangement, then a viable rule-based structure and related processes need to be established and maintained.  That entity’s workforce – or citizenry – also needs to be nurtured so it recognizes the reciprocal relationships that exist. 

And that calls for appropriate – what sociologists might call – system maintenance.  That consists of functional socializing and successful recruitment of personnel that, at least, populate the arrangement with people harboring a fundamental understanding of what reciprocal relationships are.  Of course, this all depends on norms within the arrangement and can be carried on too far stifling original thought and innovated proposals.  A balance is called for.

          With that basic level of understanding, a leader can work toward encouraging the other motivations; that is, encouraging positive sentiments and general understanding that legitimate participation in the arrangement can advance individual capacities.  These “higher” aims can be considered and acted upon when the foundation is well entrenched within the realm of the arrangement.

          If the arrangement is a polity and the above aims are met, then it approaches what Dagger refers to as a polity that operates under the auspices of republican liberalism.  This blog considers such a polity being guided by liberated federalism as it implements the elements of federation theory.

---

[1] As reported by Richard Dagger.  Richard Dagger, Civic Virtue:  Rights, Citizenship, and Republican Liberalism (New York, NY:  Oxford, 1997).

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid., 60.