Comments on: Let’s Be More Careful What We Say

By: bbarber

bbarber — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 05:41:48 +0000

Joining this conversation somewhat late, I may be guilty of belaboring the conversation a bit. However, I thought it may be relevant to examine the definition of the term “belief”. It seems that the argument put forth by Jim is with respect to the semantic interpretation of what essentially amounts to journalistic imprecision. While this (argument) may be relevant, it deserves perhaps an examination of intent as much as word choice..

belief. (from Merriam-Webster)
1. a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2. something believed; especially: a tenet or body of tenets held by a group.
3. conviction of truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence.

In my mind, general statements such as the one in question come from a place of extended confidence (i.e., 1.) in the same way as one would say “there is someone out there for everyone”, or a myriad of other “statistically impossible” statements. While an issue may exist with respect to literal interpretation, as Jim suggests, the statement might be better interpreted as a habit of mind or extension of trust which Rhee encourages others to share.

If in fact the speaker is intentionally using the phrase “my central belief” in this way, I think that such imprecision is not only passable, but preferable in that it provides insight into the orientation that colors the speaker’s decision-making processes (i.e., word choice provides as much insight as semantic interpretation of the statement). If however, the phrase is being used in a manner that is more aligned with definition 3., I would wholeheartedly agree with Jim’s evaluation, since a statement intended in this way would relate an ignorance of those statistical parameters that we commonly hold as true (definition 2!), and be a potentially dangerous miscommunication.

(Interestingly, insofar as the statement may be statistically possible for a given context/set of milieu inhabitants, maybe even the speaker’s, we may wish to examine our “central belief” that this is statistically impossible!)

By: JohnL

JohnL — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 01:59:08 +0000

To be sure, Dan, one could set a pretty low bar. For everyone to be able to surmount it, though, it would have to be low enough to permit even individuals with pretty substantial disabilities to meet it. Of course, one might argue that individuals with such disabilities should not be counted in the statistics of “all” children reaching high levels of achievement. Even if one set a low bar and then declared that it only applied to some children, it would seem to me that educators who contend that all children can be high achievers probably should reconsider the meaning of their words.

But, I can’t speak (write) for Jim. Let’s see how he replies to your query.

By: Dan Willingham

Dan Willingham — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 08:44:35 +0000

John
Doesn’t the impossibility depend on the definition of “high achiever?” If one sets an absolute rather than a relative target couldn’t everyone, in principle, become a high achiever?

By: JohnL

JohnL — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 15:23:56 +0000

Maybe it should read, “Even children who do not have many advantages outside of school can learn successfully.”