梦想成为一颗星星。 Telegram：AboveAbyss
Activity summary: Does the division of disciplines make the distance of communication farther?
This is a belated summary of the event. A few days ago, I was addicted to writing and thinking, and only did the work of distributing bonuses. Still the text is invalid, hope and forgive me.
During the event, more than 20 citizens expressed their views on the theme, or responded to others' speeches for discussion. As written in the proposal, the event ends on May 21, and whether the second phase of the event will be launched depends on the effectiveness of the first phase of the event.
In general, more people expressed their opinions than participated in the discussion, and the discussion atmosphere was not enthusiastic, so I chose not to launch the second phase of the event. The reason is that the discussion topic is too biased, and it is impossible for most people to have something to say, and the design of Matters' comments is not suitable for discussion (this is the evaluation of some discussants).
If you hold a discussion event in the future, consider choosing a popular topic and a moderator who can promote the discussion. For example, Chairman Wu initiated the discussion on GDP growth rate.
Many enthusiastic citizens have contributed wonderful comments to this event, and some of the passages (not necessarily the most essential ones) are excerpted and shared with readers. Excerpts are ordered from first to last by publication time.
From my superficial understanding, qualitative experiments are very focused on context and the organic content of the research. However, the research takes a long time. A research may last for several years. The follow-up research must be flexible in order to catch up with changes. Changes may Great sex. In contrast, quantitative experiments hope to achieve a clear data structure through specification and classification, and achieve the ideal conclusion of explicit correlation through specification of reliability and validity. Question information is also limited.
In the learning process of pulling each other like this, I was squeezed very hard. I realize that quantitative research has its own unanswerable questions, and many scholars are still insisting on doing so; qualitative research methods also have obvious problems, which will directly affect the reliability and validity of the research. However, the mutual discrimination between the two parties has hindered the communication between disciplines.
Such extrusion is also a process of conduction from top to bottom. Special training on qualitative training, or training focused on quantitative training, seems to be being pushed by a huge thrust, walking on a road intently, without looking at the scenery on the opposite side.
In fact, when talking about "differentiation", it is not only about subjects, but also about the grading of degrees and whether they are obtained or not. There is also the possibility of differentiation in the environment in which degrees are obtained—that is, the choice of schools.
Back to the topic of the text: Does the division of disciplines make the communication distance further? In fact, no, the "idea of class classification" and the habit of "listening to only one answer" are the main reasons for the distant communication, and the division of disciplines is actually just one of the phenomena that occurs based on this foundation.
The exchange of positions between different people is based on a common knowledge base, that is, the existence of consensus. Otherwise, if even the basic facts are ambiguous and there is a dispute, the exchange is like chickens and ducks, and they keep talking to themselves. The modernization of labor differentiation has brought about more and more detailed disciplinary differentiation. People from different disciplines have acquired different disciplinary perspectives and knowledge systems because of education, mastered different knowledge and information, and all believe that what they have mastered is correct and scientific. Effective communication is increasingly difficult.
If you want to talk about the relationship between communication and "discipline", the influence should be determined by the professional training and expertise received in this "discipline", which is clearly felt in my brief legal training, even if I only received After taking legal education with only a little popular science nature, I also felt the subtle role of legal thinking on people's thinking, such as the division of power and responsibility, the difference between rights and obligations, accepting legal thinking, and then looking at social events, Many times when you look at a problem, it will be "cold-blooded" or "strange" in the eyes of others, because there is often a gap between the "common sense" of the law and the "moral common sense" of the society, although many times you are only based on existing facts. Analyzing the problem.
If you want to talk about the relationship between communication and "discipline", the influence should be determined by the professional training and expertise received in this "discipline", which is clearly felt in my brief legal training, even if I only received After taking legal education with only a little popular science nature, I also felt the subtle role of legal thinking on people's thinking, such as the division of power and responsibility, the difference between rights and obligations, accepting legal thinking, and then looking at social events, Many times when you look at a problem, it will be "cold-blooded" or "strange" in the eyes of others, because there is often a gap between the "common sense" of the law and the "moral common sense" of the society, although many times you are only based on existing facts. Analyzing the problem.
So I think the crux of the matter is that if you're not humble enough about knowledge to think that the world is absolute in one dimension, then it's hard to think differently; on the contrary, if we can admit that we are ignorant and believe that knowledge is possible in In the group, through communication and dialogue, you need to get closer, get closer, and continue to get closer to the world, and then your heart will be extremely fulfilled.
Therefore, I think there is no problem with the division of disciplines, but schools should pave the way for some logic of viewing the world belonging to other fields. People will be fuller and more open-minded because of the interaction of these things.
Does the division of disciplines make communication farther? Yes, but not fundamentally, any people with different knowledge backgrounds may have communication barriers.
What are the possible underlying reasons? The information transformation of subjective consciousness leads to the generation of communication barriers, which eventually makes communication difficult and gradually drifts away.
Therefore, the conclusion is obvious that the "post-wavers" who did not receive speculative education in the university are a group of Internet aborigines who grew up in the big dye vat of the Internet, and just happened to encounter the media that is going to the end, on the road of anti-intellectualization. It's no surprise that rational communication is fading away when the flames are fanned. It's just that this pot should not be carried by the division of disciplines.
However, in recent years, free and high-quality learning resources such as MOOCs have given people who have difficulty in communication due to the division of disciplines the opportunity to bridge the gap. I think if I can give guidance in the school, let everyone know that there are such resources, and encourage everyone to contact knowledge outside various disciplines, and the division of disciplines should not be a problem.
On the one hand, the government has been tightening its overall control over discourse discussions, including stricter information and network controls, and more systematic education on patriotism and patriotism. On the other hand, a large number of relatively low-value spiritual entertainment and information sources are provided to the public, and a large amount of hot money has poured into fields such as traffic stars, online live broadcasts, mobile games, and big data information push (Tik Tok, Toutiao), and constantly strengthen these information. It can be said that it seems to have firmly controlled the information space of the vast majority of the new generation of young people.
It is not the academic division of labor that makes communication difficult, but the attitude of trying to understand other fields of knowledge. When knowledge increases, there will inevitably be preferences, and this preference is also a division of labor. The question is, with what attitude do we understand other things we are familiar, semi-familiar and unfamiliar with? Do we understand things with the attitude that we may be denied? Most people don't. The difficulty with communication is that we don't see other things on the premise of accepting other people's ideas.
There is a need for differentiation in disciplines. First, not everyone has the ability to handle different fields of knowledge (for example, asking a digital idiot to learn programming should be a lifesaver), and in-depth study of differences according to each person's strengths (and/or interests) knowledge areas, the benefits to individuals and society should be higher.
As for why everyone's communication is so difficult, I'm not quite sure that it's because of changes in disciplinary knowledge - this is undoubtedly a combination of factors, but I don't think disciplinary changes are a significant cause. As the author said, people's emotions, experiences, comprehension ability and even language expression, etc., will have a great impact on the effect of communication. I also dragged the unupdated [Censorship] series, which also mentioned similar reasons - different forms of censorship will widen the information/knowledge gap of the public, thereby dividing and polarizing the public, making public discussion more and more difficult.
However, due to the pressure of low birthrate on school management recently, there is a trend to consolidate departments; and because cross-disciplinary abilities are valued, and many high school students do not really understand the content of each department before entering the university, the future What are the ways out? Some schools are also implementing the division of freshmen, freshmen and secondaries, first cultivating general basic literacy, and then adapting to diversion. I think this is a good educational reform, which can not only reduce the misplacement of resources, but also help Lower barriers between disciplines.
First explain why I find it difficult. Mainly in my personal opinion, there are many reasons for the communication distance to become farther. This is an objective existence. Disciplinary differentiation should be thrown away. But when a phenomenon is universal, we should really consider some external reasons. So for me, there are two points that are more difficult. One is to avoid mentioning others that have nothing to do with the division of disciplines when discussing, and the other is to be able to prepare to express the external reasons that lead to this phenomenon.
It is not difficult to find that the knowledge acquired in the educational system is similar before entering high school or even university. But at this time, a certain [thinking system] has been born, and there are more or less differences in the specific [thinking mode]. The students at this time had already had [incomprehensible disputes] when discussing specific cases.
Like my work?
Don't forget to support or like, so I know you are with me..
Comment…