Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bentway who wrote (42521)	10/29/2017 2:41:40 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 362548

>> teaching of critical thinking<< I think the legislature attempted to ban that, here in Texas. Well, of course. --------------------- ...Grossman and his colleagues argue that most intelligence tests fail to capture real-world decision-making and our ability to interact well with others. This is, in other words, perhaps why “smart” people, do “dumb” things. The ability to think critically, on the other hand, has been associated with wellness and longevity. Though often confused with intelligence, critical thinking is not intelligence. Critical thinking is a collection of cognitive skills that allow us to think rationally in a goal-orientated fashion, and a disposition to use those skills when appropriate. Critical thinkers are amiable skeptics. They are flexible thinkers who require evidence to support their beliefs and recognize fallacious attempts to persuade them. Critical thinking means overcoming all sorts of cognitive biases (e.g., hindsight bias, confirmation bias, etc.). Critical thinking predicts a wide range of life events. In a series of studies, conducted in the United States and abroad, my colleagues and I have found that critical thinkers experience fewer bad things in life.... salon.com

To: bentway who wrote (42521)	10/29/2017 3:29:00 PM
From: combjelly	Respond to of 362548

Not really. It was part of the platform, but I am not aware of any legislation that actually used that language. Not that should be any surprise. As it pretty clear, that language was a dog whistle, just not a particularly well thought out one. What they were targeting was anything that would have challenged teaching the Bible in the classroom. What they didn't realize was how crazy it sounds outside of their bubble world. So they dove for cover, that language was a mistake, they didn't intend for it to say what it objectively means, it is too late to change the platform, etc. Make no mistake, though. The same basic idea lives on. They just use different words. These are not exactly the sharpest spoons in the drawer. But that doesn't mean they aren't serious.