On these types of forums it’s easy to jump into an argument about the technicalities or a post or comment.

You should know, though, that there is a theory called Ways of Knowing which defines Separate Knowing and Connected Knowing. It’s been a part of my masters program I’m taking.

Separate knowing disconnects the humanity and context from what’s being said and tries to only argue the “facts”. But facts, and the things people say, don’t just occur in a vacuum. It often is the case when people are arguing past each other, like on the internet.

Connected Knowing is approaching the thing someone said with the understanding that there is a context, humanity, biases, different experiences, and human error that can all jumble up when people are sharing information.

Maybe even just knowing that there’s different ways to know would be helpful for us to engage in a different level of conversation here. I’m not sure. I just wanted to share!

https://capstone.unst.pdx.edu/sites/default/files/Critical Thinking Article_0.pdf

    • moistclump@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      1 year ago

      Here’s another example I saw on the inter webs. One of the questions in the research was “Do you start to argue the opposite point of view of what someone’s saying while they’re saying it?” Or something like that.

    • moistclump@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes good question! It was actually this response on one of my posts that got me thinking about it: https://programming.dev/comment/4765560

      I felt it missed the point of my original post, because I didn’t do intensive research before posting it and just wanted to have a casual discussion and start some Lemmy engagement. I think this would be an example of Separate Knowing, missing the forest for the trees of a sentence or two I threw together in passing. And then I remembered that happens a lot on the internet but I didn’t want it to deter me!