I appreciate the utility of dueling narratives; being able to assess two (or more) sides to an argument is fundamental skill. Educational institutions should strive to equip people so that they can do this well.
That said, I'm cautious about Zinn vs. Johnson. Zinn is a polemicist, and I consider his book for kids to be actively damaging. I don't know anything about Paul Johnson, but he's a polemicist as well I don't know that anyone would learn much by playing one off against the other. You would do much better to find two truth-seekers who have come to opposite conclusions about some significant issue. A contemporary example worthy of study in this way might be the 1619 Project; there are multiple views pro- and con-, but I don't think that anyone is guilty of acting in bad father.
Yes, excellent! I agree completely that the choice of both Zinn and Johnson might be improved because they’re trying to score points. If anyone can suggest some specific choices, please do.
I think humans are thrilled by the conflict of contrasting viewpoints. Our brains must light up whenever there are sides to take. It draws us in and activates us. It's not just that kids need to learn how to figure out the truth out of opposing viewpoint. Yes, that's great. It's also that this, if done right, can draw them in. And now we can also simulate the contrasting viewpoints with AI and make it a conversation, eventually getting the students to join in. I can't wait to see it in practice.
Yes — an excellent insight that AI can play an important role in this! (Among other things, one could upload some of Howard Zinn's writings, and ask the AI to play the role of Zinn, and converse with the class. Among OTHER things, one could ask the AI to give a critical factual analysis of some of his points — it's acknowledged by people sympathetic to his perspective that he can sometimes be less than fully trustworthy.)
I like the idea of dueling histories. Questions: How will schools and education systems go about
finding the two perspectives? What about the fact that teaching history in schools is always tried to an agenda (putting a particular country or ideology in a positive light versus another)
Should schools/education systems teach history with a pre-determined agenda? Do they need to to prevent racism/slavery etc
I appreciate the utility of dueling narratives; being able to assess two (or more) sides to an argument is fundamental skill. Educational institutions should strive to equip people so that they can do this well.
That said, I'm cautious about Zinn vs. Johnson. Zinn is a polemicist, and I consider his book for kids to be actively damaging. I don't know anything about Paul Johnson, but he's a polemicist as well I don't know that anyone would learn much by playing one off against the other. You would do much better to find two truth-seekers who have come to opposite conclusions about some significant issue. A contemporary example worthy of study in this way might be the 1619 Project; there are multiple views pro- and con-, but I don't think that anyone is guilty of acting in bad father.
Yes, excellent! I agree completely that the choice of both Zinn and Johnson might be improved because they’re trying to score points. If anyone can suggest some specific choices, please do.
I think humans are thrilled by the conflict of contrasting viewpoints. Our brains must light up whenever there are sides to take. It draws us in and activates us. It's not just that kids need to learn how to figure out the truth out of opposing viewpoint. Yes, that's great. It's also that this, if done right, can draw them in. And now we can also simulate the contrasting viewpoints with AI and make it a conversation, eventually getting the students to join in. I can't wait to see it in practice.
Yes — an excellent insight that AI can play an important role in this! (Among other things, one could upload some of Howard Zinn's writings, and ask the AI to play the role of Zinn, and converse with the class. Among OTHER things, one could ask the AI to give a critical factual analysis of some of his points — it's acknowledged by people sympathetic to his perspective that he can sometimes be less than fully trustworthy.)
I like the idea of dueling histories. Questions: How will schools and education systems go about
finding the two perspectives? What about the fact that teaching history in schools is always tried to an agenda (putting a particular country or ideology in a positive light versus another)
Should schools/education systems teach history with a pre-determined agenda? Do they need to to prevent racism/slavery etc