Problem, Puzzle, and Paradox: What’s Missing?

[coberst]

Problem, Puzzle, and Paradox: What’s Missing?

Within the category “problem” there are at least two subcategories: “puzzle” and “paradox”.

Quickie from wiki:
A problem is an obstacle which makes it difficult to achieve a desired goal, objective or purpose. It refers to a situation, condition, or issue that is yet unresolved. In a broad sense, a problem exists when an individual becomes aware of a significant difference between what actually is and what is desired.

Problems that are a puzzle

‘Normal science’, as described by Thomas Kuhn in his book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, is the science of means, controlled generally by a paradigm. We normally use the word ‘science’, which has more than one meaning, to mean the ‘normal science’ that which Kuhn speaks of. Science, to the laity, is a word encompassing technology and probably all that is good about the human ability to reason. I suspect the average person often wonders why everyone cannot be scientific about developing solutions for all problems. Why cannot we be scientific and rational in solving all our problems?

The college student of physics studies the paradigms of the science of physics to qualify for acceptance into that particular profession. From these paradigms patterns of recognition and routines and algorithms for solutions have evolved and are memorized by all students who wish to join that particular profession. An algorithm is a step-by-step process for solving a problem. A simple example of an algorithm is the process we learned to accomplish long division.

Normal science involves itself only in problems definable by paradigms and algorithms. Normal science is successful because it deals only with these monological problems. These problems are circumscribed by the paradigm and contain many algorithms for guiding the practitioner into the proper mode for solution of the problem.

Normal scientific research is devoted to accumulating evidence that supports and expands the horizon of the accepted paradigm. The scientific researcher anticipates the answer and organizes the research effort to verify that anticipated result. Science does not perform experiments upon matters wherein the results are not expected. This is the nature of puzzle solving. The end is known in great detail and that which is in doubt is the various ways of verifying that anticipated end. The prize winning puzzle solver is he or she with the cleverest efforts to reach the anticipated end result. Puzzles are problems that test the ingenuity and skill in puzzle solutions.

The paradigm instructs the logic--the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration--of the particular domain of knowledge encompassed by that paradigm. The logic of the paradigm insulates the professional group from problems that are unsolvable by that paradigm. One reason that science progresses so rapidly and with such assurance is because the logic of that paradigm allows the practitioners to work on problems that only their lack of ingenuity will keep them from solving.

The natural sciences are primarily puzzle solving operations. The natural sciences are useful for logical thinking but the uses of scientific learning are that most judgments required in life are not puzzle like.

Problems that are a paradox

Quickie from wiki:
A paradox is a statement or group of statements that leads to a contradiction or a situation which defies intuition…The word paradox is often used interchangeably with contradiction.

An example of a paradox might be narcissism, which is both necessary and detrimental to human survival.

The fetus resting in the womb is in a state of absolute narcissism. Freud says “By being born we have made the step from an absolute self-sufficient narcissism to the perception of a changing external world and the beginning of the discovery of objects.” The absolute self-narcissism is partially dissolved and divided with objects.

The “normal” person, in maturity, has made an apportionment of narcissistic energy between the self and the other in a manner that society finds acceptable.

Originally Freud’s view of narcissism was based on his concept of sexual libido wherein this psychic narcissistic energy was directed for sexual manifestations. This theory was later modified by Freud and was empathesized by Jung as an energy that binds the needs of the individual both internally and externally to fit the needs for survival. Highly charged energies create forces that motivate behavior for that organisms’ survival.

The comprehension of human behavior depends upon an understanding of these narcissistically energized forces.

Primary narcissism is the label given to this force accompanying the new born; wherein the only reality is the self, its body and its accompanying sensations associated with a need for sleep, bodily contact, warmth, thirst, and hunger.

Moral hypochondria is little different from physical hypochondria manifestations. “The narcissism underlying physical or moral hypochondriasis is the same as the narcissism of the vain person, except that it is less apparent, as such, to the untrained eye.” K. Abraham calls this negative narcissism and it is characterized by feelings of inadequacy, unreality, and self-accusation.

How do we recognize the individual with abnormal levels of narcissism? S/he shows all the signs of self-satisfaction, generally oblivious of others, very sensitive to criticism, little genuine interest in the outside world, and all of these characteristics are often hidden behind an attitude of modesty and humility.

Another important characteristic of some individuals is the association of certain aspects of their person that become objects of focused narcissism. They become very sensitive to any disagreement with their ideas, their honor, their house, their car, intelligence, or physical prowess. S/he will often seem to have fallen in love with all of their stuff.

“Speaking teleologically, we can say that nature had to endow man with a great amount of narcissism to enable him to do what is necessary for survival. This is true especially because nature has not endowed man with well-developed instincts such as the animal has…In man the instinctive apparatus has lost most of its efficacy—hence narcissism assumes a very necessary biological function…Narcissism is a passion the intensity of which in many individuals can only be compared with sexual drive and the desire to stay alive.”

Narcissism has an important function to perform—it is important for our survival. However, there is a serious down side. Extreme narcissism makes us indifferent to others and incapable of giving our personal needs second place to the needs of the community. Extreme narcissism is the opposite of empathy; it makes us asocial creatures unable to cooperate for the common good.

Another dangerous result of narcissism is that it distorts our ability to reason and to make good judgments. “Narcissistic value-judgment is prejudiced and biased. Usually this prejudice is rationalized in one form or another and the rationalization may be more or less deceptive according to the intelligence and sophistication of the person involved…If he were aware of the distorted nature of his narcissistic judgments, the results would not be so bad. He would—and could—take a humorous attitude toward his narcissistic bias. But this is rare.”

The narcissistic person reacts with great anger when criticized. S/he tends to take all criticism as a personal attack; this can be understood when we recognize that the extremely narcissistic person is unrelated to the world; s/he feels alone and frightened and these feelings lead to compensation by self-inflation. “When his narcissism is wounded he feels threatened in his whole existence…This fury is all the more intense because nothing can be done to diminish the threat by appropriate action; only destruction of the critic—or oneself—can save one from the threat to one’s narcissistic security.”

Depression is a means other than rage for struggling against a wounded narcissism. The narcissistic person uses the shield of self-inflation, acquiring a feeling of omniscient and omnipotent, to overcome the arrows of the outside world. The narcissistic person dreads the feeling associated with depression and one way to combat this alternative is to attempt to change reality in such a way as to conform to his self created image. This is done by associating with others in a dynamic of group narcissism.

This post is getting too long; I will close by saying that group narcissism represents the most dramatic phenomenon that leads to human destructiveness.

Ideas and quotes for narcissism come from The Heart of Man Erich Fromm

The question I ask of the reader is ‘what label or labels are missing to identify those problems that are neither a puzzle nor a paradox?’

[coberst]

Let’s examine some problems that are neither a puzzle nor a paradox.

I suspect most, if not all, of the problems that face President Obama everyday are such problems. Such problems as Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, toxic assets, big banksters, global climate change, drug war in Mexico, etc. are neither puzzles nor paradoxes.

I suggest that we badly need a name, a sub-category of problem, which identifies this type of problem.

One big reason that we cannot comprehend these matters is because we have not thought about then sufficiently to have coined a word for them. Our culture, instead of working on these problems, has taught us that these problems as puzzles. Our schools and colleges teach us that all problems are puzzles.

How can a culture become sophisticated when we think that all problems are puzzles?

[RichardHresko]

Let’s examine some problems that are neither a puzzle nor a paradox.

I suspect most, if not all, of the problems that face President Obama everyday are such problems. Such problems as Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, toxic assets, big banksters, global climate change, drug war in Mexico, etc. are neither puzzles nor paradoxes.

I suggest that we badly need a name, a sub-category of problem, which identifies this type of problem.

One big reason that we cannot comprehend these matters is because we have not thought about then sufficiently to have coined a word for them. Our culture, instead of working on these problems, has taught us that these problems as puzzles. Our schools and colleges teach us that all problems are puzzles.

How can a culture become sophisticated when we think that all problems are puzzles?

To label something a puzzle or a paradox or a zerblix is merely to define one's attitude to the thing. It is not at all clear that naming something necessarily aids in comprehension.

When we claim a problem is a puzzle we are stating some claims about our attitude towards the situation. First, that it has a solution. Second, that the solution can be found by some strategy.

For example, death is a problem only if you think that there is, or should be, some way to avoid it. Otherwise it is merely a fact.

Something like Afghanistan might be considered a paradox by those who see the results to be incongruous given the actions, a puzzle for those who believe that the conditions there could be more to the US's liking if things were done correctly, and neither if one does not consider the situation there to be something we need to address at all.

[coberst]

Categorization is very important in our effort to comprehend our world and our self. Without categories, such as problem, puzzle, and paradox we cannot begin to understand our world.

The fact that we do not have a commonly understood word for problems that are neither puzzle nor paradox indicates that we have given little thought to those problems that make up most of the problems that we face. The problems associated with human relationships are such problems.

[RichardHresko]

Categorization is very important in our effort to comprehend our world and our self. Without categories, such as problem, puzzle, and paradox we cannot begin to understand our world.

The fact that we do not have a commonly understood word for problems that are neither puzzle nor paradox indicates that we have given little thought to those problems that make up most of the problems that we face. The problems associated with human relationships are such problems.

Categorization only organizes our thoughts around a particular model.

Have you considered the possibility that the situations associated with human relationships are, for the most part, not problems at all?

After all, if that is the case, you are looking for a word to describe something that does not exist. Hardly helpful.

Give a concrete example of a problem associated with human relationships that is genuinely recognizable as aproblem and can not be adequately conceptualized as a puzzle or paradox. It would be best if it were non-political, given that this board frowns down upon political discussion.

[coberst]

Give a concrete example of a problem associated with human relationships that is genuinely recognizable as aproblem and can not be adequately conceptualized as a puzzle or paradox. It would be best if it were non-political, given that this board frowns down upon political discussion.


Any matter of fairness or justice is such an example. Any matter of diplomacy between nations is another. Any matter of familty disagreement regarding a teen and her or his parents. Almost all relationship problems are such matters.

[RichardHresko]

Any matter of fairness or justice is such an example. Any matter of diplomacy between nations is another. Any matter of familty disagreement regarding a teen and her or his parents. Almost all relationship problems are such matters.

Please make the example concrete.

[librarius_qui]

Problem as puzzle would be like a question
and as a paradox, like an obtacle?, I wander ...

I've been thinking of problem, yesterday (or the day before) and I found myself with the word "question" as something more fit to propose to other people involved in the matter. The word problem may be dangerous to use with people who don't like maths ...

[coberst]

Please make the example concrete.

Should we, can we, create a health care system in America that provides adequate health care to all citizens?

[coberst]

Problem as puzzle would be like a question
and as a paradox, like an obtacle?, I wander ...

I've been thinking of problem, yesterday (or the day before) and I found myself with the word "question" as something more fit to propose to other people involved in the matter. The word problem may be dangerous to use with people who don't like maths ...



This is a good example of how our educational system has not prepared us to become problem solvers.

We have learned that all problems are like the problems in a math book. We are ignorant of the vital fact that the most important problems we face are not like math problems. It is like having only one tool for every job. If we think every problem is a nail then we hammer every problem.

[RichardHresko]

Should we, can we, create a health care system in America that provides adequate health care to all citizens?

Okay, let's see if we need a new word for either of the TWO problems presented.

The first problem is "should we create an adequate health care system?"
This is a question of political philosophy, part of the broader question of what should be the role of government in dealing with the problems of citizens. I don't see a need for a new term to describe this -- 'question of political philosophy' seems adequate to me.

The second question is "can we create an adequate health care system?" This is a problem of economics and organization (the former dealing with how is it paid for, the latter with how it can be administered). The division of each of these into appropriate sub-problems would be handled by the respective disciplines. Once again I do not see the need for a new word to describe the nature of the problem.

I note in passing that the second question can be addressed without reference to the first insofar as the creation of a health care system with certain features is a technical question.

Questions of adequacy of the health care would belong to the political sphere.

[Uberzensch]

Coberst, I think there are a couple of problems with your post.

First, you create a framework of categories - and yes, you created it - and then worry about it being inadequate. So, to begin with, I question whether your breakdown of problem, puzzle and paradox is even accurate ro useful.

Second, you are concerned that we do not have a term for the special problems you define - such as problems that exist outside of existing paradigms. However, you use Kuhn when discussing "normal" science but fail to mention his other concept of "extraordinary" science. I think this concept describe those problems and solutions you are concerned with.

I would agree with previous posters that the lack of a category may not be as important as you think. Regardless, the category or concept you are looking for may exist in the work you've already cited!

Finally, based on the example you give -
Should we, can we, create a health care system in America that provides adequate health care to all citizens? - you are discussing open-ended questions that do not have answers. There is no answer to the question of should we do anything. Any response to this type of question is ideological and based on some set of beliefs. I wouldn't necessarily say that we are unprepared to answer it because of poor education - though, I would agree that our education system does not prepare us to think critically about these issues - but that we can't answer them because they can't be answered!

[coberst]

Finally, based on the example you give - - you are discussing open-ended questions that do not have answers. There is no answer to the question of should we do anything. Any response to this type of question is ideological and based on some set of beliefs. I wouldn't necessarily say that we are unprepared to answer it because of poor education - though, I would agree that our education system does not prepare us to think critically about these issues - but that we can't answer them because they can't be answered!

Exactly! Most problems do not have a one solution. Most of our problems are about values, i.e. about goals and not about the best means for achieving a goal. Instrumental rationality is about means and is about puzzles whereas establishing values is another type of problem.

The problem is that our educational system has taught us that all problems require only a hammer (the scientific method) for solution. Value problems require dialogue followed by dialectical rationality.

[Uberzensch]

Yes, I see. I may have gotten ahead of myself there.

I definitely agree that students today are taught that everything can be solved as if it were some technical problem.

The other thing I would say is beware rationality as a saving grace. When we get into the area you define as problem, rationality, reason and objectivity typically fly out the door.

[RichardHresko]

Exactly! Most problems do not have a one solution. Most of our problems are about values, i.e. about goals and not about the best means for achieving a goal. Instrumental rationality is about means and is about puzzles whereas establishing values is another type of problem.

The problem is that our educational system has taught us that all problems require only a hammer (the scientific method) for solution. Value problems require dialogue followed by dialectical rationality.

You are over-generalizing.

If you go back to my response to your two questions you will see that the "problem" you posed was recognized as two problems. The first required a judgment, the second purely technical and amenable to scientific approach.

Your example showed a tendency on your part to conflate the two types of problems. I would suggest the difficulty is not some vague "educational system" but a general lack of clarity in your framing the problem. Which is why I asked for a concrete example.

[coberst]

We live in two very different worlds; a world of technical and technological order and clarity, and a world of personal and social disorder and confusion. We are increasingly able to solve problems in one domain and increasingly endangered by our inability to solve problems in the other.

Normal science, as defined by Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, is successful primarily because it is a domain of knowledge controlled by paradigms. The paradigm defines the standards, principles and methods of the discipline. It is not apparent to the laity but science moves forward in small incremental steps. Science seldom seeks and almost never produces major novelties.

Science solves puzzles. The logic of the paradigm insulates the professional group from problems that are unsolvable by that paradigm. One reason that science progresses so rapidly and with such assurance is because the logic of that paradigm allows the practitioners to work on problems that only their lack of ingenuity will keep them from solving.

Science uses instrumental rationality to solve puzzles. Instrumental rationality is a systematic process for reflecting upon the best action to take to reach an established end. The obvious question becomes ‘what mode of rationality is available for determining ends?’ Instrumental rationality appears to be of little use in determining such matters as “good” and “right”.

There is a striking difference between the logic of technical problems and that of dialectical problems. The principles, methods and standards for dealing with technical problems and problems of “real life” are as different as night and day. Real life problems cannot be solved only using deductive and inductive reasoning.

Dialectical reasoning methods require the ability to slip quickly between contradictory lines of reasoning. One needs skill to develop a synthesis of one point of view with another. Where technical matters are generally confined to only one well understood frame of reference real life problems become multi-dimensional totalities.

When we think dialectically we are guided by principles not by procedures. Real life problems span multiple categories and academic disciplines. We need point-counter-point argumentation; we need emancipatory reasoning to resolve dialectical problems. We need Critical Thinking skills and attitudes to resolve real life problems.

[beroq]

Problem: Obstacle without any innate confusing element.

Puzzle: More enigmatic than problematic.

Paradox: Contradiction/discrepancy.

Problem and puzzle stand closer in meaning, I believe.

[RichardHresko]

There are problems that have solutions that are optimizable, as long as there is agreement on what optimum means. Many, if not most, technical problems are of this sort. For example, what is the maximum volume container that can be constructed from a particular polymer that can resist breakage up to a certain force applied.

There are problems that are not answerable because they require a choice beyond the technical. A question of whether a government should supply universal health care is one of these latter. It is not possible to answer this technically.

Is this necessarily a bad thing? Coberst implies that it is. I think not.

The reason for my thinking so is that a diversity of opinion would appear to hold the greatest possibility for creative solutions within a society. The analogue to this is genetic variation within a species. Monocultures are more susceptible to devastation than "wild" stock.

Can there be too much diversity? That may depend more on the insistence of some to impose their ideas on others. Otherwise, probably not.

The point ultimately is that not only has there been a failure to demonstrate a need for a new term for some types of problems, but that the implied hope that finding such a term would lead to resolution of some types of problems may not, in fact, be a goal that would be beneficial to achieve.

[coberst]

At least one subgroup of problems that is missing here and in our educational system is that of dialectical problems.

I think that our first step is for a significant percentage of our population to become sufficiently intellectually sophisticated as to make many citizens capable of engaging in dialogical reasoning. To do this I think that many citizens must become self-actualizing self-learners when their school daze are over.

Under our normal cultural situation communication means to discourse, to exchange opinions with one another. It seems to me that there are opinions, considered opinions, and judgments. Opinions are a dime-a-dozen. Considered opinions, however, are opinions that have received a considerable degree of thought but have not received special study. A considered opinion starts out perhaps as tacit knowledge but receives sufficient intellectual attention to have become consciously organized in some fashion. Judgments are made within a process of study.

In dialogue, person ‘A’ may state a thesis and in return person ‘B’ does not respond with exactly the same meaning as does ‘A’. The meanings are generally similar but not identical; thus ‘A’ listening to ‘B’ perceives a disconnect between what she said and what ‘B’ replies. ‘A’ then has the opportunity to respond with this disconnect in mind, thereby creating a response that takes these matters into consideration; ‘A’ performs an operation known as a dialectic (a juxtaposition of opposed or contradictory ideas). And so the dialogical process proceeds.

A dialogical process is not one wherein individuals reason together in an attempt to make common ideas that are already known to each individual. ”Rather, it may be said that the two people are making something in common, i.e., creating something new together.” Dialogical reasoning together is an act of creation, of mutual understanding, of meaning.

Dialogic can happen only if both individuals wish to reason together in truth, in coherence, without prejudice, and without trying to influence each other. Each must be prepared to “drop his old ideas and intentions. And be ready to go on to something different, when this is called for…Thus, if people are to cooperate (i.e., literally to ‘work together’) they have to be able to create something in common, something that takes shape in their mutual discussions and actions, rather than something that is conveyed from one person who acts as an authority to the others, who act as passive instruments of this authority.”

“On Dialogue” written by “The late David Bohm, one of the greatest physicists and foremost thinkers this century, was Fellow of the Royal Society and Emeritus Professor of Physics at Birkbeck College, University of London.

Bohm is convinced that communication is breaking down as a result of the crude and insensitive manner in which it is transpiring. Communication is a concept with a common meaning that does not fit well with the concepts of dialogue, dialectic, and dialogic.

I claim that if we citizens do not learn to dialogue we cannot learn to live together in harmony sufficient to save the species.

[Uberzensch]

I claim that if we citizens do not learn to dialogue we cannot learn to live together in harmony sufficient to save the species.

Perhaps, but I think you lost sight of your own original question. What does this have to do with the category of problem?

I must admit, coberst, I don't really understand what you are trying to do here.

[coberst]

Perhaps, but I think you lost sight of your own original question. What does this have to do with the category of problem?

I must admit, coberst, I don't really understand what you are trying to do here.


I suspect that if you were to carefully read the post that you would better comprehend the relationaship.

[Uberzensch]

I suspect that if you were to carefully read the post that you would better comprehend the relationaship.

Nope.

I understand your desire for people to engage crtitical thought or dialectical reasoning. This is a very simple and common sentiment among those interested in philosphy or politics. Yes, people should talk, listen, be willing to change. You don't have to read Bohm, just go back to Mill.

I don't see how this applies to your desire to create a category - problem - requiring this type of thought.

Furthermore, I believe if you were to look at universities you'd see attempts at creating this sort of dialogue - at least ostensibly. I think our society, in general, is "un"interested in this type of thinking, leading to its common decline.

Finally, why would creating this category lead to more dialectical thinking?Again, what are you trying to do here?

[coberst]

The American society has been educated to think that all problems are puzzles. That there is a true answer and in school that answer is in he back of the book and it is expected to be given in an exam.

The problems that are puzzles are problems that can normally be solved by plugging in the correct algorithms. Such puzzle problems require ingenuity and creativity within a paradigm that restricts the boundaries of the problem.

Problems that require solutions of a dialectic nature are what are commonly communication problems. These are problems with multilogical aspects in which agents must come together and seek an answer that can be agreed upon by divergent agents with divergent world views.

The fact that we do not have a common name for these problems and the fact that few citizens even recognize the existence of these kinds of problems speaks volumes about the failure of our educational system and the subsequent lack of intellectual sophistication of the American citizens.

I copied the following from the Internet:

Dialectical Reasoning

Dialectical reasoning refers to critical thinking about problems and evaluating conflicting viewpoints. Dialectical reasoning is best applied in resolving controversial issues and assessing opposing positions. Often times, there are several possible ways of resolving questions and understanding issues, rather than one single right answer. We may have situations where information is incomplete, where many approaches and views may compete, and we have to decide which one is most reasonable based on what is known, even though there is no clear-cut solution.

Dialectical reasoning consists of moving back and forth between contrary lines of reasoning, using each to cross-examine the other. This is what juries are supposed to do in arriving at a verdict: consider arguments and evidence for and against a case, point and counterpoint. It is a process in which opposing facts and ideas are weighed and compared for the purposes of determining the best solution, resolving differences, and coming to the most reasonable conclusion based on the evidence and logic.
In a democratic and pluralistic nation such as Canada, there are a number of identified issues that reasonable people will still disagree about even after a careful analysis of both sides of the issue. On the other hand, it is important to also realize that there are certain issues that reasonable people do not disagree about; for example, all reasonable people know that racism is wrong.

Some people have difficulty with dialectical reasoning because their self-esteem depends on their being right and having their beliefs accepted by others. We all have our convictions, but the inability to consider alternative views and evidence with an open mind is a major obstacle to critical thinking.

Other obstacles include:
• the tendency to form quick, impulsive opinions instead of fully developed arguments;
• reaching decisions based on what “feels right” at the moment be, and not distinguishing between knowledge and belief, or between belief and evidence, and not seeing any reason for justifying a belief;
• thinking that because some things cannot be known with absolute certainty, any judgement about the evidence is purely subjective, and defending a position with the explanation that “We all have a right to our own opinions,” as if all opinions are created equal.
When we become capable of critical thinking, we understand that although some things can never be known with certainty, some judgments are more valid than others because of their coherence, their fit with the evidence, and their usefulness. When reasoning dialectically, we are willing to consider evidence from a variety of sources, to justify our conclusions as representing the most complete, plausible or compelling understanding of an issue, based on currently available evidence -- this means abandoning “ignorant certainty” in favour of “intelligent confusion.”

Dialectical reasoning can also be described as reflective judgment: the ability to evaluate and integrate evidence, relate that evidence to a theory or opinion, and reach a conclusion that can be defended as reasonable and valid. To think dialectically, we must evaluate evidence and question assumptions, consider alternative interpretations, and stand ready to reassess our conclusions in the face of new evidence. This process works in a cycle that involves 3 basic steps:
• a thesis, which is a statement of an idea, viewpoint or position;
• an antithesis, which is the statement of an alternative and possibly contrary (conflicting) idea;


• a synthesis, which is the reconciliation of the two prior ideas in a way that integrates the best aspects of those ideas.
Ultimately, the synthesis serves as a new thesis and the cycle repeats. The synthesis typically shows that ideas that seem to conflict or to be contradictory are not necessarily so – there is unity in the diverse aspects of the issue. The reconciliation of the ideas, however, may require discarding weaker or flawed aspects of the ideas. Thus, other aspects of the ideas can be integrated in a way that builds on their strengths and more reasonable qualities.

As an example:
Question: Why are human beings violent?
Thesis Statement and Arguments: I believe that violent behaviour develops in people as they experience and learn from the world around them.
• Behavioural psychologists believe that people are the products of their environment and that violent behaviour is learned.
• Behavioural psychologists John B. Watson and Ivan Pavlov advanced the theory that "certain basic laws of learning" can explain the actions of both humans and animals.
• A child is not born knowing how to act, what is good and bad, right or wrong.
• People learn these things during childhood and continue to learn throughout their lives.
• When a child grows up experiencing family violence in the form of physical abuse or battering, he or she learns that violence is a normal and acceptable way of acting, even with loved ones.
• Violence is learned through images of violence on television, in movies, and other places.
• The mass media plays an important role in influencing behaviour, we learn to be violent through watching it.
• B.F. Skinner, stated that "the consequences of an act affects the probability of it occurring again."
• Unless children are rewarded for good behaviour, and punished for violent behaviour, they will not learn to control themselves.
• The combination of positive and negative reinforcements will largely determine how a person behaves later in life.
Antithesis Statement and Arguments: Aggression and violence are not learned, they are basic human instincts.
• Sigmund Freud, psychoanalytic theory, aggression as a basic human instinct.
• Violent behaviour is determined by aggressive and destructive forces originating in the unconscious mind.
• From an early age, society teaches us to repress these instincts and to channel our energies into more socially acceptable and creative pursuits.
• When our basic instincts overpower our judgement violence results.
• The formative experiences of early childhood are most important in determining a person's capacity for controlling these aggressive impulses.
Synthesis: Violent behaviour is learned, and experiences in early childhood are very important in determining behaviour in later life.
To structure dialectical reasoning in the classroom:
• Carefully craft the central question concerning an issue which encourages students to take a for or against position with the understanding that their original position may change. The question must be carefully framed to be provocative enough for students to create interest without generating/over-riding strong emotion.
• To introduce the dialectical approach to students, start out small. Pair students with someone with whom they feel comfortable and provide them with different "fact sheets" which illustrate contradictory facets of an issue. Students will familiarize themselves with the issue and select facts in support of a pro nor con stance. Students will isolate facts that are neither for nor against.
• When students have grasped the principles and procedures of the dialectical approach, move to controlled discussions in small groups, with a group of four, split evenly in two camps to discuss and test evidence for soundness and completeness. Students will assess the possibility of a third position between pro and con. Exercises in synthesis, resolving conflicts, and finding the "golden mean" between polarities, are essential for the meaningful implementation of the dialectical approach. Students may rotate within groups as third party arbitrators, mediators or judges to rule on the merit of the alternative viewpoints that are discussed.
• Simulations of real-life dialectical situations are effective, especially when students are comfortable with the process. Employer-employee bargaining situations, parliamentary debate, court room settings and arbitration hearings are the most commonly used.
Dialectical Reasoning Strategy

Overview of the process

Dialectical reasoning refers to critical thinking about problems and evaluating conflicting viewpoints. Dialectical reasoning is best applied in resolving controversial issues and assessing opposing positions. Often times, there are several possible ways of resolving questions and understanding issues, rather than one single right answer. We may have situations where information is incomplete, where many approaches may compete, and we have to decide which one is most reasonable based on what is known, even though there is no clear-cut solution.

Dialectical reasoning consists of moving back and forth between contrary lines of reasoning, using each to cross-examine the other. This is what juries are supposed to do in arriving at a verdict: consider arguments and evidence for and against a case, point and counterpoint. It is a process in which opposing facts and ideas are weighed and compared for the purposes of determining the best solution, resolving differences, and coming to the most reasonable conclusion based on the evidence and logic.

This approach to understanding and implementing dialectical reasoning in the social sciences classroom outlines a five stage process:
1. From both perspectives: Consideration of both perspectives of an issue in which the students will list reasons, or “arguments”, as to why they agree or disagree with an issue.
2. Moral testing: Engaging in a series of moral testing exercises using the three moral tests of new case, role exchange and universal consequences.
3. Talking circles: Learning and using the talking circle method of dialogue and discussion.
4. Consensus decision-making: Learning the consensus decision-making model, and participating is a series of activities designed to improve the students’ understanding and use of the model.
5. Dialectical reasoning: Writing a dialectic, incorporating all of the strategies and skills learned in the previous four stages.

[RichardHresko]

Dialectic is a well-known technique. It is not the solution to every type (perhaps not to any type) of human dilemma.

What does this have to do with your thread?