From: Charles Bayless <charles.bayless_at_ttmd.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2011 13:48:38 -0500

Who is the We in "How much do we tell the children?" I assumed that it was an epistemological question directed to parents but it appears from the comments that most are reading this as We teachers/librarians. Quite a different question, answer and implications.

Our culture and form of government are predicated on parents having the primary responsibility for the health and welfare of their children from 0-18. This would include the epistemological development of the child, that development having to accommodate itself to the cognitive capacity of a child at different stages. Parents launch the epistemological development process, family/friends/school/church/etc. contribute to it along the way, and ultimately children self-direct it as they approach majority. All three elements are in play all the time, the proportion of contribution varying along the age continuum, by the nature of the child, and of course with the particulars of family circumstance.

There are four pillars of epistemological knowledge which are constructed in different orders and by different processes. There is a layering process which goes on from base principles to more and more sophisticated constructions. Each pillar of knowledge has a distinct capacity to facilitate different forms of decision-making. Profound Knowledge are those fundamental beliefs, often rarely expressed, which guide our basic actions, often through proscriptions. Ex. Thou shalt not murder. Experiential Knowledge is that accumulation of stories and narratives and experiences which facilitate quick decision-making by applying perceived situations to experienced archetypes and stereotypes. Ex. That's right out of King Lear. Analytical Knowledge is that accumulation of observed and tested facts and their derivative laws. Ex. Law of Supply and Demand, Evolution by Random Variation and Natural Selection, or Law of Gravity. Heuristic Knowledge is that aggregation of cultural shortcuts which facilitate rapid decision-ma king in circumstances where the impact is small and the nature of the decision is very tactical. We tend to rely upon proverbs and cultural coding to shape these near-instantaneous decisions. Ex. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

As we receive information, we seek to interpret it (figure out what patterns there are) and then, depending on the time available, apply one or more of the pillars of knowledge or, if we have the luxury, invest time to investigate the pattern. "Is the pattern real?" sets the stage for "What causes it". There are typically three components to what causes it, which, if we have the time, we investigate. Is there a logical causation between data and the pattern? Is there a demonstrated correlation? Is there a predictable outcome? Even if we can accurately predict, we may still have the logic and the correlation wrong but if we can't predict then we definitely don't understand the causation. If we don't have the time to ask these questions we indulge our biases (heuristic response to situations where the decision is minor and reversible, we can afford to be quick but wrong); rely on stereotypes (experiential response based on past experience or stories and generally used where the outcome is important and strateg ic but reversible); rely on prejudices (analytic response based on an assumed match to data, where the decision is tactical but not easily reversed); or we rely on axiomatic assumptions (profound response based on fundamental and only occasionally questioned principles and usually used where the decision is both strategic and not easily reversed). We always prefer to do fresh analysis to arrive at considered decisions but time and circumstance usually preclude that and force us to fall back on the four pillars. The nature of these four pillars, because they represent the fall-back situation where there is not the time to analyze something in depth, is pretty critical and the planting, shaping and development of that epistemological garden is one of the greatest responsibilities of a parent.

The building up of those pillars is both a conscious (faith you follow, stories you read, interests you encourage, etc.) and unconscious activity (language that you use, examples that you set, unstated assumptions that you make, etc.). Heuristic knowledge comes from fairy tales, fables, proverbs, etc. Just think of all the cultural coding that resides in Aesop's Fables. Experiential knowledge come the stories and anecdotes that are told, the poems and books read, activities undertaken, skills taught, etc. Profound knowledge comes from the culture, religion and ideology in which you are raised (subject to modification with growth). Analytic knowledge comes from one's proclivity to quantify, analyze and observe. Everybody's decision-making is an amalgam of these different pillars though, and each person has a different predisposition to each pillar of knowledge. Some are more analytical, some more heuristic, some more profound, some more experiential. Each pillar of knowledge has its strengths, each its weakne sses and all can be misapplied to the type of decision that one is facing. One doesn't want to make a life and death decision (strategic and irreversible) based on heuristic shortcuts ("easy come, easy go"). Applying (only) analytic approaches to what are essentially emotional or humanistic situations is often inappropriate, a la the TV show Bones. Applying only experiential knowledge won't build you a safe bridge.

Beyond misapplication (wrong technique to the wrong type of problem), the gravest mistake that we usually make is to fail to recognize the frontiers of our knowledge. There are many things which we believe, and often believe passionately, but which we don't actually know. Climate Change is simply one of innumerable examples. You can't have that many Noble Laureates on both sides of the debate and not have a real issue of scientific inquiry. The fact that our climate models fail to predict either the past or the present confirms that there is more going on than our equations are yet addressing. We have strong opinions but we are beyond the frontiers of knowledge. Is climate change important? Sure. Is it real? Depending on the time frame you choose, yes. Do we know enough about it to act? Clearly not. We thought that continued CO2 emission would ineluctably lead to rising temperatures. Global temperatures have plateaued in the past fifteen years and we don't know why. We are at the frontier of our knowledge.

Epistemological development is the mirror to a child's neural development. Whereas as epistemological development is a process of laying down more and deeper layers of information (values, behaviors) over time as the child is able to accommodate ever more sophisticated concepts, neurological development is the brain's process of winnowing down neurons and synaptic connections; a process that goes on to the age of twenty or so. Both epistemological development and neurological development are interactive with one another and are driven by the imperative of mental efficiency - how does one recognize important patterns, analyze them, and make reasoned decisions as efficiently and effectively as possible given that data is scarce and of variable quality and time always constrained. The outcome of these two processes of development is that every single individual is completely unique.

Given that parents have the prime responsibility for this long duration process and that there are no adequate substitutes, it seems to me as if the real question we ought to be addressing is "How do we assist parents in using books and stories to grow a reading culture and in that process how do we assist them in finding the right books for a child to address real issues at the right time?" A permutation of Marc Aronson's formulation.

A lot of the responses to the original question seem to assume the interposition of librarians/teachers into the process of epistemological development. Of course they belong there but traditionally that has been in a support role. They traditionally have had a narrow assumed role around making sure the child acquires the knowledge they need (and some of the behaviors) but little about the values. I think the challenge arises when teachers/librarians go beyond either the community norms of what is acceptable, or more specifically when they go beyond the parental norms. Ideally this should not happen, but I believe it does fairly regularly when proactive teachers/librarians fail to realize that their value system is at variance with the community or parental norms.

In the responses to the original question, there are numerous permutations where we are asserting our individual view: "I think it's critical to . . .", "I also think it's important to". But are we doing what a parent desires and wishes rather than what we wish? If the family is staunchly traditional Catholic with a profound epistemological rejection of abortion, then is it appropriate to introduce one of the books that have been mentioned about abortion? What if we have it as required reading because we think the child's horizons need to be broadened? In that case, we are prioritizing our own belief systems over that of the family and I believe that to be profoundly dangerous territory.

Which is not to say we have to glibly go along with any old cultural custom. The crux of the issue is, what constitutes the community norm and under what circumstances is it appropriate to interject the belief system of the individual teacher/librarian above or against that of the child/family?

Charles
Received on Sun 27 Nov 2011 01:48:38 PM CST