Instructor: TBD Term: Fall/Spring Description: This course takes a step back from math, science, and the humanities and looks inside the processes of cognition. How do we gather facts and evidence from our senses, from other people, and from books and media? How do we reason? How do we explain our thoughts to others in words and in visuals? What works and what doesn’t? What is theory? What is abstraction? What is proof? What are fallacies? What about uncertainties? What are the traps we all fall into? How do magic tricks fool us? How do we debug our constructions and our explanations? What about left-brain/right-brain, multiple intelligences, learning styles? This course will visit the scientific method, logic, cognitive psychology, information design, journalism, persuasion, debate, software design, the history of science, and the philosophy of science, and it will survey activities such as fact checking, user testing, debunking, and debugging. Along the way we will gather a better understanding of intelligence. Students will be encouraged to relate what they learn to their other courses, to daily life, and to the wider world. Guests from many fields possibly including cognitive psychology, information design, law, software, and writing will bring their insight to the discussion. Prerequisite: n/a
Some examples of materials that could be drawn upon for the course follow. Many of the authors listed below have several books we could draw from.
Here’s some background and discussion.
I remember the moment in August 5, 2002 as I was driving down Santa Cruz Avenue. I thought, some students complain, "What possible use is trigonometry going to be in my life?" And the answer for the students not destined for math, science, or engineering, is, "It’s a framework in which to learn how to think precisely and to problem-solve." Then I thought, what if we spent some time explicitly covering the theory, tools, and jargon of rigorous thought, problem-solving, and communication (rigorous as in mathematical, logical, hard-science, provable)? There is a lot there, far more than will normally come up in math and science courses. Even when a generally-useful technique of rigorous thought does come up in a math or science course, the time is not usually taken to give it a name and to study it in its own right.
And what if we used many fields of endeavor, not just math, as the framework in which to learn and practice rigorous thought and problem-solving? Wouldn’t it be better if students learned how to apply these techniques in a wide selection of situations? In addition, there is some basis for thinking that many people could learn rigorous thought more effectively if the practice material were not so abstract as mathematics.
We math-science-engineering-computer types have a whole vocabulary of thought techniques that are useful generally but are unfamiliar to others. I believe this is because if you are of the math-science mind-set, you pick these techniques up intuitively or ‘on-the-job’, but if you are not, you miss out because the topic is not covered in school.
Some of my wishes for the course are
Here is a beautiful statement of what intelligence is:
For myself, I found that I was fitted for nothing so well as for the study of truth; as having a Mind nimble and versatile enough to catch the Resemblances of Things (which is the chief point) and at the same time steady enough to fix and distinguish their Subtler Differences; as being gifted by Nature with Desire to seek, patience to Doubt, fondness to Meditate, slowness to assert, readiness to consider, carefulness to dispose and set in order; and as being a man that neither affects what is new nor admires what is old, and that hates every kind of Imposture. So I thought my Nature had a kind of familiarity and Relationship with Truth.
—Francis Bacon, "Of the Interpretation of Nature" 1603-4
From: Don Norman
To: Dave Yost
Subject: RE: High school senior elective
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 13:15:18 -0800
Hi Dave
I do disagree slightly with this comment:
... some students complain, “What possible use is trigonometry going to be in my life?” And the answer for the students not destined for math, science, or engineering, is, “It’s a framework in which to learn how to think precisely and to problem-solve.”
My feeling is that the students are correct. And using a difficult concept to teach problem-salving fails. (Remember when people had to study Latin and Greek because it was good for them - same logic. Bad idea.)
But you can take the topics you describe and use them to teach rigor and problem solving. No need for completely arbitrary mathematics. Then, if some math is required for understanding, well, they are interested, so they will learn that math.
etc.
Good luck,
Don
From: Robert Sternberg <Robert.Sternberg at Yale>
To: Dave Yost <Dave@Yost.com>
Subject: Re: High school elective course on cognitive psychology
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 18:25:36 -0500 (EST)
Sounds great! It is really not so much about cognitive psychology as about learning to think well. We are almost done with the second edition of Intelligence Applied, which is a book that covers much of the same ground.
Best
Bob