Good morning, and welcome to the Teachers Lounge!
I posted a diary earlier this week on "tolerance for ambiguity."
It was an entry in NCrissieB's "Morning Feature" series (yes, like many teachers, I have been moonlighting during the week).
But, there was a DKos technical glitch; no one could comment, tip, or rec the diary. Thanks to better bloggers than your humble diarist (WinterBanyan, among others), the error was detected and corrected, but, there were several suggestions that I re-post the diary so that it could possibly reach a wider audience. I was humbled that so many thought it was worthy of one.
I have accepted those suggestions.
I very much look forward to seeing what you make of it/bring to it.
For starters: What can we do in schools to encourage a greater tolerance for ambiguity in our students? Is it even desirable to do so? Does the conceptual framework offered below make sense? Can it be improved upon? What would such a thing look like in practice?
This one is a little long, but is hopefully well worth it. So, fill your mug, share the donuts, and the last one out please get the lights...
Introduction
I first encountered the phrase, "tolerance for ambiguity" while being prepared to work with talented and gifted HS students. I learned that students who score very well on standardized tests arealso more likely (strong positive correlation) to have a high tolerance for ambiguity, resist closure, and feel a strong need for cognition. The meditation that follows is an exploration of these ideas in politics and education.
Terms and Conditions
Before we get too far along, it is proper academic procedure to define these terms:
- Tolerance for ambiguity (TA): A psychological construct that represents a person's emotional response to ambiguous situations or stimuli. Therefore, folks with a low tolerance for ambiguity "experience stress, react prematurely, and avoid ambiguous stimuli" Those with a high tolerance, "perceive ambiguity as desirable, challenging, and interesting and neither denies nor distorts their complexity or incongruity." Do you have students who get really freaked out when there is not a clearly correct multiple choice style answer? Any who prefer to act, perform, or write a poem or essay instead of taking that MC test that others crave?
Which are you? Which are these fellas?:
ROVE: I'm looking at all of these Robert and adding them up. I add up to a Republican Senate and Republican House. You may end up with a different math but you are entitled to your math and I'm entitled to THE math.
SIEGEL: I don't know if we're entitled to a different math but your ma...
ROVE: I said THE math
Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way.
But the truth is, that isn't all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God's work here on Earth - by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.
In schools, I have to wonder that, as I value ambiguity, if I am often working against one of my core values by preparing my students for a system of standardized testing in which there is one universally correct answer for each multiple choice question, and the only valued measure of success is getting as many of those "certain" answers correct as possible. The opposite of ambiguity is certainty, and in our preparation of students for the "certainty" of all of these tests, if we are not seriously limiting their exposure to the thinking skills necessary to deal with delicious ambiguity. In solving the financial crisis, in preventing another one, in curing cancer, and designing the next social networking craze, would not high TA be more helpful/valuable than early closure on a perceived "certain" solution?"
- Need for Cognition (NC): This is a measure of how much thinking you naturally prefer. If you have read this far, I assume you are rather high. On the scale of need for cognition, that is. It is probably obvious that I am. Many students, however, are not. And I did not even achieve my heroic level on this scale until after high school. What is it about our high schools and anti-intellectual culture in general that seems to encourage us to downplay or diminish this in ourselves and others? And, more importantly, how can we use our lives, our teaching, and our schools to encourage more of it, instead?
- Resistance to Closure (RC): This one deals with how long you "play" with a problem or goal before reaching a conclusion. If you accept the first solution that comes to mind, instead of resisting that closure and remaining open to other possible solutions, or even actively searching for them, you have a low resistance to closure. If you tend to dismiss the first 5 or 6 solutions that come to mind, and keep reworking a problem until you have many options to choose from, assuming the 6th or 7th one may be better than the 1st or 2nd, that's high resistance to closure. Those who are familiar with divergent thinking and brainstorming will feel right at home here. Those who can’t waste their time with such things are probably low RC people.
Here's an example of a very low resistance to closure, low need for cognition, and certainly low TA. You may or may not be surprised by the subject of the "study"...
Tom Lantos, a Democrat from California and the only Holocaust survivor in Congress... went on to describe for the president how the Swedish Army might be an ideal candidate to anchor a small peacekeeping force on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Sweden has a well-trained force of about 25,000. The president looked at him appraisingly, several people in the room recall.
''I don't know why you're talking about Sweden,'' Bush said. ''They're the neutral one. They don't have an army.''
Lantos paused, a little shocked, and offered a gentlemanly reply: ''Mr. President, you may have thought that I said Switzerland. They're the ones that are historically neutral, without an army.'' Then Lantos mentioned, in a gracious aside, that the Swiss do have a tough national guard to protect the country in the event of invasion.
Bush held to his view. ''No, no, it's Sweden that has no army.''
The room went silent, until someone changed the subject.
A Few Applications
- Abortion Policy: Republicans have long favored the low ambiguity route of defining a person at conception while seeking to outlaw all abortions under all circumstances. This is a "highly certain" definition and policy prescription which precludes ambiguity if enacted. Democrats, however, are not likely to assign a specific moment in time or prenatal development as a moment of "personhood," and support the position that the law allowing for abortion remain a medical option in cases of incest and rape (a more ambiguous position).
- Tax Policy: Democrats support a progressive tax schedule, allowing for the ambiguity of defining scales and percentages based on value judgments and economic necessity. Republicans = Tax Relief! No New Taxes! We Surround Them!
- Department of Education: The low ambiguity, low need for cognition, early closure position is to dismantle the Dept. of Education and introduce free market principles through school choice. The market always solves everything! Liberals, well, liberals would argue that social justice, unequal access and outcomes, and flaws in standardized testing regimes will not be solved by market forces. This forces them to engage with the ambiguities of a system that does not always achieve its stated goals.
- Global Warming: Low tolerance says, "Yeah, sure. And Al Gore invented the internet, too. It was 48 degrees out today! Call me back when its 120." High ambiguity, need for cognition, closure resistant people are out there promoting wind power, designing better batteries, and encouraging city transit authorities to outfit the buses with hybrid engines.
- Defense: The biggest toys wins. --Or-- It is not about toys, but our facility and determination to engage our enemies and allies through diplomacy, resorting to violence as a last resort.
- School Assessment Policies: NCLB = Low TA, Low RC, (and I believe) Low NC; reflective essays, portfolios, and authentic assessments = High TA, High RC, and High NC.
- School Governance Policies: Top-down policies are best because they can be clearly measured for the compliance of those on the front lines. –OR—Bottom-up policies are best because teachers are the experts on what works and what doesn’t, and it is more important to expand the capacity of the system through those who work most directly with the students it serves.
Seeing a trend here?
The Research
The Teachers College professors are committed to a "both...and..." rather than "either...or..." stance. As in, both Republicans and Democrats have some good ideas as opposed to either Republicans or Democrats have some good ideas. This is one way to instill a greater tolerance for ambiguity, resistance to closure, and greater need for cognition easily accessible terms and practice.
Also, researchers have consistently found some interesting positive correlations for people with low tolerance for ambiguity (aka: Yes, there is a trend):
- low tolerance for ambiguity positively aligns with an inability to allow for the possibility of good and bad traits in the same person.
- low tolerance for ambiguity and high incidence of reification, or thinking of abstract categories and traits in rigidly concrete terms, are positively correlated (IQ is an immutable measure of lifelong general intelligence rather than a single test score on a single day).
- low tolerance positively correlates with a preference for the familiar over the unfamiliar and the active rejection of the different or unknown.
- low tolerance for ambiguity positively correlates with early selection and commitment to one solution (aka "low resistance to closure")
- low tolerance people avoid ambiguity in order to avoid anxiety and cognitive dissonance.
- a rather strong positive correlation between low TA and acceptance of authority and conservative political viewpoints
- low tolerance positively correlates with confirmation bias, or preference for information that confirms preexisting attitudes
Also:
- Art students are more tolerant of ambiguity than business students (ever overhear someone at a museum say, "I just don't get it?" after a whole 3 second viewing of a Modernist piece? Ambiguity people absolutely love art that is challenging and difficult to interpret).
- High school dropouts are more intolerant of ambiguity than high school graduates.
- Entrepreneurs, when studied, show low tolerance for ambiguity even though independent subjects consistently predict they would display high tolerance.
- People with high tolerance for ambiguity are more likely to be politically liberal and/or vote for Democratic candidates
So, if you ever took one of those "aptitude" surveys in the late 70’s or mid-80’s that came back 4-6 weeks later and told you what career you were most likely to have, or be suitable for, you’ve experienced another application of the need for cognition. I wasn’t interested in high school for the most part. Found it very boring. My form came back and said, "bus driver." If I took it now, though, I think it would show some very different results. Part of what that survey did was compare my need for cognition as measured through grades, habits, and hobbies, and positively correlate my answers with those of a sample of people from a variety of different professions.
In other words, these things can change over time and because of experience, and if you have students, you can influence this.
The Big Payoff
If you're still with me, we are now at the moment of truth. One of the greatest frustrations liberals have with their conservative counterparts is that of perceived hypocrisy. For example, from Frank Rich's column this past Sunday:
Frum was contrasting Obama to his own party’s star attraction, Rush Limbaugh, whose "history of drug dependency" and "tangled marital history" make him "a walking stereotype of self-indulgence." Indeed, the two top candidates for leader of the post-Bush G.O.P, Rush and Newt, have six marriages between them. The party that once declared war on unmarried welfare moms, homosexual "recruiters" and Bill Clinton’s private life has been rebranded by Mark Foley, Larry Craig, David Vitter and the irrepressible Palins.
Rich seems to be asking, "Can't they see the ambiguity in accusing others of wrongdoing when they themselves have been doing the same thing?" And, if he isn't, it's still a good question to ask.
The answer is, "no." A very simple and contrite, "nope."
With a low tolerance for ambiguity and a low need for cognition, a person will either create a perceived consistency between two ambiguous stimuli, simply ignore the ambiguity, or maintain a stance of internal validity within each part without considering them together as a set.
Hence, drug dealers and users should be locked up and we should throw away the key. Yet when "What-A-Rush" Limbaugh is found abusing illegal meds we easily find ourselves forgiving him and holding him to a different standard of punishment than others accused of the same crime.
My Gestalt Conclusion
I will close by adding that these three together are larger than the sum of their parts; I argue they are the Gestalt-like source of what we otherwise call "curiosity." Without curiosity, we get the policies and alignments of the Bush years. With curiosity, we get the last 50 or so days. And, hopefully, the next 16 and beyond years.
And on that thought, I'll close with the deepest gratitude that we have elected into power people with great curiosity, and that we have turned from this:
Others, like Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, a Democrat, are worried about something other than his native intelligence. ''He's plenty smart enough to do the job,'' Levin said. ''It's his lack of curiosity about complex issues which troubles me.''
to this:
[on stem cell research] "Many thoughtful and decent people are conflicted about, or strongly oppose, this research," the president said. "I understand their concerns, and we must respect their point of view." But Mr. Obama went on to say that the majority of Americans "have come to a consensus that we should pursue this research; that the potential it offers is great, and with proper guidelines and strict oversight the perils can be avoided." (-President Obama, 3-10-09)
Thank you to those who recommended this essay be reposted. Thank you to those who have now read it for the first time. I hope you have both found something here worth thinking about.
"Some stories don’t have a clear beginning, middle and end. Life is about not knowing, having to change, taking the moment and making the best of it, without knowing what’s going to happen next. Delicious ambiguity..." – Gilda Radner
Have a great and ambiguous Saturday! Be curious! Be strong! Be happy!