In the introduction, I was struck by the section concerning values and motivations. A common phrase I hear (and use) when someone’s actions have undesired consequences is, “Well, your intentions were good!” Up until this reading, I didn’t realize how much of a crutch and excuse that phrase can be. It also made me think of a documentary we recently watched in my LDST 101 course about Whitney Young, one of the most important and unknown agent in the civil rights movement. People regarding him as a man of action and specifically, “a man that accomplished what other people were for”. In this context, while most supported the idea of civil rights (good intentions), few strategized and acted successfully on these values. I kept the story of Whitney Young’s critcial thought processes and solutions in the back of my head the entire time I read this article, and found it fascinating how it supported Dorner’s argument that “people court failure in predictable ways”.
Another example this reading made me think of was the engineering design process. Having an extensive background in the field of engineering, I found myself comparing the examples of “good” and “Bad” participants in the Tanaland or Greenvale simulations to thought processes I had been taught in the past. Specifically, the Project Lead The Way (PLTW) Engineering Design Process. After each step, students are taught to question the ideas they are generating and think critically about what they are proposing. Engineering students are trained to reanalyze situations continuously and discover how smaller systems are interrelated to comprise one design. After following this system for four years, it was interesting to see how this method compared with that of the “mistakes of cognition” made in the examples presented.
I was thoroughly shocked by Forsyth’s article revealing the correlation of bolstering student’s self-esteem and their academic performance. In my pre-k-12 career, I attended nine schools and each of them valued – to some extent- encouraging student’s to believe in themselves for the sake of improving their success in the classroom. I was never given a reason to question it until now. After reading this article, I am wondering how stereotype threat fits into this equation. If stigmatized groups do not perform well, because that is what is expected of them, then wouldn’t assuring them they are capable improve their performance? And isn’t that an example of bolstering self-esteem? Also, if “weak students may maintain self-esteem best by withdrawing effort” then why do we sometimes see these stigmatized groups (some who may have low self-esteem) overcompensating to break stereotypes?
I was also very surprised by Forsyth’s article. It made me think of a graduation speech I heard onetime called “you are not special.” Basically, the speech talked about how in elementary through high school you are told that you are special and your so good at everything you do- to build self esteem. However, going into the real world, it is important to be realistic about what you can and can’t do, otherwise you will not play to your strengths. I think that this is what Forsyth is getting at.
I also was surprised by the Forsyth article. In my past experiences, I have seen at first hand how positive reinforcements can lead to long term success in changing morale. In high school, I used to tutor middle school students and found the kids I met with more frequently and had a set schedule with were more welcoming to advice and saw positive changes in their grades. I would be curious to see this study reported across students in different academic subjects and different ages to see if this study demonstrates a larger trend or is an outlier.
I like your comparison to the engineering process. I also was interested in what the author said about the connections between problems, and it makes a great deal of sense how this relates to engineering mindsets. It is a little scary to think of how all problems relate to each other, to me, because it makes encompassing solutions seem impossible. It makes sense why people prefer to think in terms of simple cause-and-effect, as this is much less daunting.
I agree that I’ll be hearing the phrase “your intentions were good!” differently now. After the reading, it just means that you may have asked a lot of what questions, but not enough why questions. Saying that someone had good intentions often means that something bad had already happened as a result.