It's irritating how within social studies, one field of study conflicts with another field so readily.
Political movements being a great example, where for messaging sake people on all sides outright lie, because psychology shows us that it's better to give a simple and coherent message than to share too much and complicate the matter, in this way you can rally people to your side and get your way. History reminds us that it was always more complex, that it was a lie with some truth but that may not have lead to the same conclusion if you had all the facts (which you never will! So support your argument better than the other people). Meanwhile sociology wants to look at and address the underlying principles which are likely not even being acknowledged, economics in theory should also be doing that but in the US it is just trying to find a way to capitalize on it, and psychology reminds us that some people are feeling empowered by the struggle while others may grow indifferent or even become traumatized. Which some of those political scientists are banking on.
So what's the right answer?
If you answered:
A) All of the above
B) some of the above
C) a lot more than all of the above.
You're probably right, but your test scores really don't matter after a few years anyway because Pearson just wanted to get rich so they sold the poorly written study materials text books and tests to your district and state... Except social studies isn't tested so really they just cut most of this stuff and told your kid that George Washington and Abe Lincoln were super honest and the US only fights good wars.
People on the comments sections are bothering me.
No comments:
Post a Comment