For our second “Truth Bowl Beta” we are pivoting away from a panel discussion towards more of a back-and-forth debate — but with a twist! Rather than judging the two Panelists (“Pitcher” and “Catcher”), the audience (“Fielders”) primarily focus on capturing and rating the most useful Insights that arise during the Bowl using www.slido.com
with the code #T361. As before, the Gospodar acts as moderator and timekeeper.
The Challenge Question will be something like “What single change would ensure education better promotes societal flourishing?” There are three phases: Pitch, Counter, and Reflect.
Ernie’s raw notes for ⰖTruth Bowl 2017-07-12-1500
The societal purpose of mass education is to Model and Promulgate a vision of how to align personal ambition with the good of society, ie gamifying communal status.
The big question is: what vision?
The small question is: does it work?
Around the world, we invest enormous quantities of Financial, Human, and Social Capital in education. Why? What do we hope to get from it? How can we measure that? Whom can we trust to give us honest answers, rather than merely promote a particular agenda?
In particular, is the purpose of higher education to:
1. Learn the hard technical skills necessary to land a job
2. Develop the soft “human” skills necessary for a meaningful career
3. Cultivate the habits of mind necessary for a fulfilling life
And if there is more than one purpose, how do we balance or integrate them in terms of curriculum and funding?
Truth Bowl is a structured dialogue, halfway between competitive debate and a panel discussion, designed to model and train people in “productive disagreement.” TRUTH is sometimes interpreted as the acronym “Teaching Respectful Understanding Through Hospitality.”
Two Panelists compete in front of a Jury to address a Challenge, composed of a Question and an Objective. Members of the Jury award panelists Points for clarity and thoughtfully addressing disagreements. At the end of each Round, the Jury rewards the panelist who most helped them comprehend the Challenge with the title “Domaĝanto” (Esperanto for “Question Tamer”).
Challenge Question for V2 of Truth Bowl (the ad hoc version)
You are a professor of philosophy at a large university. You’ve just received a panicky phone call from your former schoolmate Pat, the chair of humanities at a struggling liberal arts college out East. You vaguely remember hearing the school brought in an investment banker alum as president to pull off a turnaround. Pat informs you that said banker has invited a controversial book author to campus as a publicity stunt, and in one hour Pat is expected to face that author in some sort of debate.
Pat (and you) have never read the book or heard the author speak. However, many of your peers consider him a right-wing reactionary with the ear of Trump, who wants to abolish modern education and replace universities with some sort of theocratic communes. Previous invitations for him to speak at major universities have been rescinded due to outraged protests by students and faculties. That’s probably why this college president jumped at the chance to gain notoriety as the first school to host the author — and didn’t tell anyone until the last minute.
Several colleagues have urged Pat to quit and boycott the event, since it feels like a setup; better to be a martyr than risk legitimizing someone who seems both willing and able to destroy everything they stand for.
There isn’t much time. The only background material you have to go on is one relatively balanced book review.
Challenge Question: What advice would you give Pat, and why?
Options include (but are not limited to):
– Directly engaging with / critiquing (the ideas of) the author
– Proposing a debate format that would ensure Pat’s views get a fair hearing, despite the lack of preparation (Pat has enough authority to dictate the format, but not enough to escape the debate )
– Providing a clear rationale why it is Pat’s moral duty to boycott the event
From Elinor Ostrom via Evonomics.
Eight core design principles:
- Clearly defined boundaries
- Proportional equivalence between benefits and costs
- Collective choice arrangements
- Graduated sanctions
- Fast and fair conflict resolution
- Local autonomy
- Appropriate relations with other tiers of rule-making authority (polycentric governance).
RadicalCentrism.org is proud to announce a monumental new work by Billy Rojas:
100 New Constitutional Amendments for the 21st Century
A Radical Centrist Vision for the Future:
100 New Constitutional Amendments
Billy Rojas – RadicalCentrism.org – 2011
Update: The contents of this page have become part of the sub-site A Radical Centrist Vision for the Future: 100 New Constitutional Amendments for the 21st Century.
I’ve been enjoying a series of blog posts by Steve Denning about the reinvention of modern management, not least because they mirror my own thinking about Sustainable Capitalism (2.0). Although he focuses on corporations, I believe the same kind of outside-in, human-centric thinking is essential for revitalizing both politics and government.
While much of the information from his blog is presumably collected in his book Radical management | Reinventing the workplace for the 21st Century, there isn’t a good index of what I consider his key themes. To that end, I’ve collected them in outline form here.
The Death—and Reinvention—of Management
- The Death—and Reinvention—of Management: Part 1
- Reinventing Management: Part 2: Delighting the client
- Reinventing Management: Part 3: From controller to enabler
- Reinventing Management: Part 4: From bureaucracy to dynamic linking
- Reinventing Management: Part 5: From value to values
- Reinventing Management: Part 6: From command to conversation
- “Do we really have to do all five shifts at once?”