Your initial discussion thread is due on Day 3 (Thursday) and you have until Day 7 (Monday) to respond to your classmates. Your grade will reflect both the quality of your initial post and the depth of your responses. Refer to the Discussion Forum Grading Rubric under the Settings icon above for guidance on how your discussion will be evaluated.
|Science and Explanations [WLOs: 1, 2, 3] [CLOs: 1, 2, 3, 4]|
Prior to beginning work on this discussion, read Chapter 6 in your textbook.
Your instructor will choose the discussion question and post it as the first post in the discussion forum. Answer all the questions in the prompt.
Guided Response: In addition to your original post, post a minimum of three responses for a total of at least four posts. At least two responses must be to your classmates; the third response could be to a classmate or your instructor. Be sure to post on three separate days throughout the week to promote further engagement and discussion. Each response should be a minimum of 75 words.
One of the most important ways to grow intellectually (and otherwise) is to actually listen to others and seek to understand them as they intend to be understood. Yet it is all too common for people to understand others in ways that do not reflect the best and most fair interpretation of their intended meaning.
Prepare: Review â€œPrinciple of Accuracy and the Principle of Charityâ€ from Chapter 9, along with the required resources from this week.
Reflect: Find specific examples in the media or in life in which someone misunderstands someone else. This happens a lot with political and religious arguments, but it also happens in daily life, especially when we find ourselves in conflict with others. Have you interpreted others uncharitably?
Write: Present a case, either in the media or in your own life, in which someone interpreted another uncharitably. What specifically did the first person say? In what way did the other person understand it? What did the person really mean? Do you think that the misunderstanding was intentional? What were the consequences of the misunderstanding? How might the situation have been better if the person had practiced the principle of charity? Finally, are there areas in which you could do more to understand others favorably? How might you be a wiser person if you did so?
Guided Response: Post a minimum of three responses, two of which must be to your classmates. The third response could be to a classmate or your instructor. Be sure to post on three separate days throughout the week to promote further engagement and discussion. Each response should be a minimum 75 of words.
Share an example in your own life in which you have experienced a similarly uncharitable interpretation of someone (and what the consequences were). You might offer another possible charitable interpretation of what the first person said. You might offer suggestions for things that people can do to further better mutual understanding. Let your response further the goal of the appreciation of the shared goal of furthering charitable interpretation.