No research says how much of what’s recalled at test time remains permanently in memory, nor to what practical use, if any, that information is later put, but that’s of no concern … Their interest in performance ends when the scores are posted.

The other theory isn’t very popular and, frankly, is just a lot harder.

Pet dogs failed basic intelligence tests that wolves and wild dogs passed with ease but proved more adept at social interaction, according to the research … Dogs are great at social tasks … wolves are much, much better at general problem solving.

Are we training dogs or raising wolves? Wolf pups need freedom to explore and learn the environment and to practice the skills they’ll need as adults. They also need plenty of play in which they can safely make mistakes.

There’s a balance, of course, like the one that exists between shepherds and coyote teachers, but the current system is shepherding our students into helpless domestic dogs, to mix the metaphors.

Lehrer describes a famous study from Stanford psych research Carol Dweck, who administered easy tests to 10-year-olds, who did well on it. The control group was praised for “being smart.” The experimental group was praised for “trying hard.” With only this difference, the two groups were then administered progressively harder tests. Dweck discovered that the “smart” kids did worse: they believed their initial good result was due to some innate virtue beyond their ken or control, and feared that a failure would show that they lacked this intangible. But the “hard-trying” group had been rewarded for taking intellectual risks, and so they continued. Afterwards, the “smart” kids rated the hardest tests as their least favorite; the “tryers” rated it as their most favorite.

How We Decide: mind-blowing neuroscience of decision-making

All sorts of implications, from how we use assessments in schools, to what we say to students, to what we tell ourselves about our own successes and failures.

If you want to play a constructive role in an ongoing cultural conversation, the sizable majority of your disputational effort should be spent engaging with the best people out there with whom you disagree — confronting the strongest possible arguments against your own view, and doing so with a respectful and sincere attitude.

He’s writing in the context of the atheist/religious argument, but the point (and grid) applies to all cultural arguments. I wish this approach were followed by the media and by politicians, particularly surrounding such important issues as insurance reform and economic stimulus. Here’s the grid Carroll developed:

Of course, the cheapest move in any argument is to label your opponent as "crazy" regardless of their actual sensibility. If you can discredit "the other side" through this tactic, then you can win even if your arguments are unsound. So, while in general I agree with the grid, I would revise it to the following:

Where "rational" is defined as adhering to logic and based on evidence. I would hope it goes without saying that an argument must always be open to differing views when presented rationally. It is the job of the media and of our politicians to keep national arguments in the lower-right quadrant as much as possible and to follow the guidelines of respectful debate. Sadly, they seem to be mostly failing in these regards.