This is the space where we'll publicly annotate this text.

This is where your annotations will go and where you can respond to one another's comments.

This is where you'll post your own annotations. These annotations might be reactions, objections, connections you make, examples that help illustrate a point, etc…

Read slowly and carefully and aim for at least 5-8 substantial annotations overall.

This is where you'll post your own annotations. These annotations might be reactions, objections, connections you make, examples that help illustrate a point, etc...

You won't read every word of this lecture, but speed up and slow down as you see fit, but aim for at least 5-8 substantial annotations overall.

I'm fascinated that so many departments filled with teachers had the same morning-after experience that we had among English faculty at CU Denver. The closest analog to the devastation and swollen eyes that morning was trying to teach the day after 9/11. That comparison alone speaks volumes.

I haven't yet reconciled the way that Trump's rhetorical both highlights the critical nature of the work we do (as in, words matter so much) while, at the same time, undermining what we do (as in, irresponsible rhetoric seems to work despite all our efforts to teach responsible rhetorical choices).

We're reversing the social effects of technology (like the Printing Press' effect on crafting the reader's experience as individual and isolated) with new technology that, ironically, takes us back to medieval-era concepts of reader as a social collaborative. Interesting!

I'd add (and wonder how many teach this): practice intellectual compassion? It's like playing devil's advocate with yourself.

For example, if I'm pretty sure that Trump's deployment of National Guard to the Mexico-America border is in response to a fantasy of a problem and I'm eager to post that message, I'd make sure I looked up evidence to the contrary, too, to test my thinking. Who is saying we do have an acute crisis at those borders? Why do they say so?

Do we model that behavior routinely in classrooms?

I do wonder about the methodological implications of differentiating between communication acts in online vs. f2f contexts. Might we imply that more than the tools are 'different' about the communication act using mediated spaces? What if the values of communication are the same, no matter the space, only the affordances/constraints of mediated spaces impact the use of employment of those values?

By "discussion," do they mean face-to-face dialogue centered on a single topic? Or, any kind of discussion (which might included reading an editorial piece and responding to that author's ideas)?

I keep thinking about what is at the heart of the problem here: the media used to exchange ideas in such problematic ways or the lack of constructive conversational skills (mo matter the media) being modeled/taught/practiced.

Example post: You might ask some questions about Scott Stanley: Who is he? What are his motivations? Who funds his work? What is the relationship between Stanley and Riley (the author here)?

And...I'd add....asking researchers to let communities of study have a significant role (if not tell the stories themselves) in the way their stories get told in academic publications is key here, too. I struggle most here, though, because we tell stories (via research) on behalf of others whose voices have been silenced ALL THE TIME. Is this wrong or right?

Here's where we see the characterization of Cruz (FL killer) following predictable rhetorical patterns.

I wanted to recommended McKittrick's "Mathematics Black Life" for folks who want to read more about this topic in terms of researcher responsibility. While McKittrick's text is aimed at researchers who have taken up the charge to tell stories of Black victimhood, I wonder where the parallels to this text might be. Here's a line to get you interested: "Breathless, archival numerical evidence puts pressure on our present system of knowledge by affirming the knowable) (black objecthood) and disguising the untold (black human being)" (pg. 16-17).

I really appreciate this admission and would add intellectual curiosity and compassion and the capacity to listen to the long list of skills that also can be taught to shift the tide of not just motivated reasoning, but an unwillingness to see anything "other" as equal.

Their methodology reminds me of the importance of teaching numeracy as well as literacy. I don't think students get enough exposure to statistics and the tracking interpretations derived from those stats.

This conversation more broadly reminds me of a question I've been asking students for years (even before the disaster of current information dissemination): who is ultimately responsible for gauging the accuracy of the content of a text-- the writer, the publication, the reader?

That question was never easy to answer.

Am I reading this correctly? We can't equate higher levels of knowledge with a reduced tendency towards directional motivated reasoning? That seems so counterintuitive.

Might this be because these individuals believe they've already scrutinized and made sound conclusions, therefore no need to revisit the issue?

Is anyone else thinking to themselves here, "I wonder how much my own directional motivated reasoning has me blindly accepting the findings that I'm reading right now, in this piece"? :-)

My marginal note above echoes this sentiment, but what responsibility does academia take for the dissemination of misinformation? See Earp's source above.