This is a 10-minute post.
A post today by Alan Levine on his “Secret Blogging Strategy” has really go me thinking. His suggestion is as follows:
“There are googles of sites telling you how to blog, but I’ve not come across a secret strategy I have been hesitant to share, and I was actually mostly unaware of it until recently.
This tip will not make you rich or famous, but maybe it will keep you in focus – read a blog you can’t stand.
His logic is that such material can act as a compass point to keep your blogging ego in check, saying “if ever I feel I am writing in this person’s style, I stop, delete, and go outside for a breath of fresh air.”
Taking this one step further though, I think there are even greater implications for this sort of exposure. As I commented on the post, Connectivism says “that a core part of a “good” network lay in its diversity. One of the key ways of ensuring the presence of diversity then is exposing yourself to opinions or concepts that you completely disagree with.”
In my view this is the essence of objectivity, and a key way to avoid walling yourself up within your own echo chamber in which the only opinions you are exposed to are those you already agree with. If we are to continue to grow as learners and as people surely a requirement for cultivating a holistic perspective is to leave ourselves as open as possible to differing viewpoints – as difficult as this may be in practice to implement.
I would also suspect this will enable us to connect more easily and effectively with others. If we are willing to consider other perspectives, we are better equipped to build bridges and overcome disagreements during periods of adversity. I believe that barriers dissolve when people realise that their adversary comes to the table with both ears open.
Holistic and open, good: objective, bad. No such animal, I fear. Abandoning the myth of objectivity in favor of recognition of our and everyone else’s locatedness, coupled to a commitment to open ears/minds/eyes, would be a boon to learners everywhere, I think.
Hi Ed,
I do see your point. Openness and objectivity are not the same. I think perhaps during the initial stages of inquiry (e.g. when just starting to explore a concept) objectivity is wise as it enables people to make a more informed decision later on down the road, but at some stage of awareness or understanding we’re likely to come to a conclusion about what we think. As you say this will be based on a variety of factors.
So as an overarching ideal, perhpas Openness is indeed a better way to look at it.
Thanks for the thought
Cheers,
Mike