community contribution #5

How has your thinking about inclusion and PLN evolved? (week 4 question with week 4 and week 6 resources) 

Prior to this week, I had not realized how important it is to prioritize inclusion in a PLN. I had thought about the value of having different perspectives but not connected that the way to do that is to be inclusive. If you are surrounded only by people who share your opinion, it won’t get you very far because the same ideas/perspectives will just be recycled. It is not a bad to thing to be around those who you agree with but I think there is a large value in having conversations with people who have different viewpoints. And conversations with the intent to understand, not to just change the other person’s mind. We all have reasons why we think the way we do, often without even being aware of why. I think talking to people with differing opinions can be a way to figure out why we think a certain way, who it helps, and why it may be good to change your opinion. Or, at the very least think about who it impacts. When reading the article about Two-Eyed seeing, I learned that it “is the gift of multiple perspectives treasured by many aboriginal peoples” (Bartlett et. Al, pg 338). The article also explains that while there has been open acceptance, there has also been a resistance. I am curious as to why this is because I don’t think there are many (if any at all) downsides to trying to see issues from multiple different perspectives. I understand how it can be uncomfortable to challenge your own beliefs, but I think it is important to have opinions that are fully informed as possible. I thought that the article Echo Chambers and Epistemic Bubbles brought up important points too. The main idea being that social media and other communities in general can limit the quantity and perspectives of information people receive as well as heavily influence what they believe. Echo chambers are especially dangerous because any opinions that oppose what the group consensus is, are discredited and the people sharing are viewed as untrustworthy. I can totally understand how someone could accidentally get caught in this and not even realize. In particular, if they are raised where the ‘normal’ is to discredit those who live different lifestyles than them, I imagine it can be quite difficult to see this. Additionally, even if one realizes that they are in an echo chamber, taking the steps to remove yourself is at the very least overwhelming. Doing so has the potential to disrupt relationships and challenge beliefs that have been a part of someone’s life for a long time. Both of the articles emphasize how important differing perspectives than your own are. Issues in the news are often jarring to read about, and when discussing such intense topics it can feel good to talk with people within your small circle. However, in order to keep evolving, it is crucial to talk about a variety of opinions. Overall, my biggest takeaway was that it is not a bad thing to surround yourself with people who think similarly to you, but don’t let them be your only source of information. I think this applies to school as well as all aspects of life. 

References 

Bartlett, C., Marshall, M., & Marshall, A. (2012). Two-eyed seeing and other lessons learned within a co-learning journey of bringing together indigenous and mainstream knowledges and ways of knowing. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 2(4), 331–340. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-012-0086-8 

Nguyen, C. T. (2018). Echo Chambers and Epistemic Bubbles. Episteme, 17(2), 1–21. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/epi.2018.32