Assignment 12 Conflicting Viewpoints Essay Part II Synthesis

Assignment 12 Conflicting Viewpoints Essay Part Iisynthesizingandw

Write a three to four (3-4) page paper in which you: 1. State your position on the topic you selected for Assignment 1.1. 2. Identify (3) three premises (reasons) from the Procon.org website that support your position and explain why you selected these specific reasons. 3. Explain your answers to the “believing” questions about the three (3) premises opposing your position from the Procon.org website. 4. Examine at least two (2) types of biases that you likely experienced as you evaluated the premises for and against your position. 5. Discuss the effects of your own enculturation or group identification that may have influenced your biases. 6. Discuss whether or not your thinking about the topic has changed after playing the “Believing Game,” even if your position on the issue has stayed the same. The Believing Game is about making the effort to "believe" - or at least consider - the reasons for an opposing view on an issue.

The paper should follow guidelines for clear and organized writing: include an introductory paragraph and concluding paragraph; address main ideas in body paragraphs with a topic sentence and supporting sentences; adhere to standard rules of English grammar, punctuation, mechanics, and spelling.

Your assignment must follow these formatting requirements: be typed, double spaced, using Times New Roman font (size 12), with one-inch margins on all sides; citations and references must follow APA Style format. Include a cover page containing the title of the assignment, the student’s name, the professor’s name, the course title, and the date. The cover page and the reference page are not included in the required assignment page length.

Paper For Above instruction

The ongoing endeavor to critically examine one’s biases and assumptions is central to developing a nuanced understanding of complex issues. This essay reflects on my position regarding a specific contentious topic, integrating insights from the Procon.org website and employing critical thinking strategies such as the “Believing Game.” By engaging with opposing viewpoints and examining personal biases, I aim to demonstrate the importance of open-mindedness and self-awareness in rational discourse.

Initially, my stance on the issue of [insert specific issue from Assignment 1.1] leans towards [state your position clearly]. This position is informed by several compelling reasons identified from the Procon.org website. The first premise supporting my outlook is [describe the first premise], which resonates with my belief that [explain why it supports your stance]. The second reason involves [describe the second premise], offering further support because [explain its relevance]. The third premise I consider significant is [describe the third premise], as it highlights [explain its importance], consolidating my overall position.

While reviewing these premises, I encountered several challenging questions, specifically the “believing” questions about opposing viewpoints. For each of the three premises opposing my position—found on Procon.org—I explored questions like “Is this reason valid?” “Does this premise truly undermine my stance?” and “Could I be misinterpreting this argument?” Answering these questions required me to critically evaluate the strength of opposing arguments and reaffirm my rationale or reconsider assumptions.

Throughout this process, I identified two significant biases that likely influenced my evaluation: confirmation bias and anchoring bias. Confirmation bias surfaced as I unconsciously favored information supporting my preexisting beliefs, dismissing or undervaluing contrary evidence. Anchoring bias appeared when I placed disproportionate emphasis on initial information I encountered, which skewed my overall assessment. Recognizing these biases was essential in fostering a more objective analysis.

Additionally, my own enculturation and group affiliation played a role in shaping my perceptions. Growing up in [describe relevant cultural or social background], I was exposed to specific narratives and values that subtly biased my interpretations. For example, my community’s emphasis on [mention particular values or beliefs], has subtly reinforced my initial stance and influenced how I responded to opposing arguments.

Playing the “Believing Game” significantly impacted my thinking. This practice encouraged me to actively consider the validity of opposing reasons, even if I maintained my original position. It fostered empathy and intellectual humility, prompting me to appreciate the complexities surrounding the issue. Consequently, although my core opinion remained unchanged, my understanding deepened, and I became more aware of the nuances in opposing viewpoints.

In conclusion, engaging in critical reflection through the “Believing Game” and examining personal biases has enriched my perspective on the selected issue. Recognizing the influence of biases and enculturation underscores the importance of self-awareness in rational discourse. Ultimately, this process underscores that genuine critical thinking involves not only defending one’s position but also understanding and respecting opposing views, which is vital for meaningful dialogue and informed decision-making.

References

• Bowell, T., & Kemp, G. (2005). Critical thinking: A concise guide. Routledge.
• Ennis, R. H. (2011). Critical thinking: Reflection and perspective. Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines, 26(1), 44-59.
• Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2014). Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Learning and Your Life. Pearson.
• Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Wisdom, intelligence, and creativity synthesized. Cambridge University Press.
• Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(5), 645-665.
• Facione, P. A. (2015). Critical Thinking: What It Is and Why It Counts. Insight Assessment.
• Epstein, S. (1994). Integration of the cognitive and the emotional in personality. American Psychologist, 49(8), 794–804.
• Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84(3), 231–259.
• Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
• Levine, R. (2000). The Power of Persuasion: How to Influence People and Change Minds. John Wiley & Sons.