On Teaching, Straightforwardness, Judging, and Emotions: Two Interviews from Different Perspectives | Interview 1

Interviewer: What is the best way to teach someone something?
Interviewee: The teacher must be as straightforward as possible in order to avoid confusing the student.
Interviewer: What do you mean by being "straightforward"?
Interviewee: It means two things. Regarding the method of interacting, it means to be honest and to not hide anything from the student. Regarding the method of informing, it means to teach an objective as simply as possible without oversimplifying anything.
Interviewer: What things are you referring to when you say that they should not be hidden?
Interviewee: Teachers must not hide the truth from their students. If a student is wrong, then the teacher must point that out immediately so the student can improve.
Interviewer: Wouldn't you agree that the student will feel ashamed or upset if a teacher is so frank?
Interviewee: This is, sadly, inevitable, but it is also a part of the most efficient way to learn. For example, a teacher who does not make it explicitly clear that an answer is wrong might spare the feelings of a student, but this will cause the student to be confused over his/her validity. In the end, the student will feel burdened, confused, and possibly irritated at the content that is to be learned. By stating that a student is either right or wrong, the teacher saves the student from these stressful feelings, saves time, and also presents himself/herself as knowledgeable and confident in the learning material.
Interviewer: Is constructive criticism not allowed, then, according to what you are saying?
Interviewee: Constructive criticism, which is the mentioning of something positive and something negative, is actually necessary in situations where hiding it would make it a lie by omission. For instance, a student who simplifies an arithmetic expression by applying the order of operations, as required, yet makes a simple mistake in arithmetic, would arrive at an incorrect answer. If the teacher knows the reasoning of the student, then he/she must remark that the student was on the right track but deviated, arriving at an incorrect answer. For a student who arrives at the same incorrect answer by disregarding the order of operations in the simplification process, the teacher must remark that it is incorrect because the previously taught simplification process was ignored. The difference between these two students is that one actually had a correct process, while the other did not. By applying "constructive criticism" to the first student, the teacher tells him/her the whole truth rather than a part of it. After all, it is important to know why an answer is incorrect. This reduces confusion and helps the student learn from mistakes. When the teacher does not commend the student for following the order of operations, the student will have the tendency to believe that his/her mistake possibly came from not following the order of operations, and this is untrue. To make things clear, the teacher must commend the student for following the order of operations. Now, if the teacher were to commend the other student, the best compliment would have to say that the student produced a good effort. While effort is important, the teacher must not say this, for the effort, despite it being genuine, is a misguided effort. The student clearly did not follow the order of operations, and by encouraging the student's effort, there is no way that the student will change, as he/she shall continue to believe that his/her path of computation is a "good" one, when it is actually not. This may sound harsh, but the caring teacher must overcome the desire to make students feel content with their incorrect methods. In essence, the teacher must focus more on the path to the answer than the answer itself.
Interviewer: What if a student gets the right answer, but uses the incorrect process?
Interviewee: In this case, the teacher must do three things. First, he/she should say that the answer is correct. Then, he/she must say that the method used to arrive at the answer is incorrect. Finally. he/she must explain how it is incorrect and how to make the process correct the next time. The first step cannot be considered "constructive criticism", as it is a mere statement of the truth. The people who advocate "constructive criticism" are should essentially be forcing themselves to reveal more of the truth. However, if this "truth" is made up, exaggerated, or irrelevant, then it is harmful to the student's intellectual development and must not be said.
Interviewer: So you're saying that the teachers should focus more on the truth than on the way to respond to an incorrect answer, correct?
Interviewee: Most definitely. I also said that teachers should tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The "whole truth" refers to the mentioning of a correct process in order to avoid confusion. "Nothing but the truth" refers to the avoidance of stretching the truth or exaggerating the importance of a correct answer when there is something else that is clearly wrong.
Interviewer: Can you conclude that this "straightforwardness" of which you speak is simply truthfulness?
Interviewee: Yes; it is truthfulness and honesty.
Interviewer: Why, then, do some teachers still avoid hurting student's feelings when straightforwardness is so logically important?
Interviewee: It is because they fear being judged by their behaviors and impacts on emotions.
Interviewer: Can you elaborate on that?
Interviewee: Yes, I can. When we judge ourselves, we judge ourselves based on our intentions. Consequentialists commonly called these intentions, when accomplished, the "ends". If you think about it, it is completely logical and fair to be judged based on what your end-goal is. However, the conflict arises when a second party fails to do so, and instead, judges based on behavior, called the "means", the direct consequences of such behaviors, and the immediate emotional impacts. For example, teachers who comment on the incorrect thinking methods of students will make some sensitive students upset. This is because these students do not want to spend time considering the reasons behind the criticism. They only remember that the teacher made them feel bad. What is the reasoning behind this, though? It is because humans instinctively dislike being wrong, and do not want others to draw attention to their imperfections. However, we are all imperfect, anyway, and pointing out the imperfections of people helps them correct those imperfections. Rationally, there is no reason to be upset about being wrong.
Interviewer: Couldn't you say, though, that the reason for being upset is because humans dislike humiliation from others?
Interviewee: Of course, but we already know, disregarding society, that these negative emotions of an individual who is wrong are instinctive. They are not, therefore, rational, and so humiliating others based on this illogical reason is illogical in itself. Humiliation in general is frowned upon, and we try our best to eliminate it, but is exists, sadly. Based on this simple, rational reasoning, we can already see that the world is not perfect. Teachers who help students are seen as mean because of these instinctive emotions. If anyone argues that such teachers are truly mean, then these people are biased by their instincts, which are not rationally justifiable.
Interviewer: This is a sad reality! The teacher-student emotional conflict obviously is an imperfection, and who are you blaming for this?
Interviewee: Blaming is something that is immature. I do not need to blame anyone, since the the truth itself shows that the sensitive students and overly-commending teachers have unjustified actions. It's as simple as that. It really is.
Interviewer: Is there a solution to this problem?
Interviewee: Yes, but it is bound to be rejected by society. The solution is quite simple: have teachers teach students about this issue that we're discussing, and have the teachers speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the whole, straightforward, unbiased truth. If a student is wrong, then that student is wrong and should be helped. If a student is right, then the teacher must make sure that the student is right for the wrong reason. If the reason is wrong, then the student is wrong and needs help! "Oh, you're such a cold person!" anyone may could to me. That person, then, would be biased and would have the burden of proof that a "warm person" is better for society. I have already proven that neither a "cold person" nor a "warm person" is the best for society, but that an honest person is. The problem is that society will not accept these honest people. We are humans, after all, and this means that we are swayed by emotions. For these teachers, this would mean that they have to cope with this by praising more often, which is good but many times unnecessary or wrong, as I mentioned earlier. The only way to free these teachers and other enlightened people is to spread these ideas of which I speak, and so I absolutely encourage you, as well as anyone who has access to this conversation in any form, to make a best effort in diffusing these ideas. For if you are not, then you are in support of forever binding humanity in our own chains. The diffusion will be gradual, but without everyone's help, it is not possible. These ideas may seem radical, but one hundred years ago, so was women's suffrage. So was equality between the races, and so was the idea of abolishing monarchies. Sixty years ago, we even believed that tobacco smoke was good in various ways to one's health! If nobody makes a move, then nothing will change about our ideas. We would be living under a king who smokes for his health and whose kingdom oppresses women and minority races! The emotional-logical conflict is the issue of the present, and there will be inevitable opposition. However, if we don't push these ideas and draw attention to the cause, then nothing will happen. We can change the unfortunate reality, and everyone's help is needed in this critical time.
Interviewer: Thank you very much! It was a pleasure speaking with you.
Interviewee: Thank you for giving me this opportunity.