Egyptian Crisis Offers Fun Chance to Study Hypotheses
People tend to have their minds made up on most issues, however shallowly rooted their opinions might be. Extremism is encouraged–that is, loving or hating whatever idea is supported. But civic groups and academic classrooms should take advantage of international crises to inventory options that might be available.
Three separate views of government and the future seem to issue from the current crisis in Egypt: 1) the liberal, secular, technology-comfortable demonstrators, 2) a religious-oriented government headed by the Muslim Brotherhood, and 3) a military government. Sure, there’s an infinite variety of qualifications that can apply, but rounding off for discussion’s sake is helpful. Caricatures can be instructive.
Critical thinking teams can be assigned to explore each of the three options in a hypothetical or theoretical manner. Each team should make a deliberate or Devil’s Advocate attempt to present according to three required scenarios:
* the worst-case scenario
* the best-case scenario
* the most-likely scenario
So the secular democracy alternative has an advocacy for each of the three scenarios. So does the religious democracy alternative. So does the military alternative.
Our current way of “discussing” doesn’t allow the freedom (to ourselves) of listening to divergent viewpoints. Teachers and moderators might assign the “workup” of a viewpoint that deliberately doesn’t fit someone whose mind is made up otherwise.
What, for example, might the best-case scenario look like in Egypt (or some other country) if the military retained control and actually ran things, perhaps even as a “democracy” where candidates are authoritatively chosen.
The “Unpopular Cause Essay” has long been popular to get students to take up historically lost positions that were once popular, but today have no following as such. Letting a past advocacy group articulate its best sense of itself helps create empathy for people who are no longer here to defend themselves.
