Note:

At the start of each chapter, I'm going to give an overview of the really really important things that will be on the test. I hope you still read everything, as I've put work into it (or students have!) but hopefully this will give you a guide. Look here first for an overview--it may help you get the gist before diving into the areas that you need to learn more about!

(Link, in case you need it: https://youtu.be/vICUCRL3euI)

Kudos and Brainwashing

Shall I brainwash you?

In most classes, the tacit assumption is that I will fill your head with knowledge. I might give you some skills if it's a good class, too--but that's where it ends. 

My friend and mentor Karla LaOrange taught me something called the KUDOs framework--and one of the editors of this book, the fabulous Kennadee Cuff--designed this little graphic that shows what I'm getting at.

You'll forgive me for tieing this to education, but look, you're educators, so you might appreciate it (and if not, get used to it!) In education, we have these clunky little "objective statements" that go in every lesson plan. "Add fractions with like denominators." "Enumerate the causes of World War II." "Analyze the scientific validity of Pons and Fleischman's cold fusion findings." Many an administrator has wasted months and years trying to teach teachers how to properly write them, myself included. To the extent that I'm an expert in anything, I know objective writing as well as about anyone can--and the conversations about how to write them properly always leave me depressed and frustrated.

Here are some gpt3-generated course objectives for a traditional edpsych course--do you see how flat they feel?

1. Understand the foundational theories and key principles of educational psychology, and critically evaluate their applications in various learning environments.

2. Analyze the impact of cognitive, social, and emotional factors on student learning and development, and apply this understanding to design effective instructional strategies that cater to diverse learner needs.

3. Demonstrate the ability to assess and identify individual differences in learning styles, strengths, and challenges, and propose evidence-based interventions to support learners' academic and socio-emotional growth.

Writing objectives well can help students (though I fear it rarely does) but even when written superbly they come off as utterly flat and soulless. I think it's in part because we aren't honest about them. You don't want children to add fractions, you want them to understand fractions. You don't want them to enumerate causes of the second world war, you want them to think critically about who they are going to vote for. You don't want them to talk about cold fusion, you want them to be skeptical of big claims with small evidence.

Should we teach knowledge? Of course. Indeed, I think we need to give them more of this stuff! (Read Natalie Wexler's "The Knowledge Gap" for a very good take on this!) And heaven knows that you all need to leave school with skills, too!

But I'm toying with something deeper here. I intend to rewire your very soul. Am I not to teach values, intuitions, attitudes, and at root, worldviews? Won't that be your job when you become a teacher?

You may claim that you merely want to be taught (or teach!) facts, but, like, stop lying. 

Imagine if you could only teach facts--wouldn't you still have to select which facts? Wouldn't you have to leave out some things, keep in others, and order them for some final purpose? Aren't you still trying to accomplish a very specific mission that goes a little deeper than merely "teach kids some stuff?"

The Problem with Psychology

A student (and later, TA) of mine observed, wisely: the problem with psychology isn't psychology, it is philosophy. 

Too many in the social sciences--anthropology, sociology, economics, and psychology--attempt to carefully hide their biases in their course materials. 

In college, I took an economics course. It changed my life. My professor told us that he would be neutral. He would argue against governments and for markets for the first half of the class. Then he would argue for governments and against markets for the second half. It was brilliant. I learned tremendously.

And yet, he wasn't actually being fair at all. He gave me a very clear initiation into standard neoclassical economics as taught by the Chicago school. I couldn't be more grateful, by the way, as I think Chicago-style neoclassical economics is correct--but he was still transmitting values and opinions.  I'm not sure it's possible to avoid, and I certainly don't believe it's desirable to.

If I choose to emphasize Haidt over Freud, that is a value judgment. If I choose to ignore one psychologist (or sub-discipline) in favor of another, that is a value judgment. 

And given that this is a class about psychology, you may as well know up front that if I give you knowledge about tribalism or fairness or conformity, these will affect your politics and your voting and your social media habits and the articles you read. Andrew Breitbart--yes, that Breitbart--was fond of saying that "politics is downstream from culture." Why culture wars? Because you don't win on political issues, you win on cultural ones. If you want to get out the vote, you don't argue for a 1% increase or decrease in tax rates, you argue about the fairness.

If I can train your moral foundations, I can affect your worldview, culture, and intuitions--and then your politics is all but finished. 

Jonathan Haidt has some things to say about how our morality affects our politics.

Now, my goal is not to weaponize psychology for political ends. Bluntly, I just don't care very much who you vote for. I simply don't believe that politics will be our salvation. It is good and healthy to involve yourself in political discussions and the like--but if you begin to think that humanity's well-being is tied to political action, we disagree quite deeply. Similarly, I'd be willing to bet that you would have a hard time figuring out what my politics are--in part because I have a hard time deciding myself. If politics isn't a salvation-granting enterprise, I'd rather spend my time on more useful things.

But the whole point of teaching is to change you. 

Manipulation and Persuasion

Ender's Game is a favorite of mine. In the introduction, the author, Orson Scott Card explains that the highest praise he can ever receive is some that he gets frequently: "yours is the most commonly 'lost' book from our public school library."

Without giving away any spoilers--because you should absolutely still go and read it--the book's theme includes the question of manipulation and persuasion; the title character is little more than a puppet to the powerful forces around him, and the book explores the extent to which he truly has any choice in the matter. 

Most of the way through the book, Ender realizes that he has been manipulated. His dear sister--the only person he has ever truly loved--comes to him. She asks him to do what the powers-that-be want.

Now this next part is foggy. I have read and reread the book, and maybe I have read into it words that are not there. But my distinct sense is that Ender finally realizes that everyone--even your closest, dearest friends and loved ones--are trying to manipulate you.

As well they should.

My parents did everything they could to raise me right, to push me toward doing good and moral things, and to avoid harm. Is that manipulation? My church leaders hope that I will make certain choices, and openly preach to me about what those choices should be----is that unfair?

The only technical differences between what I am doing and brainwashing are these: 1) as already discussed, I want to go deeper than mere facts and get to values and intuitions, and 2) I intend to do everything transparently and with your consent.

The difference between the manipulation of Ender Wiggin and the persuasion that is going to happen in this book (and hopefully, in my class) is that I hope to only persuade--transparently, openly, and honestly. There are two basic ways to go about trying to address bias: first, pretend you have none, and second, disclose yours from the get-go. I prefer the second--and am consistently irritated with the people who attempt the first. 

A Brief Tour of Psychological Philosophies: 

I don't want to belabor this point, but it's important that you understand that when someone says "according to philosophy" that you should put a big fat asterisk on their sentence. According to which scientist? With which assumptions? Which biases? Which school of thought does he hail from?

And while this class isn't a philosophy course, it's worth knowing a few key philosophies as I describe below:

• Positivism (and post-positivism) emphasizes objective, quantitative methods to study observable behavior. It adopts a scientific approach with an empiricist epistemology. While influential historically, positivism has been critiqued for overlooking subjective experience.

• Behaviorism focuses on overt, observable behavior, analyzing associations between stimuli and responses. It rejects mental constructs as unscientific. While influential in the early 20th century, it is now viewed as too limited.

• Evolutionary psychology views the mind as adapted through evolution to solve adaptive problems faced by our ancestors. It has generated important insights but also criticism for overapplying adaptationist thinking.

• Psychodynamic psychology emphasizes the role of the unconscious mind and early childhood experiences in shaping personality and behavior. Derived from Freud's theories, it remains influential in clinical practice but limited in scientific psychology.

• Humanistic psychology emphasizes the growth potential of individuals and subjective experience. Rejecting determinism, it focuses on free will, self-actualization and phenomenological experiences. It has inspired therapies but lacks scientific rigor.

• Cognitive psychology studies mental processes like thinking, memory, perception and problem-solving. With its information processing view of the mind, it remains highly influential in mainstream scientific psychology.

A related set of ideas are called learning theories. I'll detail them briefly now (and you'll note some significant overlap with the above):

• Behaviorism - Learning is a response to stimuli. Key concepts include conditioning, reinforcement, punishment. Influential in early 20th century. Key thinkers are BF Skinner, John Watson, Ivan Pavlov. 
• Cognitivism - Views learning as mental processing of information. Focuses on organization of knowledge, information processing, schema development. Influential since 1950s. Associated with Piaget and others.
• Constructivism - Learning is active construction of knowledge based on experience. Learners construct own representations and models. Social constructivism emphasizes social context. Piaget, Dewey, Vygotsky. 
• Humanism - Learning is driven by motivation to self-actualize. Learner-centered, focuses on subjective experiences. Associated with self-directed learning. Associated with Carl Rogers, Abraham Maslow.
• Social Learning Theory - Views learning as influenced by observation, imitation and modeling. People learn through observing others' behavior and attitudes. Associated with Bandura's work.

And this is about all we will discuss this. Why? Because I fear that the more we talk about lenses and philosophies and theories, the more you will gravitate toward the ones which are most intuitively appealing to you rather than the ones that are most effective at helping teachers successfully change children's lives.

But it's critical that you understand that these theories and philosophies exist! Once you do, hopefully, you will also see that everyone--even experts--brings a set of assumptions and biases and philosophies to the table whenever they say "the research says" or "according to psychology."

And that includes me. 

Perhaps you're noticing that am not very neutral about those philosophies. I think more of some and less of others. Yes. I am passionate about empiricism. I believe in it. I think Freud and psychodynamic psychology is mostly bogus. I deeply admire the behaviorists--they were heroes--even as I see them as short-sighted. 

Any class in educational psychology is out to brainwash you. I'm just telling you so.

And now, I hope I have tricked you into becoming cognitively impervious: by telling you that I intend to brainwash you, I hope that I've made your armor a little thicker, your defenses a little more keen. I hope that by tempting you to believe that I can brainwash you, I've used the old reverse psychology trick on you to have you think for yourself.

Precisely as I intended.

On "Trusting the Science"--Transparency over Neutrality 

I am a rational empiricist. I believe that we should follow the data.

Except that I know the data: we all think we follow the data, and many of us don't! This is like the man who, when asked how he keeps his personal politics from affecting his views on the gospel, responds "the gospel and my personal politics agree 100%!" If I choose to simply "follow the science," and focus on empirics, is that a real possibility? Can I really be unbiased? I think not. 

We all bring assumptions to the table. Even--perhaps especially--those who claim to simply "follow the science!" or "trust the empirics!" bring with them pre-empirical assumptions: ideas, values, and priors that influence the way they perceive and understand observational data. 

Would Latter-day Saints--who believe strongly in subjective experiences of emotion as its own epistemology of spiritual things--be comfortable in a world where only positivist empirics reign? Of course not. We all have assumptions, we all have our own epistemology--our own set of beliefs about what it means to know something.

I do not believe it possible to be neutral. Moreover, I don't want to be neutral--even if I could pull it off. I want you to hear my best arguments--even if you disagree with them!--and then formulate your own position. I think BYU-Idaho should be unique and principled and anything-but-neutral! And that means that I should probably do likewise. I have chosen between neutrality and transparency, and have opted for the latter. 

I love the scientific method. I believe it is neither sufficient nor truly neutral. There are other ways to arrive at the truth. 

Given the choice between faux neutrality and transparency, I would rather opt for the latter.

I will try to be fair: to be honest, to provide both sides, to question my own assumptions, and to give you the other side of my viewpoints. Where my own opinions differ from that of mainstream psychology, I will do what I can to note as much.

Men Without Chests, and the Moral Terror of Teaching

And now, having activated your skepticism--your cognitive immune system--I hope I can clarify what I mean by brainwashing. 

Brainwashing typically means non-consensual systematic change in behavior, personality, or values. I intend to change all of those, but differ from brainwashing only in that I hope to be transparent about it. Let me explain just what I mean.

One of my favorite contemporary psychologists is Jonathan Haidt. He illustrates a fundamental duality in human thinking: the emotional, feeling side of us (the elephant) and the rational, logical center (the rider). 

Watch on YouTube

I love Haidt's work, and owe much of my interest in (and understanding of) psychology to him. And yet the rationalists have taken his illustration and suggested that all would finally be well if only we could only weaken the elephant and strengthen the rider. 

You will learn, in my class, about System I and System II thinking. I want us to get better at System II thinking. I want us to be able to pause our emotions and be rational when the need arises.

But I also want our emotions to become better trained!

I am reminded of what C.S. Lewis said about youth exposed to propaganda, and the typical response:

"They see the world around them swayed by emotional propaganda... and they conclude that the best thing they can do is to fortify the minds of young people against emotion. My own experience as a teacher tells an opposite tale. For every one pupil who needs to be guarded from a weak excess of sensibility there are three who need to be awakened from the slumber of cold vulgarity. The task of the modern educator is not to cut down jungles but to irrigate deserts. The right defence against false sentiments is to inculcate just sentiments. By starving the sensibility of our pupils we only make them easier prey to the propagandist when he comes. For famished nature will be avenged and a hard heart is no infallible protection against a soft head." (Emphasis mine.)

The rationalist response to the elephant-and-rider problem is to weaken the elephant--but I'm a math teacher. I would sometimes ask students "bigger, or smaller?" Then I would shout "addition!" They'd yell "bigger!" How about subtraction? "Smaller!" Multiplication? "Bigger!" And so on. They have carefully-honed intuitions that are correct and precise--through third grade. Then everything falls apart. What about negative numbers? What about multiplying fractions? They need new intuitions--higher resolution thought patterns--and those thought patterns are my job as a teacher. 

The elephant does not need less attention, he needs more. 

"In battle it is not syllogisms (logical arguments) that will keep the reluctant nerves and muscles to their post in the third hour of the bombardment.The crudest sentimentalism … about a flag or a country or a regiment will be of more use."

"It still remains true that no justification of virtue will enable a man to be virtuous. Without the aid of trained emotions the intellect is powerless against the animal organism. I had sooner play cards against a man who was quite skeptical about ethics, but bred to believe that ‘a gentleman does not cheat’, than against an irreproachable moral philosopher who had been brought up among sharpers."

Lewis and Haidt agree that man is composed in two parts--but the underdevelopment of the heart (or the overdevelopment of the intellect) is no answer! The head and the heart--what is the liaison between the two? The chest. And so, we go about neglecting the heart so much that we create chestless men:

"...By (man's) intellect he is mere spirit and by his appetite mere animal. The operation of The Green Book (a book promoting relativism) and its kind is to produce what may be called Men without Chests.… A persevering devotion to truth, a nice sense of intellectual honour, cannot be long maintained without the aid of a sentiment... It is not excess of thought but defect of fertile and generous emotion that marks them out. Their heads are no bigger than the ordinary: it is the atrophy of the chest beneath that makes them seem so."

I shall lay my cards out on the table then: if the problem is the duality of rational and visceral man, I reject the idea that we need weaker elephants, stronger riders, and perhaps a little firmer grip on the reigns; rather, I believe as Lewis did that we must both strengthen and better train the emotional core of man. 

"And all the time—such is the tragi-comedy of our situation—we continue to clamour for those very qualities we are rendering impossible. You can hardly open a periodical without coming across the statement that what our civilization needs is more ‘drive’, or dynamism, or self-sacrifice, or ‘creativity’. In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.^1"

I do not merely want you to understand the facts of psychology or cognition, I want you to think better, to reason more wisely, and to adapt the values, mindsets, and morals of the collected weight of generations of scholars in the discipline. 

Should you wince at the directness of my intent, let me reassure you: I want to change your personality, your values, your character, and so does every other college professor you've ever had or will. I am simply being honest about it. 

Now, this may all seem just a tad grandiose for an introductory edpsych textbook, but I can think of no better introduction. This textbook is primarily geared toward future teachers, and there is no better introduction than this: you are in the business of not just rewiring peoples' minds, but also their hearts. If your heart doesn't skip a beat in terror, then you haven't wrestled with it enough. This must not be done lightly--but it must be done; for we are literally in the business of coaching the intellect and developing the heart; this is our calling and our profession to develop human souls--intellectually, morally, and spiritually. I do want to brainwash you--to make you think in a certain way--but I want to do something far more terrifying: I want to change your intuitions, your attitudes, your very soul. 

And that will shortly be your job, if you are to be a teacher.

Neither you nor I can evade the problem of teaching values--you can only decide which values you teach. May they be the highest possible values, then.

(Several links that may be of interest to you, both summaries of Lewis' "Men Without Chests." From Art of Manliness' Brett McKay. The podcast episode is equally enjoyable. From The C.S. Lewis Institute. Of course, the book itself is highly recommended, too.) 

And What Morality Shall I Inculcate?

If my intent is to create moral people--and, more to the point, teachers who will go forward building morality within children--then what exactly does morality consist of? What is morality, anyway?

I did a little internet searching, and found that my Muslim friends have a number of virtues that are essential to morality. (And by the way, if you are in my class, I won't be quizzing you on each of these. These lists get long. Read a couple entries, skim the rest.)

1. Iman (Faith): Faith is a fundamental virtue in Islam, encompassing belief in Allah, His angels, His books, His prophets, the Day of Judgment, and predestination.

2. Taqwa (Piety): Taqwa refers to being conscious and mindful of Allah in all aspects of life. It involves being aware of one's actions and avoiding anything that displeases Allah.

3. Sabr (Patience): Patience is highly valued in Islam, and it involves being steadfast and enduring in the face of challenges and hardships.

4. Shukr (Gratitude): Muslims are encouraged to be thankful to Allah for His blessings and provisions in their lives.

5. Ihsan (Excellence): Ihsan is the concept of performing acts of worship and daily actions with excellence and sincerity, seeking to please Allah in all endeavors.

6. Adl (Justice): Justice is a core value in Islam, and Muslims are enjoined to be just and fair in their dealings with others.

7. Akhlaq (Good Character): The Qur'an emphasizes the importance of good character, kindness, and ethical behavior in dealing with others.

8. Rahma (Compassion and Mercy): Muslims are encouraged to show compassion and mercy towards all of Allah's creation.

9. Tawakkul (Reliance on Allah): Trusting and relying on Allah's wisdom and providence is a significant virtue in Islam.

10. Tauba (Repentance): The Qur'an emphasizes the importance of seeking forgiveness from Allah and turning back to Him in repentance after committing sins.

In Judaism, on the other hand, some core Jewish virtues include:

1. Tzedakah (Charity): Jews are encouraged to give to those in need and engage in acts of charity and justice.

2. Tikkun Olam (Repairing the World): Jews are encouraged to work towards making the world a better place through acts of kindness and social responsibility.

3. Chesed (Kindness): Chesed refers to acts of loving-kindness and compassion towards others.

4. Emunah (Faith): Faith in God and trust in His providence are central virtues in Judaism.

5. Torah Study: The pursuit of knowledge and understanding of the Torah and Jewish teachings is highly valued in Judaism.

6. Derech Eretz (Ethical Conduct): Jews are encouraged to act with integrity and ethical behavior in all aspects of life.

7. Bitachon (Trust in God): Similar to Tawakkul in Islam, Jews are encouraged to trust in God's plan and have faith in His guidance.

Benjamin Franklin, meanwhile, had 13 virtues--from his autobiography:

1. TEMPERANCE. Eat not to dullness; drink not to elevation.
2. SILENCE. Speak not but what may benefit others or yourself; avoid trifling conversation.
3. ORDER. Let all your things have their places; let each part of your business have its time.
4. RESOLUTION. Resolve to perform what you ought; perform without fail what you resolve.
5. FRUGALITY. Make no expense but to do good to others or yourself; i.e., waste nothing.
6. INDUSTRY. Lose no time; be always employ’d in something useful; cut off all unnecessary actions.
7. SINCERITY. Use no hurtful deceit; think innocently and justly, and, if you speak, speak accordingly.
8. JUSTICE. Wrong none by doing injuries, or omitting the benefits that are your duty.
9. MODERATION. Avoid extreams; forbear resenting injuries so much as you think they deserve.
10. CLEANLINESS. Tolerate no uncleanliness in body, cloaths, or habitation.
11. TRANQUILLITY. Be not disturbed at trifles, or at accidents common or unavoidable.
12. CHASTITY. Rarely use venery but for health or offspring, never to dulness, weakness, or the injury of your own or another’s peace or reputation.
13. HUMILITY. Imitate Jesus and Socrates.

Which of these is the correct set of virtues? Perhaps we should default to Christian scriptures? Simon Peter told the saints:

5 And beside this, giving all ^adiligence, add to your faith ^bvirtue; and to virtue ^cknowledge;

6 And to knowledge ^atemperance; and to temperance ^bpatience; and to patience ^cgodliness;

7 And to godliness ^abrotherly ^bkindness; and to brotherly kindness ^ccharity.

2nd Peter 1:5-7

Maybe that's not enough--maybe we just need Latter-day Saint scriptures? The Doctrine and Covenants repeats the virtues in a different order:

5 And ^afaith, ^bhope, ^ccharity and ^dlove, with an ^eeye single to the ^fglory of God, ^gqualify him for the work.

6 Remember faith, ^avirtue, knowledge, ^btemperance, ^cpatience, ^dbrotherly ^ekindness, ^fgodliness, charity, ^ghumility, ^hdiligence.

Which morality do I mean? Do I mean loyalty? Do I mean kindness? Compassion? Courage? The taqwa of a muslim, or the tzedekah of a jew? 

I have three overriding principles here.

1. Common Morality

Jonathan Haidt has some answers to that particular question. He went across the world looking to see what morality is, and found that most cultures have common moral foundations: care/harm, authority/subversion, loyalty/betrayal, and so on. (The part of this book on moral foundations theory is recommended here.) What he found is that across cultures there are at least five prominent moral foundations that are broadly shared. 

As a Latter-day Saint, I believe that we each have within us a fundamental sense of what is good and right. I believe that sense of good and right is manifest throughout the world in a variety of cultures, and that we would do better to seek the common morality that manifests throughout the world rather than to somehow make moral structures compete. Yes, I have differences with other communities and religions in what constitutes morality--but I also have plenty in common with them, and those commonalities give clues to an underlying sense of what constitutes for me a true morality. 

2. Moral Tension

My friend, Nathaniel Givens, explains that a Prince Rupert's drop is incredibly strong because of the tension which defines one. He further gives the example of radio masts, held in place by multiple cords pulling down on the mast--putting the mast under extreme tension. 

I believe that our virtues are better when held in tension than when allowed to exist on their own. I have known people who have so focused on compassion (to the exclusion of truth or justice) that they have lost their ability to let children grow and flourish through hardship. I have known people who so focus on purity that they have become pathologically unable to eat foods, exist in places, or intermingle with people who could in any way be considered impure.

Another way to see this is through the notion of "phronesis," Aristotle's word for common, practical wisdom in balancing and applying various virtues at the same time. (Boy do I wish that our world had a bigger dose of phronesis!) 

Our morals are best used with wisdom--or, another way to say it, our virtues are strongest when held in tension. While we attempt to pull as hard as possible on each one simultaneously, our virtues are maximized as compared to when we try to pick one and allow it to flow individually. 

Do you know someone who had overdone it on empathy? Isn't Javert the perfect example of what happens when justice is supreme over mercy? 

The result of this extreme tension is that the outer layer—the bulbous part around the inner core—attains remarkable strength. How much? Enough to easily withstand a hammer blow or to even shatter a bullet. Prince Rupert’s Drops do have an Achilles’ heel, though: if the long tail is snipped, the entire drop will explode into powdered glass fragments as the tension is finally unleashed. But as long as the tail remains intact—as long as the strain remains in place—they are unbelievably strong.

3. Aim for the Highest Morality

In philosophy, scholars speak of "telos," the final end purpose of an object--it's fulfillment, in a sense, of its potential. We Latter-day Saints believe in this deeply. In the only scripture to describe the laws of a Celestial Kingdom that I know, the scripture reads that abiding the law of a celestial kingdom entails "filling the measure of one's creation," (D&C 88:25). 

In a sense, my telos is your telos: my goal, my hope, my ambition is to allow you to become all that you were meant to be--first and foremost, transformational teachers, evidence-based practitioners, skeptical scientists, and disciples of Jesus. Then, later, to grander and more glorious things--which you (and I) can scarcely imagine.

If you're getting uncomfortable with this project of mine, I have a simple solution: don't read my book. Don't take my class. If you feel that I am doing something to you that feels invasive or somehow wrong, you are free to walk away at any point. 

But don't take anyone else's either--and don't read their books. The difference between them and me is only in what we believe your telos is--not that they don't have one. They have set their sights on you becoming teachers or professionals or citizens, and I have set my sights somewhere else. 

There's an interesting little documentary video essay on Jordan Peterson that gets close, somehow. The video is interesting, though a bit long, and relevant clip is here starting at 13:27 through about 14:38.

From the video: "There's a call to nobility in the idea of imitation of the logos, but it's more than that: it's a call to something of... cosmic significance." The narrator explains further: "Peterson is often characterized as a religious conservative, but the core of his message has echoes of a belief that organized Christianity has fought against for generations, often called the gnostic heresy: the idea that we can become like Jesus." 

As Latter-day Saints children sing, we are all of us "Trying to Be Like Jesus," and I think it is my job to help you on your journey. 

Back to Kudos

What am I trying to help you become--in this class? To the extent that I can, let me clarify where I stand on some things so that you know what you are getting yourself into from the start.

• Telos of Transformative Teachers

My most immediate goal is to create transformative teachers, and that means that I will be a rather harsh editor to any chapter, concept, or jot or tittle that does not have practical application in the classroom. I have made a couple of exceptions in this book, but I have tried very hard to keep them relatively few in number.

• Builders of Zion Communities

But simply building great teachers is insufficient for me. I want students to leave my classroom knowing how to build a better world--what restorationist scripture calls "Zion," or the just society. You will find that I tackle hard issues: the mental health crisis, gender, tribalism, identity, and sexuality. I have no intent to be provocative, but if we do not engage them with full force, we will never be able to solve the problems that our contemporary society presents us with. I feel a moral obligation to equip you to navigate the complicated problems of a complex world, but I want to do something more. I do not only want you to talk about contemporary issues in class--I want you to go out and solve them in the real world. 

• The Empirical Mindset

I believe firmly that building transformative teachers--and creating builders of Zion-communities--will require of them a clear knowledge of empirics, statistics, research, and academic argumentation; what I will call the empirical mindset. The best teachers are evidence-based practitioners; the best community-members know the relevant research; and the best saints use the revelation granted through sweat, tears, and test tubes before they dare approach God to ask for more. 

I also believe that empirical research is a spiritual protectant for my students. One must subjugate his opinions and beliefs and ideas to the test of reality: does it actually hold true in the real world? I find that I trust people in exact proportion to the degree to which they subject their thinking to rigorous interrogation, and the best interrogation comes from matching it up against reality and seeing what holds. In my book--and in my class--we will focus to a great extent on the science, the statistics, and the randomized-controlled trials first.

Why not stop here? Because the empirical mindset on its own is insufficient. Too many people claim to simply "follow the science" when it is only really their interpretation of the science, and it is anyway stuffed full of pre-empirical assumptions. (By the way, I have those too--but I'm stating them out loud.) 

• The Holy Art of Skepticism.

Einstein said that "Common sense is a collection of prejudices acquired by the age eighteen." A good counterintuition, then, is to question everything. One of my highest hopes is that I'll be able to imbue in you a sense of contrarianism: a willingness to argue with others about things lest you are too easily taken in by the "common knowledge" or "every-day wisdom" that is actually mostly full of errors. In simple terms, this is a kind of gut-level contrarianism that makes you unafraid to question sacred cows, and accept true hypotheses even if the mobs come for you over it. 

And there is a particular kind of contrarianism that is attuned to the current culture. Our culture emphasizes compassion (a good thing!) but have we overdone it? We emphasize egalitarianism (another good thing!) but can it go too far? 

I hope that if I lived in another time that emphasized authority, loyalty, and social darwinism that I would challenge those just as readily.

• Unapologetic Religious Devotion

My friend Jeff Thayne has asked what a uniquely Latter-day Saint view of psychology would look like: what if instead of trying to check our religion at the door--or trying to minimize our religion to the "about the author page,"--what if we chose neither the religiously-neutral, or minimally-LDS take and choose instead a maximally LDS take? 

That is one part of my goal. 

It is worth noting that empirics comes first. Why? Is my religious devotion second to my empirics? No. Rather, I believe that God has made us with minds, eyes, and hearts capable of comprehending reality, and that He makes truth manifest in the scientific pursuit. It is not that I think empirics is second to faith, it is that my faith presses on me to discover the truth--the clues to which God has left for us to run out and collect.

• Journey above destination

As a pedagogical exercise, I have asked students to contribute to this book one section at a time. We check each other's work, we try to edit carefully; but ultimately, I need to say something that I wish every other textbook author said too: I hope you will take everything in this book and evaluate it carefully. Caveat Emptor. May the buyer beware. 

I live life in rough draft. I write this book that way too. Growth mindset. Get messy. Make mistakes--but learn from them. Psychology changes. This book is not finished, and it likely never will be. It will always have some wrong information. Nothing makes me happier than if you point it out to me (and please do! pacinib@byui.edu) but I will never be able to guarantee that the book is perfect. I can only guarantee that it will get better over time. 

So if I were to write some objectives for this course--for this book--what would they be?

Students will make significant progress in developing the mindsets, dispositions, attitudes, and skills of:

1. Transformative teachers who are able to effectively use principles of cognition, psychology, and human development to develop, implement, and evaluate effective instruction.
2. Evidence-based practitioners who are able to apply statistical tools to the evaluation of academic research and use that research to improve in their teaching practice. 
3. Master teachers who know how to cultivate moral goodness within children, and effectively manage student behavior in the meantime. 
4. Disciple-scholars who are eager to defend gospel principles and communicate their perspective with moral force on both scientific and religious grounds.
5. Civically responsible agents who work to solve contemporary issues related to psychology in their communities, including but not limited to the mental health crisis, political polarization, tribalism, and identity.