Today we’re going to explore the Thibodeau and Boroditsky article through small group discussions that will challenge your thinking and help you engage with your peers’ perspectives. The goal is intellectual courage—challenging ideas with curiosity and respect.
Before we begin, commit to these principles:
- Challenge ideas, not people. Say “I see it differently because…” not “You’re wrong.”
- Use evidence. Reference specific parts of the Thibodeau and Boroditsky study to support your points.
- Ask genuine questions. “What makes you think that?” or “Can you help me understand your reasoning?”
- Embrace productive discomfort. If everyone agrees immediately, dig deeper.
- Listen to understand, not to win. Your goal is to learn, not to convince.
- Take intellectual risks. Share tentative ideas and half-formed thoughts.
Three-Round Discussion Format (15 minutes each round)
You’ll rotate through three different groups to discuss these question clusters:
Round 1: The Covert Influence
Thibodeau and Boroditsky found that “participants who had no explicit memory of the metaphor were just as much affected by the metaphor as participants who were able to remember the metaphorical frame.”
What does this suggest about the nature of persuasion and critical thinking? How can you defend against influences you’re not even aware of?
Round 2: The Simplification Trap
Thibodeau and Boroditsky note that “each metaphorical frame offers only a partial view of the problem space. Frames streamline information, necessarily selecting and organizing elements to simplify complex issues.”
When I asked you to frame how you solve problems in terms of how you cook, I implicitly asked you to simplify your problem-solving processes through metaphor. Simplifying information is critical for understanding! But it’s also dangerous. Think about how social media or news sources present complex issues to your generation. Can you identify examples where this metaphorical “streamlining” might be helpful or harmful?
Round 3: The Awareness Gap
Despite being influenced by the metaphors, “very few participants thought the metaphor played an important part in their decision.”
Have you noticed this pattern in your own life—being influenced by something you didn’t think was important? What does this suggest about how we understand our own decision-making processes?
Group Roles
Each group assigns:
- One Challenger: Your job is to push back respectfully – “But what about…?” “How do we know…?” “Couldn’t it also mean…?”
- One Synthesizer: Your job is to help the group see connections, find common ground, and identify key disagreements worth exploring further
- Everyone else: Active participants who take detailed notes on perspectives that surprise, challenge, or support your thinking
When agreement comes too easily:
- “Let’s play devil’s advocate for a moment…”
- “What would someone who disagrees with us say?”
- “Are we missing any nuances in Thibodeau and Boroditsky’s findings?”
If disagreement gets tense:
- “Let’s pause and restate what we each heard…”
- “What specific evidence from the study supports each view?”
- “How might both perspectives be partially true?”
Writing Assignment for today’s participation grade: Peer Perspective Analysis
After all discussions, write about 200 words addressing:
- Three Peer Perspectives (one from each round): Describe three specific viewpoints shared by classmates that stood out to you. Name the person and summarize their key argument accurately.
- Intellectual Impact: For each perspective, explain how it either:
- Challenged your initial reading (made you reconsider, see new evidence, question assumptions)
- Supported your reading (provided additional evidence, strengthened your interpretation)
- Complicated your reading (added nuance you hadn’t considered)
- Synthesis: How has this collective discussion changed or refined your understanding of Thibodeau and Boroditsky’s research? What questions do you still have?
Writing Guidelines:
- Quote specific phrases or examples from your peers when possible
- Reference the original study to support your analysis
- Be generous and accurate in representing others’ ideas
- Show your intellectual growth, not just your original opinions
Sample format: “In Round 2, Sarah argued that the political affiliation findings were the most concerning aspect of the study because… This challenged my initial focus on the covert influence findings because I hadn’t considered… However, when I look back at Thibodeau and Boroditsky’s data on page X…”
Today’s Timeline:
- 5 minutes: Review guidelines and form first groups
- Round 1: 15 minutes discussion + 2 minutes transition
- Round 2: 15 minutes discussion + 2 minutes transition
- Round 3: 15 minutes discussion + 5 minutes individual reflection notes
- Homework: Complete written analysis (due next class)
Remember: The goal is intellectual courage, not conflict. Challenge ideas with curiosity and respect, and take notes on perspectives that make you think differently.