Quid Pro Quo

The notion of compromise occurs in many contexts. The general sense of a quid pro quo is something like this: “If you do this for me, then I will do that for you.” Compromise is essential for progress in many cases. As a child, I had a football, but I was the smallest child wanting to play sandlot football. I remember telling my friends that I would let them use my football if they would let me play. I got to play as did my friends. In college, I played lacrosse and also taught an undergraduate logic course. Some of the younger lacrosse players asked if they could take my logic course and get a guaranteed passing grade. They really wanted an automatic A but only said a passing grade. One of them came to class regularly and earned an A. I gave the other two a C and they were very upset with me. I felt pressured to pass them as teammates and only gave them a C in return for them not isolating me on the team – that was never a direct threat but I thought it was a real possibility. I saw the Cs as a compromise – unfortunately, those two did not see it the same way. As an intelligence officer in the Air Force, I was told I needed to inflate the North Vietnamese casualties when reporting weekly statistics to the general if I wanted to be promoted. I refused and was sent to a remote assignment as punishment. There was no compromise and a punishment ensued. Fortunately, with some help, I recovered and came to realize that some compromises are okay but others are not okay.

In the area of educational technology, one has to make many compromises in order to see any progress occur. Some of those compromises are worth making but some may infringe on one’s sense of right and wrong or threaten one’s personal dignity. One may want to do a study in a school but the superintendent or principal or teacher may ask for a special favor in return for allowing the study to proceed. Some favors may be innocuous but some may be unethical or illegal. My advice is to take nothing in return and make no promises and offer no favors in return for your research other than improved learning and understanding.

Bouwsma described Socrates as someone who spoke highly and lived in accordance with what he said; others only talk high and live low, and a few speak low and live in accordance with their words, which are often aimed at others rather than at themselves. I suppose one could also speak low and live high, but I do not know anyone like that. Bouwsma also said you become more like one kind of person rather than another kind of person based on what you do and say. My father said something similar. I suppose Bouwsma and my father were promoting a deep sense of self-awareness and metacognitive understanding. One example of living in accordance with Socrates and Bouwsma is the life of Franz Jägerstätter (see Gordon Zahn’s In Solitary Witness). Another way to make a more clear distinction is to view compromise vs. extortion. Bouwsma also said “surely your life will show what you think of yourself.”