Ernie loves the playful “why not?”, Bert defends the steady “we don’t do it like that.” Between them a tiny public forms—norms are tested, roles negotiated, boundaries drawn. This page turns Sesame Street’s odd couple into a living lab for publics and counterpublics: how rule-following meets creative dissent, how care and order collide, and how queer readings open space in male-coded arenas. With short teaching notes, brain teasers, and governance-aware prompts, the series invites students to read everyday culture as civic theory in action—and to practice gentle interventions that make online and offline spaces a little fairer.
How We (AI and I) Wrote This Series: Iterative Prompting
I didn’t “one-shot” these articles. I worked in rounds. First, I drafted a seed question (“What can Ernie & Bert teach us about publics and counterpublics?”). Then I scaffolded each post with our Unified Post Template (teaser → methods window → practice heuristics → brain teasers → hypotheses → literature (APA, publisher-first) → transparency & AI → check log). In each pass I asked the model to fill only one missing block—never everything at once. After insertion, I ran a quick gatecheck: disclosure present, ≥5 brain teasers, 4:3 header, APA links fixed, and a dated Check Log entry.
When a post failed a gate, I prompted again, narrowly: “Add a 100–120 word AI disclosure in our tone,” or “Generate 7 brain teasers that map hooks to classroom practice.” I cycled this across the whole set, keeping version notes (v1.0, v1.1…). Final polishing steps were mechanical: convert images to 4:3, swap non-publisher links, and add internal cross-links across the series. Only then did I mark the Check Log “green” for that day—knowing I might revisit tomorrow.
Why One Prompt Isn’t Enough
If I had tried to do this with a single prompt, I would have produced something polished-looking but fragile: a tapestry without seams for revision, no trace of how claims were built, and plenty of hidden errors. The public sphere we’re writing about is messy; our process should acknowledge that. Iteration is not inefficiency—it’s method. By limiting each prompt to one task (add disclosure, generate brain teasers, fix links, convert headers), I kept the model inside well-lit boundaries and made every change auditable.
Even though AI wrote a lot of the raw text, the series took days to realize. That time wasn’t spent “waiting for words,” but structuring judgment: aligning to our template, enforcing publisher-first citations, tuning difficulty for students, and documenting limits in a Check Log. The result is still far from perfect—and that’s exactly the point. A reflexive project stays open to revision: tomorrow’s governance update, a better example from class, a sharper diagram. Perfection would only hide the learning process that students need to see.
Working this way treats AI as a co-author, not a ghostwriter: it drafts and proposes; I decide, constrain, and revise. The alternation—prompt, draft, gatecheck, log—builds collective accountability. It also models the civic skill we teach in these articles: how to move from quick takes to reason-giving, from hot claims to transparent methods. That is why we didn’t one-shot the series—and why we won’t one-shot the revisions either.
Closing note: This is a sociological project, not a clinical-psychological one. It may contain inspirations for (student) life, but it will not and cannot replace psychosocial counseling or professional care.
How to make a 1.3 BA or MA-thesis out of it
Prompt used
{
“name”: “Ernie&Bert-Series-Workflow”,
“version”: “1.2”,
“context”: {
“site”: “socialfriction.com”,
“series”: “Questions about Ernie & Bert”,
“template_blocks”: [
“Teaser”,
“Methods Window”,
“Practice Heuristics”,
“Sociology Brain Teasers”,
“Hypotheses”,
“Literature (APA, publisher-first)”,
“Transparency & AI”,
“Check Log”
]
},
“roles”: {
“human_lead”: “Dr. Stephan Pflaum”,
“ai_model_primary”: “GPT-5 Thinking”,
“ai_model_quick_edits”: “GPT-Standard”
},
“quality_gates”: {
“ai_disclosure_present”: true,
“brain_teasers_min”: 5,
“methods_window_present”: true,
“literature_links_policy”: “publisher-first”,
“header_aspect_ratio”: “4:3”,
“check_log_present”: true
},
“stages”: [
{
“id”: “seed”,
“goal”: “Define guiding question and post map”,
“prompt”: “Outline subposts and core concepts (publics/counterpublics, moderation, queer readings).”,
“deliverable”: “Series outline with post titles and learning aims”
},
{
“id”: “scaffold_post”,
“goal”: “Create empty template for ONE post”,
“prompt”: “Instantiate Unified Post Template headings only.”,
“deliverable”: “Post skeleton with all required blocks”
},
{
“id”: “fill_missing_block”,
“goal”: “Write exactly one missing section”,
“prompt”: “Write the {block} in our tone (100–200 words or bullet list).”,
“deliverable”: “Drafted block inserted into the post”
},
{
“id”: “gatecheck”,
“goal”: “Enforce non-negotiables”,
“prompt”: “Validate gates; report failures; propose minimal fix prompts.”,
“deliverable”: “Pass/Fail report + micro-prompts”
},
{
“id”: “link_and_assets”,
“goal”: “Harden references & media”,
“prompt”: “Swap to publisher-first links; convert header to 4:3; add alt text.”,
“deliverable”: “Clean Literature list + compliant header”
},
{
“id”: “versioning”,
“goal”: “Log changes and next steps”,
“prompt”: “Append Check Log entry with status, checks, next steps, date.”,
“deliverable”: “Check Log (vX.Y) updated”
}
],
“acceptance_criteria”: [
“All template blocks present”,
“AI disclosure 90–120 words, site tone”,
“≥ 5 Brain Teasers aligned to theory”,
“Publisher-first links; DOIs where available”,
“Header image 4:3 + descriptive alt text”,
“Dated Check Log with next steps”
],
“timeline_example”: {
“day_1”: “Seed + scaffold 3 posts”,
“day_2”: “Fill missing blocks; gatecheck; fix links”,
“day_3”: “Headers to 4:3; finalize Check Logs; cross-link posts”
},
“audit_log_fields”: [“version”, “who”, “what_changed”, “why”, “date”]
}
Leave a Reply