It documents the long failed history of attempts to place the nation's schools on a year-round calendar. This paper, however, did not delve into motives behind the push by powerful business interests to force the nation's schools on a year-round calendar.
Tim Harford writes The Problem With Factswhich uses Brexit and Trump as jumping-off points to argue that people are mostly impervious to facts and resistant to logic: Facts, it seems, are toothless.
Trying to refute a bold, memorable lie with a fiddly set of facts can often serve to reinforce the myth. Important truths are often stale and dull, and it is easy to manufacture new, more engaging claims. And giving people more facts can backfire, as those facts provoke a defensive reaction in someone who badly wants to stick to their existing world view.
I think this is generally a good article and makes important points, but there are three issues I want to highlight as possibly pointing to a deeper pattern. Harford expects us to be impressed by this study. But how is this different from all of those social science facts to which he believes humans are mostly impervious?
But given that the entire field is now in serious doubt, I feel like it would have been judicious to mention some of this in the article. This is especially true given that the article itself is about the way that false ideas spread by people never double-checking their beliefs.
Yet Harford writes an entire article about a worldwide plague of false beliefs without mustering enough vigilance to see if the relevant studies are true or not. His key example is tobacco companies sowing doubt about the negative health effects of smoking — for example, he talks about tobacco companies sponsoring accurate research into all of the non-smoking-related causes of disease so that everyone focused on those instead.
But his solution — telling engaging stories, adding a human interest element, enjoyable documentaries in the style of Carl Sagan — seems unusually unsuited to the problem. The National Institute of Health can make an engaging human interest documentary about a smoker who got lung cancer. And the tobacco companies can make an engaging human interest documentary about a guy who got cancer because of asbestos, then was saved by tobacco-sponsored research.
Opponents of Brexit can make an engaging documentary about all the reasons Brexit would be bad, and then proponents of Brexit can make an engaging documentary about all the reasons Brexit would be good.
If you get good documentary-makers, I assume both will be equally convincing regardless of what the true facts are. All three of these points are slightly unfair. But I worry that taken together, they suggest an unspoken premise of the piece.
The fundamental problem is one of transmission: Medical researchers have lots of useful facts about vaccines. Statisticians know some great facts about the link between tobacco and cancer shame about Ronald Fisherthough.
Probably there are even some social scientists who have a fact or two. Imagine a theory of jurisprudence designed only to smack down sovereign citizens, or a government pro-innovation policy based entirely on warning inventors against perpetual motion machines. And in this wider context, part of me wonders if the focus on transmission is part of the problem.
Everyone from statisticians to Brexiteers knows that they are right.
The only remaining problem is how to convince others. Go on Facebook and you will find a million people with a million different opinions, each confident in her own judgment, each zealously devoted to informing everyone else.
They all fight each other for space at the blackboard, give lectures that nobody listens to, assign homework that nobody does. When everyone gets abysmal test scores, one of the teachers has an idea: I need a more engaging curriculum.
A new Nathan Robinson article: It goes through the same steps as the Harford article, this time from the perspective of the political Left. Some leftists think the answer is violence. In conclusion, Bernie Would Have Won. But this might not suggest anything about the possibilities of persuasion and dialogue.Turning to the merits of the protest, the record shows that the agency disqualified AGI because of the contracting officer’s conclusion that AGI may have had access to competitively useful, non-public information that may have been helpful in preparing its proposal.
Evaluator Bias BAE asserts that a member of the TEB was biased in favor of Wexford‑CACI, and against BAE. In support of its allegation of bias, the protester relies on a declaration from a BAE senior director, which asserts the following: (1) that the TEB member was the subject of a Department of Defense Inspector General (DODIG) investigation for providing inappropriate favors to Wexford.
User-centered design professionals pay special emphasis to one type of stakeholder—the users of the system—arguing that user experience needs to be carefully crafted to satisfy user needs. While understanding user needs and goals is certainly necessary, it is often not sufficient for producing a successful design.
This guide stresses the systematic causal analysis of gender inequality. The analytical questions raised and the readings listed consider why and how gender inequality arises, varies across and within societies, persists over generations, produces conformity by individuals and institutions, resists change, and sometimes changes dramatically.
Quizlet is a lightning fast way to learn vocabulary. Turnitin provides instructors with the tools to prevent plagiarism, engage students in the writing process, and provide personalized feedback.