sudo life

I’m always conducting little experiments with people just to see what happens if I do certain things.  A few months ago, I tried something called my Underpowered Superpower.  The premise for these superpowers is that they’re super, but just barely.  One example is the man who can fly, but only walking speed, one centimeter above the ground.  Or the man whose touch changes things exactly one degree – a “lukewarm man” if you will.

My Underpowered Superpower was simple: I could tell the future, but in a very limited sense.  I could tell if someone would choose a circle, a square or a triangle ahead of time.  For three or four weeks, I told people about this super power and demonstrated it for them.  I’ve had a variety of responses.

First the data.  Out of 13 demonstrations, all were accepted as something silly.  Over all, they didn’t understand what was happening, and spent most of their time confused.  8 people demanded that I immediately do the trick again, which unfortunately was impossible.  I explained that my power is also limited in that it only works once in a given situation.  There were two people who weren’t fooled by it at all, and gave possibilities for how it was done (I admit nothing!).

Okay, I should modify that to say that only two people pointed out exactly how I did it immediately following my performance.  Upon reflection, it’s likely many others knew, but didn’t say anything for whatever reason.  For the rest: yes, my secret is out.  I don’t really possess any super powers.  It’s nothing more than a trick I developed while reading a biography of Harry Houdini.*  Reading the biography got me interested in magic again, and I started thinking about some possibilities for performing Mentalism tricks, and I came up with a really simple forcing mechanism that I wanted to try.  The underpowered superpowers thing seemed to be a perfect opportunity.

The problem is that I really need to work on my delivery.  I stumbled around a lot in the dialogue I had prepared ahead of time.  I thought I would try playing it by ear a little bit, but this did not turn out well.  It’s one thing that really added to the confusion, beyond normal levels.  So it’s back to the drawing board, and to help me out, I ordered a few books, and a separate trick that I’m looking forward to learning.

Overall, I think this particular experiment was a success.  I found out a little about myself, had fun, and confused people in the process.  I will have to do it again sometime.

*The Secret Life of Houdini: The Making of America’s First Superhero (Amazon) – I highly recommend this book!

Personal magic, social interaction

As part of my summer coursework, I’m taking a class called “Action Research.”  Before taking this class, I was unsure what “Action Research” actually was, but now I do.  Basically, it’s informal research practiced by teachers in their classrooms as a reflective tool to improve their teaching.  So far, I’ve had very mixed feeleings about this topic.  It is a good thing for teachers to undertake.  It is a bad thing when it is dominated by anecdotes and lacks rigor.

The text book for this course did not start off on a good foot with me.  We’re using “Action Research: A Guide for the Teacher Researcher” by Geoffrey Mills.  It starts off good, but then it begins criticising formal educational research in a way that lacks reason, while promoting what it calls “Critical Action Research.”  Critical Action Research is anything but critical.  It’s basically a Post-Modernist activity that holds no objective standards for truth.  This is justified because:

“historically there has been little or no connection between research and practice in education – an apparent failure of research to affect teaching.”

This is basically throwing the baby out with the bath water.  This point is clarified by the author by citing a paper by Mary Kennedy published in Educational Researcher in 1997 entitled “The Connection Between Research and Practice.”  The following reasons are given:

1. It [educational research] is not persuasive and has lacked the qualities of being compelling to teachers.
2. It has not been relevant to teachers’ daily practices – it has lacked practicality.
3. It has not been expressed in way that are accessible to teachers.

The problem with these reasons is that they say nothing about the findings of educational research, and only addresses the presentation of it.  It does not follow from this argument that formalized educational research has been a failure, and that we need to move on to something less rigorous and scientific.  We can work on the presentation of educational research.  This is not a problem unique to the field of education.  Nearly every other field that conducts research has this same problem.  In education, we need to examine this and see how other fields deal with it, instead of becoming even more insular.

The book chapter would have been greatly improved if it had included the conclusion of the paper it cited: the problems in educational research have grown more from a difference in expectations than an inherent problem in the methods of the research.

My argument isn’t against Action Research (although I definitely disagree with the sub-topic known as “Critical Action Research).  The practices entailed in Action Research are good for teachers to follow.  At the same time, it is more important than ever for us to conduct educational research held to the highest rigorous standards.

education education, Philosophy, research

Beware Mexican Jumping Beans!  More on that at the end.

I’ve been woefully delinquent in blogging over the last few months, mainly because I haven’t had much to say. But now I’m starting to get into the swing of things again, and I’m preparing a post of education research that should be up in the next few days.  The summer has been very mixed so far, but here are some highlights:

• Visited my friend Tara in San Antonio.  I stayed on the River Walk, and it was amazing.  I hope I get to go back sometime, probably in Winter!
• Rented a cabin on a small fishing lake in Eastern Kansas.  It was a nice way to get away for a while.  I spent the time rereading the Dresden Files, and finally read the latest book in the series.
• Had a tire blowout on the interstate.  Not fun, but I got through it, obviously.
• Getting back into the habit of going to the gym.  I hadn’t been in a few months, but now that I’m going again, I’m starting to feel much better.
• My twitter use has exploded from where it was.  I’m starting to see the use, not only as a publishing platform, but also as a resource for information.  search.twitter.com has been extremely helpful in the last few months.
• Bought a new Sony 40 inch LCD television.  It’s incredibly awesome.  Got rid of my old TV.  Thinking about building a PC to connect to the TV to serve as a media center, and do things like stream Netflix and Hulu without using my laptop.
• In case I decide to stay in KC, I’ve started considering building a house instead of buying.  It’s been the fun thing to think about for the last week or so.
• 7 weeks left until I graduate with my Masters degree.  So I’ve started looking at possible Ph.D. programs, grants, and fellowships.
• I’m teaching two sections in the fall, one of them an evening course.
• Will probably upgrade to a new MBP sometime in the fall.
• I’ve gotten into poetry, both reading and writing.  Reading “Leaves of Grass” has been interesting.
• Still thinking about getting a dog. If I do, I’m going to either name it “Darwin” or “Schroedinger” (or “Ding” for short).  If it’s a beagle, then I will definitely name it Darwin.

Well, that’s basically been my life for the last few months.  I wrapped up teaching, and all my students passed, something I’m very proud of.  Now I’m anxious to see the student evaluations of my teaching.  I have no idea when those will appear.

I’m starting to get back into the home science swing of things too.  Hopefully will have something to post about my experimentations involving mexican jumping beans and the moth-like creatures that hatch from them in the coming days.

Personal summer, teaching

For part of my vacation this year, I visited my friend Tara, who lives in San Antonio.  It was a beautiful trip, and San Antonio was very nice.  Maybe I will write more about that later.  There was one quick thing I wanted to post about, however.  When I visited the Alamo, there was a short sentence that really jumped out at me.  There is a picture on the right.

The first sentence reads: “Republicanism, a new idea about government, became popular in the late 1700s.”

I realize this may be over pedantic, but I just couldn’t let this drop.  Republicanism was a new idea about government?  Perhaps the author of this short blurb should have read Plato.

That’s all for now.  I need to get back to catching up on email.

Philosophy, education government, Philosophy, politics

As I work through my Educational Technology Masters Degree, one of the things I’m very interested in is the use of video games for educational purposes.  So when I saw this article (pdf) entitled “Scientific Habits of Mind in Virtual Worlds” a few months ago, I couldn’t wait to read it.

This particular study focused on the users of the popular massive multiplayer online role playing game (mmorpg) World of Warcraft, and specifically an online discussion forum used by players to communicate.  The abstract sums up their findings:

Eighty-six percent of the forum discussions were posts engaged in “social knowledge construction” rather than social banter. Over half of the posts evidenced systems based reasoning, one in ten evidenced model-based reasoning, and 65% displayed an evaluative epistemology in which knowledge is treated as an open-ended process of evaluation and argument.

The paper itself it very accessible, and doesn’t take long to read.  The findings are surprising, and I think important for educators to be aware of.  Since I’m not much of a gamer, I was unaware of the level of detail and care gamers put into playing this game, although after reading “Everything Bad is Good For You” last fall, this really shouldn’t have been much of a surprise.  From the paper, here is an example of what I’m talking about:

The calculations correctly show that mind flay [spell]
receives just as much +damage percentage as mind
blast. However mind blast has a 1.5 second cast time,
and mind flay has a 3 second cast time. And therefore
mind flay receives half the dps [damage per second]
boost it should. (post #2609.43)

There are two things about this kind of thinking that really demonstrates something I hope I can foster in my own classroom: the depth of analysis, and social knowledge construction.  The user in this case, wasn’t satisfied by the damages given by a particular attack; they took it a step further and came up with their own method of identifying what kind attack is better (damage per second).  While this particular example seems simple, since it only involves one issue (a single tactical decision), it’s important to realize that this is just a piece of a much larger discussion that involved many more variables. From later in the paper, here is an example of a more complicated, user generated equation:

For Mindflay, SW:P, and presumpably VT [3 priest spells]:

Damage = (base_spell_damage + modifier * damage_gear) *darkness * weaving * shadowform *misery

The second thing they did was post their analysis in a forum, generating discussion and debate.

It was this paper that inspired me last semester, when I was assigned to create a lesson plan that integrated some form of technology, to use Schorched3D as a way for students to create models for learning about trajectory and range.  While I wasn’t able to give this lesson to actual students, and it’s outside the field I actually teach, I think this kind of integration will be necessary in the classrooms of today and tomorrow.

For further reading, there is a wealth of information to be found in the citations of this article.  I also recommend the book “Everything Bad is Good for You.”  Finally, I check out Constance Steinkuehler’s website.  She’s done a lot of great work in this area.

References

1. Steinkeuhler, Constance & Duncan, Sean (2008). Scientific Habits of Mind in Virtual Worlds Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17 (6), 530-543

Uncategorized education, Philosophy, Science, teaching, thinking

Hulu recently made Carl Sagan’s famous PBS documentary series Cosmos available for free viewing online.  If you’ve never seen it, I highly recommend watching it.  It is the best documentary series I’ve ever seen, and for me, it was a complete life changer.  There is a moment in the last episode of the series that completely shattered some cognitive dissonance that had been building up for months: the amount of evidence for evolution, versus my dogmatic rejection of it.  The moment is just a simple statement:  “[we] accepted the products of science, but not it’s methods.”  The intensity I felt in that moment has been rarely replicated.  It perfectly described my actions in a way that was undeniable, but also provided the solution: drop my dogmatic beliefs in favor of evidence based knowledge.

Since that time, I sometimes forget what it’s like for people who reject evolution.  Sometimes, as hard as it is to believe, I forget that anyone actually rejects evolution.  It’s so obvious to me now, that I forge that there are other perspectives out there.  There are probably many causes for this, but there is one that I want to focus on for this post:  Nearly everyone benefitting from modern technology has implicitly accepted evolution.

The theory of evolution was a breakthrough of truly monumental proportions, and today, it’s applications have extended well beyond just academic biology.  For example, it’s used in forensic science to help solve crimes.  How many people accept DNA evidence, but don’t realize that without the theory of evolution, we wouldn’t be able to analyze DNA?  How many people use materials everyday that were designed using principals derived from the theory of evolution?

How many people wouldn’t be alive today if it wasn’t for the theory of evolution?  Modern medicine depends on an understanding of evolution.  If the theory of evolution didn’t accurately reflect reality, modern medicine would not be successful at all.  Instead, we see life expectancy growing at an exponential rate.

Shouldn’t someone who truly believes evolution wrong and even evil, reject all these things? If they’re truly dedicated to their beliefs, they should.  Instead, we see their rational side appear when they need it.  If they’re sick, they ignore the man behind the curtain, and implicitly accept the benefits of evidence-based knowledge.  Next time I’m pulled back down to earth by someone who doesn’t believe in evolution, I just want to ask them this:  then why do you accept it’s products?

Science biology, christianity, evolution, medicine, Philosophy

It was once nearly universal that people believed that god existed, and that without god, life would be chaos.  That time is in the past.  Recent data has shown that somewhere between fifteen and twenty percent of americans are non-religious, placing this group in second place in terms of population.  Only Christianity as a group can claim higher numbers.  But that’s tricky, because Christians are great at fighting between themselves.  Are the Catholics really Christians?  How about Calvinists?  Or Mormons?  Or Fundamentalist? Or evangelicals?  When you break down Christianity into incompatible subgroups that love to hate each other, the non-religious numbers more than many of them.  There’s all sorts of interesting things to consider about these statistics, but I’ll have to take those up in another post.  This post it aimed at posing a simple question:

In a nation where around one out of every six people are non-religious, why are things as ordered as they are?

While you’re thinking about that, consider these numbers as well.  If you don’t want to take the time to read it, it talks about the disparity between the religious percentages in society and in prison.  Outside of prison, the non-religious number one out of six.  Inside prison, the non-religious number around one in 500.  If it’s true that non-belief leads to chaos and anarchy, why aren’t the prisons overflowing with the non-religious?  Why are our prisons instead overflowing with people who claim belief in god?

Another example is Norway.  Norway is over 70% atheist.  According to the theory that god is necessary for morality and meaning, we would expect Norway to be anarchy and a hell hole.  But that is not the case.  Norway is one of the most responsible and peaceful nations in the world.   The hypothesis that god is necessary for morality and meaning is falsified by this evidence.

The fact of the matter is that god is not necessary for living a moral and meaningful life.

Is god necessary for you to love your family?  If you discovered that god did not exist, would you suddenly hate your wife, your husband, your sister, or your brother?  How about your children?  Would you kick them to the curb if you discovered Richard Dawkins is correct, and god was only a delusion?

Would you find your hobbies suddenly unfulfilling?  Would fishing become a chore?  Or hiking?  Or watching your favorite sports team?

Would you no longer donate to charity?  Would you ignore someone broken down on the side of the road?  Would you decide not to help your neighbor change their tire?

Would you decide that it’s now okay to steal whatever you want, to rape and murder whoever you want?

If you’re anything like everyone I know, your answer to every one of those questions is ‘no.’  And that’s my point.  God isn’t necessary for any of those things.  So let’s stop pretending that it is.  I know how the religious are stuck to their beliefs, but please, why don’t you reconsider this particular belief.

Atheism christianity, morality, Philosophy

Yes it was violent.  Yes there was a sex scene.  Yes, there was a big blue penis.  And yes, it was one of the best movies I’ve seen in a long time.  You see, the movie wasn’t about the violence, the sex, the penis, or anything else like that.  It was about the story, and the story is what carries this movie to being one of the best ever.  And if you haven’t yet seen the movie, but are planning to, you’ll get much more out of it if you read the book first.

The story isn’t simple.  If you want simple, I recommend something like “National Treasure.”  The story  makes you think.  If you don’t want to think, I recommend watching Jerry Springer.  The story is a commentary on society, and it is a commentary on ourselves.

Here’s a few of the questions explored:

• What are the implications of having a true superman with godlike powers?  (hint: perhaps clothes aren’t really important, and neither is humanity)
• Does humanity require a Watchman (God?) to keep us from destroying ourselves?
• What do we require protection from?
• What is the importance of the rule of law?
• What are the implications of having a moral philosophy that you never compromise, and are there any possible compromises to your moral philosophy?
• What is the meaning of miracles?

I could probably think of a few more questions, but there’s more to the story than just these explorations.  There’s depth. There are repeated visual themes and commentary occurring over contrasting scenes, but amazingly applicable to both.  The nuances of life are present, and this is what sets it apart from other comic book stories.  I really enjoyed watching Iron Man, but was that story very nuanced?  The only other comic book based movie that comes close in recent years that I can think of is The Dark Knight.   More than anything, Watchmen isn’t an escape from reality, but instead presents a mirror of ourselves.  The best and worse of us are presented along with everything in between.  If that’s the sort of thing that you enjoy, then you would definitely enjoy this movie, especially after you read the book.

Philosophy humanity, movies

Heisenberg, Goedel, and Chomsky walk into a bar. Heisenberg says, “From the fact that we are all here I can infer that this is a joke, but cannot determine whether or not the joke is funny.” Goedel says, “No, we can’t tell if the joke is funny because we’re inside it–if we could observe ourselves from outside, we would know.” and Chomsky just shakes his head sadly. “No, no,” he says, “The joke is funny. You’re just telling it wrong.”

---

On a side note, I have several blog entries in the works and hope to post my review of “Proust was a Neuroscientist” sometime soon.  The short of it: I highly recommend this book.  I’m now reading a biography of Houdini which is really good, and has once again ignited my interest in magic.  Reading this book, I discovered a rather funny secret about myself.

Personal joke, meta

Earlier this week, I found myself at the public library.  During my browsing, I ran across a book that had been recommended to me by a friend, so I picked it up and checked it out.  The book was Educating Esmé: Diary of a Teacher’s First Year.  I’ve been pretty busy this week, but tonight I couldn’t get to sleep so the opportunity to dive in presented itself and I took it.  This book is a relatively quick read, but also contains some emotional depth.

Esmé is a first year teacher at an inner city school in Chicago.  The diary entries contained in the book haven’t been censored for publishing, so it reads as a very authentic look into her perspective.  There are both great victories and terrible defeats, representing the full spectrum of experiences (including some very humorous anecdotes), from a student who stabs a teacher in the back with a pencil, to another student who brings their 2 year old brother to school because there’s no one to watch him at home, to a class yelling “play ball” after the anthem in a very inappropriate (but hilarious) setting, to a class coming together and awing the school with a literature show they put on.  I felt Esmé’s despair and helplessness when considering the situations her students found themselves in, but also her deep pride in their eventual successes.

Working at a university, I am largely ignorant of most of the issues confronting public school teachers, except for those issues relating to educational technology.  This book was very eye-opening in that regard as Esmé’s nemesis throughout the book was the one person who should have given her complete support: the principal.  It was disheartening to read about his repeated meddling over completely irrelevant issues, such as what name Esmé should answer to.  The principal really represents must of what is wrong with public education in this country today.

The hardest part of reading this book is watching the idealism fade away and a near-cynicism replace it, only to see the pride in her students at the end of the book.  About halfway through, I began to worry: was I reading yet another story of a wonderful creative inspirational teacher that would quit after her first year, or third?  According to the Washington Post, half of all teachers quit by their fifth year, so this sort of outcome would not be out of place; in fact, it’s all too common already.

About halfway through the book, Esmé makes the following poignant observation:

“In my opinion, the prefabricated curriculum and board mandates that are concocted to hide [inner classroom workings], can work both ways.  They can be benign suggestions to make talented investors out of teachers.  Or they can make it so people who don’t have anything to share can still work, since their scripts are made up for them.  Nobody really knows which is happening when the teacher closes the door.  At worst, mediocrity.  At best, miracles.”

Have we created a script that anyone can use to “teach?”  I haven’t been able to sleep tonight as I am coming down with some sort of cold, but I think it’s this observation above that will keep me up for just a bit longer.  If you get a chance, especially if you’re a teacher at any level, I highly recommend this book.

Book Reviews education