Archive for the ‘fabio’ Category
A few months ago, we discussed the general shift from blogs to social media and anonymous boards. But a question remains: if that’s true, why bother with blogs at all? In fact, our evil twin blog surrendered and admitted defeat, while retreating into Facebook. Why continue?
Answer: Only a blog does what a blog does well. In other words, blogs are good at specific things and social media is good at other things.
- Searchable – orgtheory is completely searchable going back to the first post in 2006. Twitter only allows searches of the last 3k tweets (which is, like 5 minutes, for some Tweeters like Tressie Mc). Facebook is basically unsearchable for content.
- Accountability and identity – Blogs are good for creating an identity, which means accountability. Even if we used pseudonyms, we’d still create an identity that would help you assess the quality of the post.
- Quality – I’m sorry, but most social media simply isn’t good at producing high quality content. Twitter may be fun, but it won’t replace a sustained argument. Facebook allows length, but it is often buried deep inside a walled garden. A lot of social media is good for “in the moment discussion” rather than sustained truth seeking.
I love social media and I have account on Twitter, Facebook, and other platforms. But make no mistake. If you care about writing, blogs are a good format and it’s much better than social media which favors snark and anonymous sniping. So for now, I’m stil McBloggin‘.
“How do you feel about programming in SAS?”
“Here’s how I feel. When I program in SAS, I feel like I got my master’s degree in statistics in 1980 and I’ve been running the same basic analysis over and over again for my corporate bosses for the last twenty years. I then feel like it’s Friday afternoon and I’m just slogging through this code so I can meet my buddies after work at Chili’s and talk about this weekend’s big game.”
“That is exactly how I feel.”
Earlier this week, I discussed Professor Amenta’s insanely generous review, “Raising the Bar for Scholarship on Protest and Politics,” which just came out in Contemporary Sociology. We’ve been discussing Amenta’s criticisms. On Tuesday, I discussed why it is useful to see the wars in Iraq an Afghanistan as part of a broader war on terror. Today, I’ll discuss Professor Amenta’s other criticism. He doesn’t buy our explanation that polarization was such a big for the modern peace movement in comparison to the Vietnam era movement:
The authors attribute the contrast between the vigor of the anti-Vietnam War movement during the post-Johnson (Nixon) years and the weakness of the antiwar movement during the post-Bush (Obama) era to the less intense partisanship of the earlier period. It is true that U.S. politics in the late 1960s featured many conservative southern Democrats and moderate Republicans, but partisanship remained important and influenced political contention against the war. In addition, the earlier antiwar movement was boosted by Nixon’s ‘‘secret plan’’ to end the Vietnam War, which was revealed to be intensive bombing of Vietnam and then invading Cambodia. Moreover, unlike recent history, there was a draft and no news blackout on Vietnam War destruction and deaths, each of which spurred continued movement activity in the late 1960s and early 1970s. This is a significant oversight because it underlines the difficulties faced by antiwar movements today.
First, let’s start with points of agreement. Michael and I definitely agree with Professor Amenta about the importance of the draft. That’s a huge difference and it certainly kept a lot of other wise apathetic citizens on the street to prevent themselves and their family from being drafted. In multiple interviews with older activists, we where told a number of times that the draft was a big motivator in the 1960s.
Still, that doesn’t get you far enough. If “draft theory” were very true, then there would not have been any antiwar movement at all. A relatively small volunteer force fought in both Iraq and Afghanistan. We would not have seen any protest at all. Furthermore, you need some explanation of why there would be ups and downs of the movement. We think our partisan-identity theory is a plausible explanation rooted in an intuitive political psychology. Polarization just exacerbated the issue. Once Democrats assumed leadership in the war effort, there was nobody on the “other side” to pick up slack in the movement, as moderate Republicans might have in an earlier era.
Tim O’Brien* of UW-Milwaukee and Shiri Noy of U-Wyoming have a new article in Socious (“A Nation Divided: Science, Religion, and Public Opinion in the United States“) that explores people who are both religious and pro-science. From the press coverage:
“If we look at the modern group and the traditional group and their political and social attitudes, they differ in virtually every domain of human society,” O’Brien said. “When it comes to criminal justice, they are different. When it comes to families, they are different. When it comes to civil liberties, race relations, sexuality, we see a big schism between these traditionalists and the moderns. As you might expect, moderns tend to hold more liberal or progressive opinions and traditionalists tend to be more conservative or orthodox.”
The wild card is the post-secular group. Embracing both science-oriented and religiously inclined views led them to have unique attitudes toward social issues. They are more conservative when it comes to gender and sexuality but lean progressive when it comes to social justice, civil liberties and education.
“Basically what we have found is that scientific Americans aren’t necessarily liberal. … We also find that religious Americans aren’t necessarily conservative; they are progressive in some domains as well,” O’Brien explained. “The overall finding is that people’s attitudes about science and religion really map onto their socio-political attitudes in a more diverse set of ways than I think people usually acknowledge.”
That’s important because moderns and traditionals make up 70 to 80 percent of the American population, and they vote predictably. It’s the post-seculars who have disproportionate sway in American political elections. They tend to vote Republican, but with this year’s unorthodox election, it’s anybody’s guess.
Read the whole thing.
*As my former TA, I take .01% of the credit for Tim.
We often act as if running a school is a mysterious thing. It’s not. There have been thousands of studies looking at every sort of education policy. John Hattie is an educational researcher in Australia who took the time to collect data from thousands of studies and do a meta-meta analysis to figure out what works.
He has a number of books and articles that summarize his findings. Below, I have included a diagram where he standardizes the effects of 195 factors that might affect achievement and ranks them. Major take home points. Here is what predicts achievement in a big way:
- Prior performance – by far, the biggest predictor of future achievements are estimates of past work (#1 teacher assessment, #3 self reported grades).
- Process oriented learning (“Piagetian programs” – don’t focus on outcomes, but on how you get the outcome – #4)
- Teacher practices aimed at individual students – such as intervening directly disabled pupils (#10, #11), micro-teaching (e.g., one on one interaction with students – #9), and integrating classroom discussion (#10).
What clearly has a negative effect?
- Home corporal punishment (#193)
- Television watching (#192)
- Summer vacation (#190)
- Student depression (#195)
What has surprisingly small effects (defined as about .1 or less)?
- School type – being in a charter school, a single sex school, or learning at a distance (all have nearly zero effects)
- Student diversity
- Teacher credentials
In other words, the baseline is student ability, which determines who well they do. But you can also get big effects through hands on, processed based, and interactive learning. You should avoid disruptive things, like vacations or television, and the school and teacher credentials don’t get you much.
Thank you, John Hattie.
Hattie rank below: