Archive for the ‘Edumakashun’ Category

Traction

Tuesday, August 17th, 2010

Billy Beck, talking about tractors:

Ladies and gentlemen, this is about managing the immutable reality of mechanical systems. People can bullshit each other — and even themselves — over concepts in all sorts of ways. When concepts are forged in steel, that becomes impossible. You don’t get to bullshit your way around a 5/8″ bolt. You just don’t. When you’re dealing with a flywheel pilot bearing, no mental substitutions — whether from sloppiness or outright psychosis — will suffice: that bearing is only what it is, and your mind had better be right about everything about it.

Robert Pirsig once wrote a very ridiculous book, but he wrote it about a very serious subject.

There is great philosophy in machines.

Accompanied by some heart-warming shop photos.

[Hey, Billy! I've done a couple of head rebuilds, and my question is, where are you getting the gasket sets for this beast?]

This prompted Mike Soja:

I was standing in front of a green hooded idling number of about half the age of Beck’s specimen, while the man I was there to do business with slowly hand pumped diesel into the fuel neck from a large tank out behind his corn crib. Over the rumble, he pointed to the name plate at the prominent place on the nose and asked, “Ever see one of those before?” The plate said, “Deutz”, and I allowed that I hadn’t. He said it was a three cylinder, air cooled.

[He] remarked, “I’d like to buy a new one of these, but they don’t make them anymore.”

I asked, “Did they go out of business?”

“No. They just can’t make them. The government says they have to be water cooled, now.”

And that opened up whole new areas of conversation.

I’ve whacked out about half of that; see the whole thing for the flavor.

I’ve done volunteer teaching of fifth grade science labs. They stopped doing that;it was too damn much trouble, too messy, too loud.

I don’t know how much science got through, but if I managed to get across the faintest glimmer that the universe does what it does, and not what you think it ought to do, I succeeded.

Anybody who thinks economics doesn’t follow that same principle is advocating ruin, death, and chaos.

It’s Science: Facts Don’t Matter

Saturday, July 24th, 2010

In fact, facts may actually reinforce opposing assumptions.

It’s one of the great assumptions underlying modern democracy that an informed citizenry is preferable to an uninformed one. “Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government,” Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1789. This notion, carried down through the years, underlies everything from humble political pamphlets to presidential debates to the very notion of a free press. Mankind may be crooked timber, as Kant put it, uniquely susceptible to ignorance and misinformation, but it’s an article of faith that knowledge is the best remedy. If people are furnished with the facts, they will be clearer thinkers and better citizens. If they are ignorant, facts will enlighten them. If they are mistaken, facts will set them straight.

In the end, truth will out. Won’t it?

Maybe not. Recently, a few political scientists have begun to discover a human tendency deeply discouraging to anyone with faith in the power of information. It’s this: Facts don’t necessarily have the power to change our minds. In fact, quite the opposite. In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger.

More evidence that putting the educated elite in charge of our lives is a bad idea.

My sense is that academics and bureaucrats must be as susceptible to this as anyone else, perhaps even moreso, because they are, effectively, trained to think that they are right, and they are totally isolated from real world consequences if they are wrong. Instead, their assumption that the stupid ignorant mundanes just didn’t take their advice strongly enough, and so they must be forced.

Individuals may well fall victim to the problem, but if they act on false assumptions, they will fail, and they will not be able to force their failure on those around them.

I now propose Moore’s Arrow:

All sources of bias arising from education are arguments for reducing government power.

The only bulwark against this seems to be Popper’s discipline of falsifiability. This demonstrably works, however slowly and unreliably.

Whip of the Year, So Far: Anthro Majors

Thursday, July 8th, 2010

Cue letters from anthropology majors complaining that this view of numerolinguistic development perpetuates a widespread myth. They get to write letters like that because when you're not getting a real science degree you have a lot of free time.

The whip is in the roll over text:

Cue letters from anthropology majors complaining that this view of numerolinguistic development perpetuates a widespread myth. They get to write letters like that because when you’re not getting a real science degree you have a lot of free time.

Of course, it’s not just anthropology; see my comment a few posts down about Truth.

Teachers’ Unions = Thieves’ Guilds

Wednesday, June 23rd, 2010

This graph from the Cato Institute is making a pretty big splash over at Big Government, among other places, and rightfully so:
Coulson-Cato-PS-Cost-Scores-2010-s

I have two problems with the graphic:

First, the scale for expenditure per child is absolute, in constant dollars. It shows an almost four-fold increase. However, it commits a cardinal sin: it doesn’t start at zero. This makes the increase look worse than it is.

Second, the scale for “achievement” is not absolute, it’s relative, a percentage of the starting point. It has no units; we don’t know what’s actually being measured here, and it’s hard to understand where we could expect the achievement to be, given the increase in expenditure.

I think the easiest way to present that would be to make the expenditure scale a percentage as well.

If we do that, a four-fold increase would display as a four hundred percent improvement.

The original graph scales achievement from -10% to +100%. A 100% improvement would represent a doubling in achievement. We had a four-fold increase in expenditure; we’d like to see a four-fold increase in achievement.

The actual achievement increase wanders around less than 10%, except for science, which falls off to about MINUS 5% and then stays constant.

If we rescaled the graph so that both sides went to 400%, the achievement lines would be essentially flat; the variation would be not much more than the line thickness.

As bad as this graph is; the achievement scale has actually been magnified so you can see the variation. The actual situation is even worse.

Since we don’t know what’s actually being measured by the “achievement” scale, let me take a wild-ass guess that the original metric has itself shifted over the years. Educators are grading themselves on the curve, and that curve has been adjusted so that student achievement can at least be shown to remain constant.

The expenditure scale is in “constant 2009 dollars”.

I bet that if “achievement” were being measured in, say, “constant 2009 grade point averages”, the achievement graphs would be decline almost as precipitately as the expenditures have risen.

Presumption of Competence

Thursday, June 17th, 2010

Son of a gun.

No sooner had I posted my “elevator pitch” for liberty, but Billy Beck points me to Wendy McElroy’s excellent expansion of the idea, “A Legal Presumption of Competence.”

A core principle of the Nanny State is that people do not know their best interests and must be treated like children with the State acting as guardian. Indeed, that’s where the word “nanny” comes from. The Nanny State proceeds from the presumption that you are incompetent to administer your own life. Even fully-functioning adults are deemed unable or unwilling to make wise decisions and, so, the state rushes in to fill the void with extensive regulation of every individual’s personal health and safety.

How much transfat or salt can be in your fast food burger? You are too obese, too nutritionally ignorant, too addicted to McDonalds to be trusted. Should you smoke, drink, or chow down on sweets? Of course not! But if you do, then, like a good parent, the State will force you to bear the cost of irresponsibility by uber-taxing your minor vices and imprisoning you for the major ones.

The “wise parent” list scrolls on and on: wear a helmet while bicycling, don’t use saccharine, no public nudity, don’t loiter in parks, monitor your words to coworkers, don’t download porn, take a urine test at work, don’t drive too fast, take only approved drugs and only in the prescribed fashion, strap on your safety belt, pay a tax for the error of fast food, no smoking in public places, register your handgun, don’t use incandescent bulbs, recycle, homogenize all milk, buy health insurance. . . . And, recently, Maine was pushing to eliminate sex-specific bathrooms because separate “men’s” and women’s” rooms discriminate against your gender rights. Yes, where you take a piss is now a matter of state to be debated by legislatures, and all because they want to protect you. Happily, Maine has backed away from politicizing toilets.

It gets better. Read it all.

But especially read this:

There is a word to describes the situation in which another party claims ownership over the body of another: it is “slavery.” As such, the Nanny State is misnamed. Although it would like to project the image of a wise guardianship of children — a sort of stern Mary Poppins who uses a “spoonful of sugar to make the medicine go down” — a more accurate image is that of a slave owner. One hand of the Nanny State may be wagging an admonishing finger at you but the other hand is holding a whip at-the-ready.

Slavery. That’s really what we’re talking about here.


Oh, and that’s not all from Beck:

The entire effect — if not the purpose — of a jaywalking statute is to strip the individual of that which he is born with: the principal device with which humans are able and naturally authorized to make their ways through the world.

Me? I know how to get across a street. My parents saw to that at an early age.

As usual, Beck gets right to core of the thing, and you should read every golden word.

This was his comment over at Radley’s Agitator article concerning a woman who got punched in the face by a cop over a jaywalking ticket.

John Venlet was talking about “Fort Sumters”, and I was talking about small individual actions, “candles not forest fires”.

This, folks, is what candles look like.

Also notice in the video that damn near every person in the crowd had a phonecam out. No effort to arrest the guy making this video, it would have been futile.

Imagine the woman quoting the Constitution, the law, the Declaration, Locke, Paine, Henry, Jefferson, or, hell, Beck, making a principled stand against a minor tyranny.

Now imagine everybody in that crowd with a gun on their hip, nodding their heads at every word she says and scowling at the cops.

Imagine that freedom, liberty itself, was politically correct.

Hahahaha! What a ridiculous idea! I slay myself sometimes.

Math Classs Needs A Makeover

Tuesday, June 8th, 2010

Dan Meyers:

Recall a time when you really loved something…and you recommended it wholeheartedly to someone you really love, …and the person hated it. …That is the… state in which I’ve spent the last six years. I teach high school math.

Watching this video caused me considerable agony.

I’ve spent the last, oh, seven or eight years tutoring one of my nieces in math. She finally graduated from high school last week, and I am getting some small part of the credit.

Problem: I know for a fact that almost none of my effort ended up inside her head. I helped her pass, but I didn’t know how to help her learn.

Here, Dan Meyer explains what I did wrong, and what I could have done instead.

Too late now, and my niece will be very very lucky if she finds a way to rewire the neural pathways I helped tangle.

Gah.

Not entirely my fault; one problem I ran into consistently was that my vocabulary for talking about math, which in my experience is the one in use by people who actually use math, has been deprecated in primary and secondary education in favor of a bunch of touchy feely crap.

Along the same lines, whenever my niece learned a temporary heuristic, she clung to it fiercely, refusing to move on to a more efficient, more general technique. For instance, in school she learned to do multiplication with grids of boxes. It was years before she moved on to simply working the problem with numbers, and I think to this day she doesn’t really understand why the numbers work.

Then there were multiple choice math exams. Read that again: multiple choice math exams. My niece got very good at working the problem backwards, discarding the bad answers to get the right one.

And finally: Fucking. Graphing. Calculators. If I had my way, any teacher who allows any kind of calculator in the classroom or with homework before, oh, trigonometry, deserves to be fired with no pension, and possibly put on the child abuse registry. I am not remotely kidding. Horribly crippling. It was like watching someone with a sore ankle being confined to a wheelchair in third grade instead of being given proper exercise, and watching their legs wither over the next nine years.

In eleventh grade, the text book was teaching matrix calculations because there was a specific algorithm programmed into the preferred calculator (a TI something or other). No understanding of matrices required, none at all. Hell, I don’t understand them, not really, and although teaching her tweaked my own understanding of just about everything else, the presentation in this chapter did nothing even for me.

Lefty Ignorance

Tuesday, June 8th, 2010

Leftists don’t know jack about economics:

Who is better informed about the policy choices facing the country—liberals, conservatives or libertarians? According to a Zogby International survey that I write about in the May issue of Econ Journal Watch, the answer is unequivocal: The left flunks Econ 101.

Zogby researcher Zeljka Buturovic and I considered the 4,835 respondents’ (all American adults) answers to eight survey questions about basic economics. We also asked the respondents about their political leanings: progressive/very liberal; liberal; moderate; conservative; very conservative; and libertarian.

Rather than focusing on whether respondents answered a question correctly, we instead looked at whether they answered incorrectly. A response was counted as incorrect only if it was flatly unenlightened.

Consider one of the economic propositions in the December 2008 poll: “Restrictions on housing development make housing less affordable.” People were asked if they: 1) strongly agree; 2) somewhat agree; 3) somewhat disagree; 4) strongly disagree; 5) are not sure.

Basic economics acknowledges that whatever redeeming features a restriction may have, it increases the cost of production and exchange, making goods and services less affordable. There may be exceptions to the general case, but they would be atypical.

Therefore, we counted as incorrect responses of “somewhat disagree” and “strongly disagree.” This treatment gives leeway for those who think the question is ambiguous or half right and half wrong. They would likely answer “not sure,” which we do not count as incorrect.

In this case, percentage of conservatives answering incorrectly was 22.3%, very conservatives 17.6% and libertarians 15.7%. But the percentage of progressive/very liberals answering incorrectly was 67.6% and liberals 60.1%. The pattern was not an anomaly.

The other questions were:
1) Mandatory licensing of professional services increases the prices of those services.
(unenlightened answer) Show ▼

2) Overall, the standard of living is higher today than it was 30 years ago.
(unenlightened answer) Show ▼

3) Rent control leads to housing shortages.
(unenlightened answer) Show ▼

4) A company with the largest market share is a monopoly.
(unenlightened answer) Show ▼

5) Third World workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited.
(unenlightened answer) Show ▼

6) Free trade leads to unemployment.
(unenlightened answer) Show ▼

7) Minimum wage laws raise unemployment.
(unenlightened answer) Show ▼

How did the six ideological groups do overall? Here they are, best to worst, with an average number of incorrect responses from 0 to 8: Very conservative, 1.30; Libertarian, 1.38; Conservative, 1.67; Moderate, 3.67; Liberal, 4.69; Progressive/very liberal, 5.26.

Americans in the first three categories do reasonably well. But the left has trouble squaring economic thinking with their political psychology, morals and aesthetics.

[Questions and answers reformatted to make it easier for you to test yourself.]

There’s another article I’ve failed to bookmark suggesting that conservatives do better on civil service exams for the same reason: better grasp of reality.

Gov. Christie: “You Punch Them, I Punch You.”

Friday, June 4th, 2010

I never in my life thought that I would be turning to New Jersey for honest leadership. But here he is, folks, Gov. Chris Christie, hitting back and hitting back hard, at the New Jersey Teachers’ Union.

The overwhelming majority of teachers are really good people who care deeply about their kids and want to do a good job. But the teachers’ union is about the accumulation and exercise of raw power.

And, you know, they call me a bully. They had this big rally where they called me a bully… And you see, I don’t understand what they mean. Cause this is how I define a bully: See, I just got to the schoolyard in January, and I walked into the shoolyard, and I saw a whole bunch of people lying on the ground bleeding. And I saw one standing. That’s the bully! The bully’s the one standing when everyone else is on the ground bleeding. And what they’ve been used to is, governors coming in, and looking at that scene, and saying, “Hm. I want to be on the ground bleeding, or I want to be upright not bleeding.” And most governors have said, “I want to be upright and not bleeding.”

I said, “You punch them, I punch you.”

That’s the fight. That’s the fight.

The fight is about who is going to run public education in New Jersey: The parents, and the people they elect, or the mindless, faceless union leaders who decide that they’re going to ge the ones who run it because they have the money and the authority to bully around school boards and local councils.

So listen. I know I haven’t made myself the most popular guy in the world by having this fight, but we don’t win this fight, there’s no other fights left.

I have several bones to pick with this quote. The union leaders are not mindless, but they are faceless. I think there are plenty of other fights left, even more fundamental than this one. (I want to see Christie press for relaxing New Jersey’s death grip on the right to keep and bear, for a big one.)

But he is absolutely right to identify taking power back from unelected powerbrokers and at least putting it into the hands of elected officials who have some vague accountability to the parents and citizens who pay the bills.

Boyish Observation

Friday, April 30th, 2010

OK, I saw it again today, second time, and I want to put the quash on this before I start seeing it all the time everywhere.

Mothers, and let me guess, particularly single mothers: If your son is old enough to walk around in public, like in a store or an airport, without holding your hand, then he is too old to walk around in public with his mouth on a nipple, even an artificial one.

Take the damn paci out of his mouth. Do whatever it takes to put him to sleep at night, if you wish, but let him be a man in public.

The kid I saw today was four, maybe five. In the man’s store, the hardware store, no less (albeit the paint department).

The kid I saw a few months ago in the airport was in second, maybe even third grade. Pretty boy, pale, ethereal.

Both of them wide-eyed, docile, unboyish.

Both, I’m sure, just the way their mothers liked them.

England Is Dead and Its Corpse is Rotting

Wednesday, October 28th, 2009

Parents banned from watching their children in playgrounds… in case they are paedophiles

Children as young as five will instead be supervised by council ‘play rangers’ who have been cleared by the Criminal Records Bureau.

Councillors insist they are merely following Government regulations and cannot allow adults to walk around playgrounds ‘unchecked’.

But furious parents attacked the move and threatened to boycott the playgrounds.

“Boycott the playgrounds?”

How about march on Council chambers and throw the buggers out?

The principle is “innocent until proven guilty”.

What’s at play here is “guilty till proven innocent” by a government that has no interest in anyone other than its own employees and officials being innocent.

For shame, Watford. If the Councillors who passed this are still in office a week from now, you spineless gits deserve everything that happens to you.