Blurts

This is a book review (Everyday chaos ), but you get the gist of David Weinberger’s main thesis – understanding causality can be very difficult – from this interview with Weinberger.

Weinberger suggests that it may not always be necessary or even most productive to wait until it is understood how things work. As the basis for this position, he points to the effectiveness of atheoretical A|B testing (let’s try this alternative and see what happens) and how AI can identify patterns that predict behavior and the mechanism responsible may not be obvious.

My initial reaction probably based in my training as a scientist was to label this as crazy talk. Much of science is about attempting to determine causal variables and manipulate or at least demonstrate how a causal variable leads to predictable consequences. However, as I thought about Weinberger’s position, I realized that there was some degree of commonality with my own thinking. When I taught the Introduction to Psychology course and talked about research in the field, I would sometimes make the claim that the scientists working in the physical sciences had it easy. This was partly to see if I would get a reaction. I argued that to understand the process of chemistry or physics, the researcher could manipulate something and did not have to worry about how the materials to which this treatment was applied interpreted this treatment or how they felt about reacting. Things are far more complex with human behavior in that the participant has a will and motives and history and these variables can moderate what happens. Using Weinberger’s concept, physical scientists have less chaos to contend with. With human behavior it is difficult to assure a given variable will act in isolation. 

My own research interests as an educational psychologist were more focused on applied research than the more basic science of many of my colleagues. I always thought that the basic scientists were kind of the “glamour boys/girls” of the field. They did the work that attempted to identify core scientific principles. We did the practical work of seeing if we could use these principles to generate outcomes that improved the human experience. I would argue that the transition from the lab to the classroom can be difficult. This may be reflected in the pattern of failed applications that advocates see as based on a logical basic principle. The repeated efforts to implement inquiry-based or learner centered tactics may represent examples. The philosophy proposing these ideas seems to gain traction every couple of decades and comparisons with direct instruction tend not to support these innovations. Maybe the issue is the inability to control how other variables interact with the core variables that are manipulated in applied settings. 

At some point, it may be possible to identify and control important variables that moderate the differences advocates focus on. However, without further insight and demonstrations based on these insights, implementations based on ideas rather than outcomes seem ill advised.

We just returned from a Smithsonian organized tour of Southern Africa. The expertise Smithsonian makes available during these outings is well worth the price.

One of the experts who traveled with us was Dr. Don Wilson. In addition to accompanying us on jeep drives through several parks and reserves, Don offered lectures on geology, animals, and bats (his specific expertise). One of my favorite memories was from a presentation he gave on animal classification. He was describing the identification of new species and the process of determining how new finds would be classified. A woman in our group asked who made the decision to determine that a new distinct category had been identified (I have a biology major, but I cannot remember at what level of the phylogenetic tree he was describing.). Don paused a minute and then replied “I do”. She seemed think he was joking. He wasn’t.

In a private conversation, I asked him how the Smithsonian was addressing the controversy over whether or not the climate was changing as a consequence of human behavior. He said that the scientists were concerned with the findings that were being generated and by the political indifference that some leaders were promoting. All the Smithsonian can do is offer resources that we hope can inform the public.

I wanted to investigate what the Smithsonian might have available when I got home and I found the Smithsonian Learning Lab I thought might be of value to the educators who follow my posts. As often as I look for online resources for educators, I admit I had to considered seeing what the Smithsonian makes available. The Smithsonian offers a huge volume of content it has collected and offers suggestions for activities.

I recently read this USA article on college majors to ignore if you are worried about college debt. The basic purpose of the analysis provided in the article was to determine which jobs that require a college degree generate little more than minimum wage. I was immediately curious as to whether an undergrad psychology major was included. It was not per se, but several professions such as substance abuse counselor did appear on the list. So did playing professional baseball. Luckily, my goals for college did not include wanting to be a professional athlete. I did want to coach high school sports when I first headed off to college. If you are a college grad, you want to scroll through the list to see if an economic analysis argues you made a mistake.

I think we are in trouble if we look at college as vocational training. We have so many serious problems that transcend what any of us does to earn a paycheck and we a common core of knowledge and skills to take on. I have come to this conclusion considering our present political system’s failure to address inequity, health care, climate change, violence, etc. These problems are attacked by the acceptance of facts and the sharing of some basic values. These problems affect us all – PhDs or high school drop outs. We all vote and should be engaged in the collective conversations that focus those who govern and control.

I don’t know if free college is the answer. However, decision makers must get past the simplistic focus on money and consider the costs of ignorance and indifference.

I have written about sharing Flickr photos with Creative Commons licenses before, but I am now in a situation to do this systematically and with a collection of images learners may find useful. We are spending a couple of weeks in southern Africa and a major goal is to photograph wildlife and other images that most don’t have the opportunity to view. No promises, but this is a once in a lifetime opportunity for us and we hope to offer some interesting images.

Flickr offers multiple ways to designate who can view images (self, friends and family, public), but these designations are focused on who can view and not who can use. Flickr has added creative commons licensing to public images so photographers can offer various ways in which they will allow your images to be used.

I have added CC licenses to individual images before, but I intend to do so systematically on this trip. In addition to storing images in Flickr, it makes some sense to added information to such images to assist those who want to make use of what they locate. Location, image identification, and perhaps a link to additional information would seem useful and I will do this if I have the time and have the information.

Why can’t academics write so nonacademics can understand? In this day of people turning away from science, we better figure it out. We do have our jargon and expectations for stating things with less than total certainty. It turns out this is important because uncertainty is the state of things and offering the impression that there are no questions yet to be asked is dishonest. Still, people have a right to complain.

Scientific writing is not going away and if what are being referenced by those who complain is to scholarly journals the existing approach to expression probably has much to recommend it. Journals are for communicating with peers doing similar work. What annoys me is that scientists are kind of discouraged from writing in other styles. I know that my interest in writing textbooks was not given the same attention among colleagues as the frequency of my journal articles.

I think scientists have been shaped by the reward structure that is the basis for our reputations and pay. Grants and publications rule. Teaching and public communication are appreciated, but certainly not at the same level. Some effort to explain your work to the public could certainly be required if institutions decided it was important. Writing textbooks and even blogs to offer explanations and applications could do a lot to change public perception.