The Curmudgeon Speaks

John Warner (More than Words) describes a devious writing scam that had not occurred to me. 

The goal is to make money on ad revenue and an way to offer reasonable content on topics likely to appeal is to first scrape the content of popular blog authors and then ask an AI tool to rewrite the content in the form of a blog post. Such scammers than post this new content on their own blogs. Because the rewritten posts are unique this is technically not a copyright violation. 

I tried this with one of my posts and the new post is at least more attractively formatted than my original and seems a reasonable alternative.  The new post appears below.

*******

The New ChatGPT Study Buddy: Redefining How Students Learn

Artificial intelligence has been gradually weaving itself into the fabric of education, from automated grading tools to personalized learning apps. But the newest iteration of ChatGPT’s Study Buddy signals a major leap forward. Rather than waiting for students to craft the perfect prompt, this reimagined tool creates a structured, conversational learning environment that feels closer to interacting with a real tutor than a chat interface. For educators and students alike, this is a development that deserves a closer look—especially as the new academic year kicks off.

From Prompting to “Preprompting”: Lowering the Barrier to Learning

One of the biggest challenges with generative AI tools has always been the prompt paradox. To get useful responses, you often need to know how to ask the right questions in the first place. The Study Buddy changes that dynamic. Think of it as a preprompted version of ChatGPT—a system that starts the conversation without requiring the learner to engineer detailed instructions.

Instead of saying “Write me an overview of Metacognition,” the student enters a simple scenario, such as “I’m studying Cognitive Psychology and want help preparing for an exam.” The Study Buddy then guides the session, offering a range of possible directions: Do you want a summary? Practice questions? Connections to theories? Even ideas for mini-experiments?

This puts the focus on learning itself rather than on fighting with command syntax. It mimics the way a tutor listens first, then suggests possible learning activities.

Multiple Entry Points for Different Needs

Students can access the Study Buddy in two ways:

1. Directly from a dedicated Study Guide page.
2. From ChatGPT’s main interface by selecting the “Study and Learn” tool.

This flexibility allows for different workflows. Some students may want focused study coaching, while others may want to blend it with broader ChatGPT tasks like brainstorming essay ideas or getting writing feedback. Educators can also experiment with both paths to understand how their students might most naturally approach it.

Building Context Through Interaction

One of the tool’s subtle but powerful features is its ability to track and leverage the history of the conversation. If students allow the system to remember interactions, it can gradually assemble a profile of what they know—and, more importantly, what they don’t. Over time, this contextual learning creates a progressively sharper tutoring experience.

Of course, there are challenges here. As the blog author notes, simulating the “new student” experience didn’t always work as intended because ChatGPT tried to reason with stored context. But in a real classroom, where individual learner growth matters, this persistence is potentially transformative.

How Study Buddy Supports Active Learning

The blog post describes a test run where the author asked about Information Processing Theory and Metacognition—two classic topics in Cognitive Psychology. What stood out wasn’t just the quality of the explanations, but the way the AI followed up with next-step options.

For example:

1. “Would you like to try answering a few practice questions?”
2. “Do you want to dig deeper into a specific theory?”
3. “Would you like to run a mini-experiment to test your understanding?

That last suggestion is especially intriguing. The system proposed a simple experiment related to metacognitive accuracy—the gap between what learners expect to score and how they actually perform. The author noted that this was strikingly similar to research he had once conducted with students, where learners wagered points on how confident they were in their answers.

Even without complex lab setups, students could use the AI-generated experiment to reflect on their own study habits and calibration skills. This isn’t just rote memorization support; it’s fostering metacognitive awareness, one of the hallmarks of advanced learning.

Embracing Unpredictability as a Learning Feature

As anyone who has used ChatGPT knows, responses can vary—even when prompts are nearly identical. Some educators fear this unpredictability. But as the blog points out, it can actually be a teaching moment. If a student notices an inconsistency, they can challenge the AI directly.

This kind of “arguing with the tutor” isn’t a bug; it’s a chance to sharpen critical thinking. When learners push back on an AI’s explanation, they practice defending their position, re-examining evidence, and articulating counterarguments—all valuable intellectual skills that transcend specific course content.

Why Educators Should Experiment Now

The Study Buddy is available even in ChatGPT’s free version, making it widely accessible. That alone removes a major barrier to entry. But more importantly, it offers a safe sandbox for teachers to experiment with how these tools might complement their existing practice.

Here are some ways educators could start exploring:

1. Classroom simulation: Pretend you are a student in your own course and see how ChatGPT responds.
2. Topic-specific trials: Plug in subjects where students traditionally struggle and evaluate the clarity of explanations.
3. Critical challenges: Intentionally dispute answers to test whether the system can 
4. refine its reasoning.

Even a short experiment can show teachers how this tool aligns—or conflicts—with their teaching style.

Final Thoughts: A Study Buddy, Not a Replacement

It’s tempting to see tools like the ChatGPT Study Buddy as the beginning of the end for traditional tutoring. But that’s the wrong lens. What’s emerging is not a replacement, but an augmentative study companion.

Its greatest strength lies in providing structured yet flexible guidance, reducing the friction of figuring out how to ask for help. Used thoughtfully, it doesn’t diminish the role of teachers or tutors—it amplifies learning outside the classroom, giving students a way to practice, reflect, and engage more deeply with material at their own pace.

As the school year begins, educators who take the time to play with the Study Buddy themselves will gain insights on how students might use (or misuse) it. The earlier we start these conversations, the better positioned we’ll be to shape an AI-enhanced learning environment that prioritizes curiosity, critical thinking, and metacognitive growth.

*****

There really seem not defenses against this scam if you post content to the open web. If this concerns you, and Warner claims it will become very common I can come up with counter measures that are unlikely to appeal to many.

1. For readers, encourage a return to the use of RSS readers. With an RSS reader, the reader selects writers he/she wants to follow and uses to provide access to content from these sites.
2. For the writer, place your content behind a pay wall. Those who pay for access can scrape content (this would be a problem with Medium because for $5 a month, you can access all content and less so with Substack as you pay for access to individual authors), but for those who pay the subscription fee at least you know who wrote the content. 

We are about to leave for a month or so trip so how much I write and what I write about is likely to change. I leave a message when this is my situation so those who expect to read something will know what is going on.  When we travel I focus most of my writing time and uploading opportunities on  my travel blog. The focus of this blog may be different, but we have had some interesting experiences and some will find them interesting.

This time I extend my typical message about the change in my writing focus. I have maintained multiple blogs beginning in 2002 and over time these outlets have moved toward specific foci.  I have different reasons for why I have different emphases as this limits how much content appears in any given place. Facebook, which I guess is technically not a blog, was the origin of my thinking about specialization.  I started Facebook like most with an emphasis sharing a wide variety of my experiences with friends. As I learned more about Facebook and decided to share my political views, I began to distance myself from using it as a platform to share with friends. I did not want my general antagonism toward the policies of the present administration and those defending it be mixed with other personal interests. I mostly write about education and technology elsewhere and while Facebook posts clearly have taken on a political bent it seemed best to try to get others to understand that I do write about other things. 

A portal for my other blogs can be found here. 

For the past year or so, I have been posting some of my technology and educational technology content behind a paywall.  I don’t look at my writing at this point in my life as a way to make money. I did the textbook thing and did well. Now, I write mostly because I have something to say. Truthfully, as a hobby and wanting to host my own content, I spend much more for server space than I make in ad revenue and subscription fees. I use Medium for the paid platform because their system charges readers $5 a month and readers can read anything that appears on their platform. I like the idea of a platform that does not collect user data and am interested in the idea of micropayments to authors. The issue of free online content and what we all give up to read for free is a serious issue and to think about alternatives, I think it best to be part of the system. 

Anyway, we are off to Alaska and then Japan. We have explored Alaska in multiple ways over the years first driving the ALCAN highway when some of it was still gravel.  This trip is by boat with a 6 day repositioning jaunt to Japan. Cindy spent time in Japan as a visiting educator and still has friends we will visit. Great to have the access of a local. 

So, the travel blog is obviously focused on travel experiences. 

Note: I wrote this with the assistance of AI. I decided it worth the effort to explain the process I used. I don’t want to distract from the message of the main post which I think is very important so I will explain my process at the end.

*****

History is full of cautionary tales about what happens when political authority takes precedence over evidence. One of the most striking examples comes from the Soviet Union – the rise of Trofim Lysenko, a man whose scientific errors were amplified, defended, and enforced by political power. While the details are unique to its time and place, the underlying pattern — political leaders elevating certain claims and suppressing dissent — is not confined to history. Today, echoes of this dynamic can be seen in the political battles surrounding figures like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Donald Trump.

Lysenko’s Rise and the Suppression of Genetics

Trofim Lysenko came to prominence in Soviet agricultural science in the 1930s. He claimed to have discovered a process called vernalization, in which exposing seeds to certain temperatures could convert winter wheat into spring wheat. While vernalization itself had limited, real-world applications, Lysenko went further, asserting that this acquired trait could be inherited by future generations of plants. This contradicted established genetics, which held that such changes were not heritable.

Science can, of course, survive incorrect claims — provided those claims can be tested, debated, and rejected when evidence doesn’t support them. But Lysenko’s error was not confined to a scientific paper. He sought control over his field, working to purge respected geneticists such as N. I. Vavilov, who supported modern genetics and whose research contradicted Lysenko’s theories. Lysenko began publishing articles that attacked other scientists not on scientific grounds, but because their work conflicted with Marxist-Leninist ideology.

Stalin embraced Lysenko’s claims. The idea that agricultural productivity could be vastly increased through a politically approved method was irresistible to a regime determined to prove the superiority of socialist science. Skepticism toward Lysenko’s theories became politically dangerous. Being an advocate for genetics could cost you your career –  or your life. Vavilov, once one of the Soviet Union’s most celebrated scientists, died in a Siberian prison after years of harassment and deprivation. He met death in a Siberian prison.

The result was catastrophic: Soviet biology was set back decades, with ripple effects on agriculture and public welfare. Sound science was discarded because it clashed with political ideology.

The Pattern Behind the Story

The Lysenko episode illustrates a dangerous feedback loop:

1. Political endorsement of a contested claim — A leader embraces a theory because it aligns with ideological or political goals.

2. Suppression of opposing voices — Dissent is framed as disloyalty, incompetence, or even treachery.

3. Institutional capture — Gatekeepers in academia, government, or media are replaced or pressured into conformity.

4. Long-term damage — Decisions made in the service of political narratives undermine public trust and institutional integrity.

This is not just about flawed science. It’s about what happens when truth becomes subordinate to power.

Modern Echoes: Kennedy, Trump, and Politicized Truth

In modern America, the specifics are different, but certain elements feel familiar. Both Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Donald Trump have built political momentum around claims that many experts dispute. In both cases, political alignment has amplified these claims far beyond their scientific or evidentiary support.

The dynamic is not identical to the Soviet experience — the U.S. retains robust legal protections for dissent, and no scientists are being sent to Siberia. But there are parallels worth noticing.

The similarities lie in the logic of politicized truth: when a political leader or movement defines which facts are acceptable, disagreement becomes more than an intellectual matter — it becomes a loyalty test.

Why This Matters

The temptation to shape truth to fit political needs is not confined to authoritarian regimes. Democracies can fall into softer versions of the same trap. When political allegiance dictates what counts as valid evidence, the result is the erosion of trust in institutions designed to safeguard accuracy — universities, public health agencies, election systems, the press.

Once trust is lost, rebuilding it can take decades. In the Soviet case, biology eventually recovered, but not before generations of scientists had been silenced and countless lives affected by misguided agricultural policies. In the U.S., the stakes involve public health preparedness, the peaceful transfer of power, and the credibility of the democratic process.

*********

AI and me – what came from what source

Like so many others, I am experimenting with AI and trying to decide how I should use AI in my writing in a way that is intellectually honest. Typically, I use AI to chat with the large collection of digital notes and highlights I have accumulated over the past decade or so. The approach used to write this post is a variation of that approach.

Given our present situation in which the role and control of Universities is being questioned and challenged, I wanted to read something on this topic. This is often how I approach issues important to me. I decided on a book by Jonathan Cole that I have since thought may not have been the ideal choice because it was published in the early days of the Obama administration. I have since decided that the arguments made have some unique value because they predated our present circumstances and hence cannot be interpreted as a direct reaction. 

In reading a section of the book that argued for how political meddling in what I would call the “university process” can be destructive. Included in this section was the example of biologist Lysneko. This account resonated with me in a way I hope the post makes clear. It seem such a close approximation of how I see present political meddling, I thought I would use the example as an effective object lesson.

Here is how the post you read was generated. I paraphrased aspects of the Lysneko story as presented in the book and identified what to me seemed the stages by which a university can be corrupted. I created a post asking ChatGPT to generate a post based on this content that then would suggest a parallel between Trump and Kennedy in our present. I input nothing more about Trump and Kennedy allowing the AI to use its own information. What you read was nearly the word-for-word output from this prompt. I did make a few small modifications. 

Jonathan Cole (2011) – The Great American University: Its Rise to Preeminence, Its Indispensable National Role, Why It Must Be Protected (2011)

In the ongoing debate over government regulations, it’s easy to lose sight of their profound impact on public health and the environment. Trump and his colleagues have just recently gutted the EPA’s role in fighting climate change and it was this action and the rejection of scientific expertise that prompted me to create this post.

I happen to be reading Jonathan Coles’ The Great American University and there was a section focused on the importance of university research using as one example the influence of work focused on the destruction of the ozone layer. One of the most compelling examples of regulation’s success is the international effort to protect the ozone layer—a critical shield that safeguards life on Earth. This example not only highlights the importance of science-based policy but also serves as a blueprint for addressing today’s environmental challenges, including climate change.

The Ozone Layer: Earth’s Protective Shield

The ozone layer, located in the stratosphere, plays a vital role in absorbing the sun’s harmful ultraviolet (UV) radiation. Without it, humans would face increased risks of skin cancer, cataracts, and immune system damage. Additionally, ecosystems, crops, and marine life would suffer devastating consequences. By the 1970s, however, scientists discovered that this protective barrier was under threat, and the culprit was human activity.

The Ozone Crisis: A Scientific Breakthrough

In the 1970s, researchers in England and the United States identified a growing “hole” in the ozone layer above Antarctica. They linked this depletion to chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), manmade chemicals widely used in aerosols, refrigeration, and air conditioning. If you have had an old air conditioner die, you know that a different coolant is now required. The evidence was clear: CFCs released into the atmosphere were breaking down ozone molecules, creating a dangerous gap in Earth’s defenses. This discovery sparked widespread concern, as the thinning ozone layer posed significant health risks, including increased exposure to UV radiation that could lead to skin cancer.

Early Action: National Efforts to Ban CFCs

Governments were quick to respond. In 1978, the United States banned the use of CFCs in aerosol sprays, followed by similar actions in Canada, Sweden, and other nations. These early measures demonstrated the power of national regulation to address environmental threats. Public pressure, driven by growing awareness of the health risks, played a crucial role in pushing policymakers to act. However, it soon became clear that the ozone crisis required a global solution.

The Montreal Protocol: A Global Regulatory Milestone

In 1987, the world came together to adopt the Montreal Protocol, a landmark international treaty aimed at phasing out ozone-depleting substances (ODS). The agreement was groundbreaking, not only for its scope but also for its adaptability. As scientific understanding evolved, the treaty was amended to include new chemicals and stricter timelines. The Montreal Protocol became a gold standard for international cooperation, proving that nations could unite to tackle a shared environmental crisis.

The treaty’s success was driven by several factors:

• Science-led policy: Research guided decision-making, ensuring regulations were based on evidence.
• Global collaboration: Developed and developing nations worked together, supported by funding mechanisms and technology transfers. In contrast, Trump proposes leaving counter measures up to individuals and perhaps states.

The Results: Regulation That Worked

The outcomes of these regulations are nothing short of remarkable:

• Nearly 99% of ozone-depleting chemicals have been phased out globally.
• The ozone layer is on track to recover to 1980 levels by 2040, with full recovery over Antarctica expected by 2066.
• Millions of cases of skin cancer and cataracts have been prevented, saving countless lives.
• The Montreal Protocol has also contributed to climate change mitigation, avoiding an estimated 0.5°C of additional global warming by regulating HFCs.

These achievements underscore the practical value of government regulations. Far from being a burden, they have delivered measurable benefits for public health, the environment, and even the economy.

Lessons for Today: The Importance of Regulation

The success of the ozone layer’s recovery offers critical lessons for addressing today’s environmental challenges, including climate change. However, recent shifts in U.S. policy highlight the risks of abandoning science-based protections. As reported by The New York Times, the Trump administration has taken steps to roll back environmental regulations, dismiss scientists, and reduce funding for climate research. These actions represent a stark departure from the principles that guided the ozone layer’s recovery.

The Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.) has reoriented its mission away from environmental stewardship, prioritizing cost-cutting over public health and safety. This shift undermines the very foundation of effective regulation: the use of science to inform policy. As the Times notes, the administration’s approach reflects a broader trend of prioritizing short-term economic gains over long-term environmental sustainability.

Why Regulation Still Matters

The story of the ozone layer demonstrates that regulation is not an obstacle to progress—it is a catalyst for innovation and collaboration. When governments act decisively, guided by science and supported by public will, they can solve even the most daunting challenges. The Montreal Protocol succeeded because it mobilized industries to develop alternatives, fostered international cooperation, and adapted to new evidence. These same principles can and must be applied to today’s crises.

Conclusion: A Blueprint for the Future

As we face new environmental threats, the lessons of the ozone crisis remind us that regulation is not just a tool—it is a necessity. By embracing evidence-based policies and fostering global cooperation, we can build a sustainable future for generations to come.

Abandoning science-based protections is a dangerous gamble – justified by proposed business advantages or not. The success of the Montreal Protocol proves that the costs of inaction far outweigh the benefits of regulation. It’s time to recommit to the principles that saved the ozone layer and apply them to the challenges of today.

Sources

How Trump is Transforming the U.S. Government’s Environmental Role – NY Times

The Great American University 

I have read quite a few battles online lately that involve some portion of the population not appreciating some other portion. When you think about it, most folks work at something that is necessary in some sense to others or they would not be compensated for their efforts.

Anyway, I want to address those who believe farmers are not paid their due. I have mixed feelings about this position. I grew up on a farm and I can assure you that physical labor 50 years ago was very different than today. Sitting all day in an air conditioned tractor cab is not that different from sitting all day in an office. Farming is a business and presents unique challenges, but this is the case for most individuals who work alone or in small businesses. Much of what farmers produce is far removed from what you or I will eat. The production of corn to produce alcohol for gasoline or soybeans to sent to China has nothing to do with feeding you or me. As far as feeding folks go, I have far more empathy for those immigrants toiling in those small plots of land to produce vegetables to sell at our local farmers’ market. They have families to support just as much as the guy down the road with a thousand acres of land and massive equipment to work it.

Anyway, I do think that an appreciation of where our food comes from is important and I have long support school gardens as a way to develop such insights. Yes, I would not expect the kids to kill and pluck the feathers from chickens like I did growing up to appreciate the production of our primary protein source, but at least they can experience growing some what they eat.

I garden, but I also have a recommendation for those with little land. Grow vegetables on your deck. My recommendation would be a Garden Tower. The tower makes use of vertical planting and is combined with vermi – composting (worms converting material to compost). It is a like a science project on your deck.

Our tower is now operating a maximum capacity producing herbs, tomatoes, and other green leafy stuff we use for our salads. As you can see, the quantity of material is impressive. The basil (plant at top) is great for making pesto and we obviously have more basil that we can consume. Gardening is like that and it can be difficult to predict how much, if any, of a given plant you will bring to harvest in a given year.

The worms?

There is a cylinder down the middle of the tower in which you cultivate a culture of red wrigglers. You constantly feed these worms green material and they convert this material into compost (castings generated by the worms) to support your garden.

Taxes and tax cuts are a major focus of the present political climate. Yet, it seems to me that people are easily misled. They don’t understand very well how the tax paid relates to income and more to the point of this post what should be considered a tax. I have two examples

Tariffs make the best example. We are told by the present President that our nation benefits from increasing tariffs on imports because money flows into the coffers of the U/S.. This may be true, but the reality with tariffs is that consumers either pay more because they purchase goods and services originating in the US, or they pay more for imported goods because of the tariff. The exporter does not pay the tariff. This increase in the cost of goods, no matter the origin, is essentially a tax.

I think it can also be argued that the removal of a safety net program such as Medicaid is also a tax. If you have ever spent time in a public hospital emergency room you should understand why. There are folks there needing immediate help. There are also people there with less severe problems – say a family with a child who has a painful ear infection. Why doesn’t the child with the ear infection seek help from a family physician or urgent care? The answer is likely that the family does not have medical insurance and the public hospital will not turn people needing help away. Who then pays for the costs of the “freebies”? We all do. The hospital has to meet expenses and the option without safety net support is to charge more of the people who can pay – a tax. Preventative care and treating problems before they become serious and more costly would be a better approach.

I think there is value in identifying an author and perhaps reading multiple things they have written. There is then a context for the ideas shared and having this context provides a way to think about what I am reading. Back a few years when educators were first trying to develop online literacy skills, young readers were asked to identify and consider the author as part of evaluating the credibility of what they were reading. It was argued to be important to identify the source.

I think we are losing what might be called source awareness and while it is important to have this context for readers, it is also important to writers. Often, recognition and the awareness of someone’s work is all they get out of the effort they put in.

Here is how I see the progression toward oblivion.

When I first started a blog (2002), after somehow gaining the attention of a few readers the hope was that some readers would add your site to their RSS reader. A reader was now following you and had easy access to what you might write in the future. RSS still exists, but I don’t think those who are now coming to online content use it.

What replaced RSS seems to be links in social media and even more commonly search. A few years ago I added a counter to my main blog. This counter would increment post by post when that post was visited independently of a general visit to the front page of the blog. I started to notice a phenomenon in the pattern of my hits that would not have resulted from regular visits to my site. Older posts that happened to fit a current trending interest (say an AI tool) accumulated hits even if the posts were written before the counter had been installed. The most recent posts did not necessarily get the same attention. Search allowed the entire collection of content to be available, which I guess is good, but this seems different than readers following specific authors.

AI search continues this trend. Whatever I write now ends up being vacuumed up and merged into giant LLMs. The ideas are abstracted, summarized, and combined. People may still read these ideas, but the original context and the identity of the authors is at best added as one source within a list of sources appearing at the end the AI search output or not connected at all. I generate very little ad revenue, but the principle of rewarding or at least recognizing authors for their work is now mostly eliminated. AI functions as an ad blocker and also obscures the source for ideas. I wonder about the long-term consequences of this source of external and internal reward for writing.

I cross-post my blog posts to Medium and I pay to read the work of others on this platform. To host my blogs, I pay approximately $250 a year (Bluehost). I have always valued owning my content and paid to support my writing as a hobby. Yes, $250 a year is an inexpensive hobby. I am struggling with conflicting principles at this point. I want to own my content, but I also want people to know that I have written what I have written. I could just shut down the blogs and rely on Medium or some similar subscription site, but then I am no longer directly sharing my content in a way that I control.

I think it is worth all of us who participate in online content sharing to think about the situation as it has emerged. Perhaps my personal description will encourage this reflection in some. I certainly welcome comments on my observations.

We began visiting the Amish greenhouses near St. Charles, MN, in 2019. As I sometimes do when it comes to what I regard as unique and interesting experiences, I created a blog post about that day. What to me was a surprising experience, this post is probably the most viewed individual post I have ever written, and even though it is now a significant number of years later, this continues to be the case. In addition, the popularity of this post from 2019 continues to grow.

My guess is that these data demonstrate the importance of finding the right niche. When I first generated the post, I don’t think the collection of Amish farms had an online presence despite the interest of folks visiting for this unusual gardening experience. My post was available via search and accumulated enough attention that it appeared at the top of the hit list. Despite new competition, the advantage of being already there has meant that total views continue to make my original post competitive.

Just for old times’ sake, here are some new images and a description of our most recent visit.

A number of Amish farmers have clustered near the community of St. Charles, MN. As these comparatively small farmers have attempted to find ways to generate revenue, they have hit on several effective options. Some are questionable from the perspective of other cultures (puppy farms), but others attract favorable attention (furniture, dairy). Some of these ventures gain an advantage from the collective commitment of several farms to the same venture. The greenhouses are an example. You can pick up a crude map at several local outlets and then visit at least a dozen greenhouses that are close to one another. The greenhouses vary in size and offerings, so although we drive about a hundred miles to reach these farmms, the prices and the options make it worth the trip.

Here are a few photos to offer a feel for what a visit is like. The greenhouses are heated by wood fires/boilers, but otherwise would be similar to what you might find in your own community. It is very unlikely you would find baked and canned goods.

Other sights are common, but different. These small, labor-intensive farms are nested among large farms with massive equipment, and the Amish have created a lifestyle and mutual support network that keeps them competitive.

One more thing. If you are aware of the Amish culture (now sometimes the focus of reality TV programs), you probably know that the Amish do not like to be photographed. It is always important to ask when taking pictures of individuals. I did not make the effort on this trip. I have in other years and sometimes it is OK. I grew up on a small farm some 65 or so years ago, and know enough to carry on a conversation about small farm agriculture (e.g., milking cows, cleaning out the manure). Although never my dream, talking to some of the younger men hoping to purchase a small acreage and have their own farm took me back.

This new tariff story is hilarious. The Trumpsters are now in the position of trying to hide what most of us knew pre-election. Tariffs don’t make money for citizens. The cost is to the importer which is typically passed on at least in part to the consumer. Amazon simply wants to declare this cost to the consumer. Cost of item + tax + tariff = what you pay. Seems honest to me. If this is political, this is the case because it demonstrates the dishonesty of claims made. I hope Amazon institutes this idea. Like other issues with hidden fees consumers should be aware of the source of the price they pay.

We seem to be in a time when questioning and even attempting to control experts’ opinions has become acceptable. While this challenge may apply within several realms, this post focuses specifically on the issue as it relates to higher education. Recent public awareness has likely focused on the controversy pitting the Trump White House and Harvard University over Harvard’s decisions related to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) policies. The Trump administration has cut government grants to the University and threatened modification of the university’s tax-exempt status over this issue. To this point, Harvard has refused to comply with what it argues is an arbitrary and more of a political loyalty test rather than a function of educational appropriateness. 

I mostly write about issues involving educational strategies and technology, but because I am (now emeritus) a university professor, I feel I must respond to what seems to be a misrepresentation of how academic experts work and how universities fulfill their missions. While political, I would argue that the DEI controversy and issues of expertise are more an infringement of politicians on the work of educators than the work of educators on the work of politicians. Yes, many universities and educational institutions at all levels receive public support. This is often far less than you might think, given the level of control politicians feel they should be able to exert – tuition, donations, and grants/contracts are more important, more competitive, and more dependent on the choices of individuals. You really cannot have a situation in which the party in control at the state or national level can dictate curriculum decisions that are potentially quite disruptive and arbitrary. The extent to which a given faculty member addresses a given issue varies greatly, and yet political efforts crudely impose a blanket ruling based on an issue that may involve a few students or a couple of courses. 

I wonder about the support of citizens for recent efforts at educational manipulation. Here are a couple of thoughts:

• What proportion of citizens could translate DEI into words and what about each of these educational commitments does a citizen see as potentially objectionable?
• If a citizen has been a college student, do they recall issues of DEI or any other politicized issue being addressed in a course in a way that was offensive? Was the presentation not factual? Were factual alternatives rejected?
• I am an educational psychologist teaching mostly undergraduate and graduate educational psychology and courses focused on the use of technology in classrooms. I have tried to identify topics I have covered that might involve issues of equity or diversity. Here are some examples – the relative role of background knowledge and aptitude in impacting achievement and related home and environmental factors that would determine background knowledge; equity issues in home access to technology and how teacher expectations for assignments involving technology should take into account what students can do at home; reading readiness and how income and other home differences in parental reading behavior, differences in reading to children, and the availability of reading materials might be influential. There are other similar issues related to motivation, perceptions of the importance of post-secondary education, and finances that are important. So, I ask myself – shouldn’t a future or practicing teachers understand such issues if these factors account for differences in how students they will work with will learn? Can I offer evidence (facts) that the differences I describe are real and known to impact performance? 

Even being part of the focus on this controversy, I cannot understand what could possibly be objectionable about dealing with the reality of the world into which we are going to send practitioners. When it comes to specific concerns, such as critical race theory, I also struggle to understand where politicians think this is taught and what exactly they think it is. What I think the theory involves I find kind of intriguing, arguing that certain biases are part of our acculturation process, and this can be demonstrated as being influential at below the level of consciousness (reaction time and autonomic system responses). For example, bias can be demonstrated in people claiming they are not biased. Such data are certainly interesting to consider and try to understand, but this is not the fare of lower-level courses. If learning that U.S. citizens kept and abused slaves bothers you, you are normal and should find that reality offensive. 

This is an open invitation. If you have had relevant experiences, I hope you will respond to this post. I want to understand just how serious this issue is and be convinced it is not a political “nothing burger” circulated to misinform the public. 

The Death of Expertise

The negative reaction to expertise is a recent interest of mine. Perhaps it has always been there and I did not notice, but I think the embrace of this reaction has been enhanced in strength, but also made more visible by the efforts of MAGA politicians.

I would refer anyone interested in thinking about how and why this has happened to a couple of sources – Science Denial and The Death of Expertise (see sources at end of post). I suppose the suggestion to consider scholarly sources may seem futile in a post about why many refuse to consider the products of scholarly work, but I can’t help myself. My own values focused on how to make a reasoned and credible argument requires referencing support for personal claims. Consider the first section of this post my more personal argument.

The following are arguments gleaned from these and related sources:

• Information overload and polarization – The public is overwhelmed by the sheer volume of available information, making it hard to distinguish credible expertise from misinformation. The issues are not just numerous, but also complex making simple conclusions and courses of action not the type of thing experts can provide. This confusion is amplified by political polarization and targeted disinformation campaigns. 
• Mismatch in Communication Styles – Experts tend to use a communication style that annoys those with less sophisticated backgrounds. The terminology used and the arguments advanced seemed hedged and unnecessarily complicated. In part this is due to the hesitancy of experts to oversimplify situations and issues that are simply complex and the tendency to be more cautious. People want certainty and not probability and best guesses. Experts are not necessarily prepared to write for public consumption and tend to write for peers who they know will carefully scrutinize their claims.
• Perceived lack of accountability – When taking positions based on the best information available at the time, experts frequently make mistakes that they later correct without apparent humility. Citizens may not understand the self-correcting nature of science and the meaning of hypotheses. The process of science involves multiple experts attempting to refine understanding by testing extensions and alternate explanations of current thinking. Ideas are constantly challenged to move understanding forward.
• Confirmation bias – Personal values and affiliations (political, religious, cultural) motivate the processing of information in a way that tends to maintain existing models of the world. What sticks is what fits and other inputs are avoided or discounted in various ways. The notion that experts are elites is one mechanism allowing sloppy consideration of what experts claim.

Conclusion

We presently are living in a dangerous time, made worse by attacks on universities that reduce the consideration of expertise. My personal experience questions the legitimacy of claims made about the intent of universities, but I invite those with college experience to reflect on their own experiences and identify actual examples of factually inaccurate learning experiences. I also reference sources attempting to examine the resistance to expertise to determine how such dismissal is possible. 

Recommended sources: 

Nichols, T., & Nichols, T. M. (2024). The death of expertise: The campaign against established knowledge and why it matters. Oxford University Press.

Sinatra, G. M., & Hofer, B. K. (2021). Science denial: Why it happens and what to do about it. Oxford University Press.