The Curmudgeon Speaks

Those of us who teach courses in psychology must constantly battle the notion that human behavior is common sense. While we are perfectly capable of observing our world and creating personal models to explain what we observe to ourselves, there are simply things beyond our understanding AND things personal biases prevent us from considering in our analysis.

This is obviously the height of the political season and as such we are encouraged by the those attempting to influence us to accept various positions. The notion that lowering taxes across the board will stimulate the economy is one such position. This logic has been presented over and over. Despite the consistent lack of evidence to support this position, there is some intuitive appeal – more money in my pocket and I will spend more providing greater opportunity for others.

I am not an economist, but I do believe in the data. If I would be asked but someone demanding an explanation why lowering the taxes for all does not improve the economy I guess I would propose the following. The wealth that is created in this country is far from equally distributed and this inequity is increasing rather than decreasing. Those with great wealth do not distribute their wealth in proportion to what they take in. They collect resources and consolidate their assets. Those with lesser wealth tend to spend in proportional to what they take in. This differential situation means the discrepancy increases rather than decreases. Taxes provide basic services and those without wealth are in far greater need of such services. Lack of basic services and opportunities also exacerbates the spiral that concentrates wealth.

We tend to accept anecdotal evidence to refute the spiral I describe. We want to believe in rags to riches stories. Clearly such stories exist. However, one must also take into account the more frequent stories of those who lack the resources to invest in themselves and their children necessary to even approximate a fair game. Talent is randomly distributed, but the resources and opportunities necessary to develop and apply talent are not.

I have conducted a detailed content analysis of the messages of those running for office in North Dakota. Here is what I have learned.

1) It is very important to be born to parents who were also born to parents who lived in North Dakota. No matter how long you live here evidently political office requires that you take your first breath within the state. Longevity of your family in the state appears important in refuting the frequent claim that “he/she is not one of us”.

2) Killing stuff and carrying a gun is good. Other outdoor activities such as fishing or biking are of less value. Oh, there also seems to be some value in wandering aimlessly through farm fields. To me, this seems a good way to meet one of those guys carrying a gun.

3) Wear blue jeans whenever possible. Never admit you are a lawyer and you bought the jeans for the election season.

4) Use the word “fighting” as frequently as possible. Evidently politicians are a very aggressive lot. Perhaps we should consider a more physical alternative to the debates just to see whether the candidates are really as tough as they say.

5) Make it clear that you want nothing to do with Washington (despite the reality that this is where you would like to end up). Remember you are from here and do not want to “go Washington”. Personally, I kind of liked Washington except for the heat.

7) Always appear to be knowledgeable and be shown doing the talking. I always wonder what the candidates have to say to the guys on the big tractors, the engineers in the power plants, or the university researchers (it always seems scientists with fancy equipment doing medical research). “Can I drive?” “What does this button do?” The conversations would likely be less interesting if you really knew what was said.

8) Read a book to a kid and sit on a really small chair.

9) Always grow up poorer than your opponent, but be wealthier now.

10) Say cool things – “I say what I mean and I do what I say.”  Not me – I say random stuff to confuse people.

This is just a weird idea? Florida is considering a differential tuition model (not weird). The idea is that different majors will cost different amounts (not weird). STEM majors (science, technology, mathematics) will be charged at a lower level than students with other majors even though actual costs in STEM areas are significantly higher (weird).

I work in a Psychology department and I do not feel responsible for defending the interest so many students have in the content of the field in which I teach. Should our students be penalized because they have a preference for psychology rather than physics? What I can say with certainty is that the tuition dollars generated by the students enrolled in psychology courses is massive in contrast to the tuition dollars generated in many other programs (even weighted for the number of faculty lines) and the funds do not go the department but are used to subsidize other programs. The proposed Florida model would go further and would mean that some programs that are already cost effective and supporting other programs would be made more costly in hopes of shifting students in another direction.

I have always understood education as a matter of choice. You make the choice and you deal with the consequences. This situation raises so many questions about choice and funding. Should academic institutions take an advocacy position in order to influence the majors of students? Who should subsidize the cost of more expensive programs – tax payers, those taking the expensive courses, those taking inexpensive courses? Should tuition be based on the actual cost of instruction or popularity? What is the purpose of education – have we now moved toward a notion of economic development and occupational preferences rather than some broader notion of personal development?

The flap over Minnesota not accepting Coursera caught my attention. I suppose this was because I work at a University just across the river from Minnesota and I was curious as to what our academic neighbors to the east had in mind. It turns out it was a trivial issue that once understood was dismissed and Coursera is available.

I still do not understand what are perceived to be the novel benefits of the Coursera model and I think there are many flawed assumptions at work. There also seems to be a concern among some that they may be left out and upper-level administrators seem worried their institutions will be not be included among the elite offering courses. Big name institutions do not need to increase enrollment and they desire the public attention they might receive for offering something for free. Not really a big sacrifice.

Allow a brief personal anecdote and then a related argument. One of the courses I teach is “Introduction to Psychology”. This is the type of large enrollment course that might seem ideal for the efficient, “capture the presentation of the master teacher” model that seems to be at the core of the argument for offering  free shared courses from “prestige” institutions. A few years ago, before this efficiency perspective emerged, I made use of iTunes U to accomplish a personal goal. I was interested in identifying content and methods of explanation I might mimic in some of the topical areas of my course for which I felt I had no personal expertise. Academics tend to be specialists at the University of North Dakota or more elite institutions. For example, I am an educational psychologist and as such I cannot see clients as a clinician. This is a good thing. However, when I must introduce first year college students to psychopathology and psychotherapy, I cannot draw on my experiences in practice or research. What I found “sitting through” lectures from several Intro courses from a couple of the institutions on the Coursera list was that the content was little different from my own and in at least one case the method of presentation more primitive. I decided I would be better of consulting with my colleagues with specific areas of specialization I lack who also teach the Intro course.

I would propose the biggest source of variability among courses is the quality of students rather than the quality of the instructors. Students both help educate and push each other. What you should be looking to do if you are searching for a productive learning experience is to interact with bright and motivated students.

Better presentations are possible. What comes to mind relevant to the specific example I am using would be the Zimbardo Discovering Psychology series (this is to an older version of the videos, but you will get the idea). This series has been around for a long time and have been updated as the delivery system advanced and new content was appropriate. The series had high production value and probably a substantial budget. There was a very polished presenter but also lots of field or lab based video to illustrate, explain, and exemplify. I think when teaching Intro Psych that a talking head with PowerPoints is likely very similar across many institutions. The skills in presenting basic content is not necessarily a function of other important academic skills such as research productivity and quality presenters may be found in a variety of institutions.

To be realized. the potential in this idea of sharing free courses at the level of the presentation would require a substantial investment of the type made in the Discovering Psychology series. Substantial investments might also be made in other areas such as improved assessment and study experiences. So I certainly believe there may be ways to take advantage of the economics of scale, but putting up an existing course falls far short of meaningful change. Any institution could accomplish a similar thing with courses taught locally perhaps saving on duplication across multiple sections. We pretty much decided against doing this a decade ago. So, if those institutions wanting to offer their courses would invest heavily in leveraging the potential of technology to improve the presentation component of instruction, I would be more impressed. This situation may be different with other courses I am not qualified to evaluate.

I do not intend this to be an amusing post. The issue is quite serious.

Tech Crunch writer John Biggs generated a post complaining about a situation in which someone from Norway had their Kindle account blocked (it was later restored) because it appears the individual was suspected of having illegal content. Biggs used this situation to argue that ebook owners should learn to remove DRM in order to protect their rights. I guess the logic is – if they can block you from using your content (legal or not), you should protect yourself by storing your content in a format you can use in other ways. There are several assumptions here, but I will let you figure out how he got from A to B yourself.

OK – so far we have one example that turned out not be an example, but suggestions for taking potentially illegal action to combat potentially illegal action are provided anyway.

This used to be a common argument made regarding DVDs. What if the DVD you purchased is damaged and you cannot view the content you own (even if the odds of viewing Revenge of the Nerds more than twice is about 0)? Hence, we learned to “back up” our content. However, since Amazon both allows you to download your books and keeps a copy online you can download again to the same or difference device, the argument you need to back up your content is a pretty weak to take. You pretty much must assume Amazon or other providers are evil.

Here is why I care. My wife and I have recently taken a textbook we have had published for years with a major publisher and self published it with Amazon. Advocating the removal of DRM from a book that costs less than $10 is not what I wanted to hear. This is not a high income enterprise.

Biggs argues:

However, the problem is in the publishers. Rights management is such a mess – especially in Europe – that it is no wonder these issues come mostly from cross-border rights disputes.

Rights management is a significant issue with publishers. This was the primary reason we finally broke from our publisher. However, our situation was different. Our intent was to repurpose our book into a Primer and online content and in the process reduce the price (our 5th edition still is selling for $120+). We intended to increase the total amount of content offering continuous upgrades of the online material and tutorials which we could provide as videos. This seemed like a reasonable strategy.

A sticking point ended up being the “permissions”. Publishing companies worry about permissions. There are countless tutorials on YouTube that were created without bothering to contact the software companies selling the software demonstrated, but a publishing company cannot move forward offering a similar tutorial without a signed permission. Plan to offer a dozen or so tutorials and some examples of classroom projects and you have a permissions nightmare. Not enough revenue in project we wanted to offer for $29. Too many lawyers involved in company to company disputes (see Send lawyers, guns, and money). It appears you cannot generate an inexpensive textbook when you must secure permissions from multiple companies. Perhaps I should have gone to law school.

Just for the record. One of the things we decided to do was to remove pretty much anything that would require a permission (even when we had previously acquired the permission) from our Kindle book and offer such content online (for free). So, if anyone removes DRM so they can read a $9 book in some other way, they are taking this action for some other reason.

I happened to notice today that I have used LastFM for 6 years. Two things about this are interesting. First, it is unusual that an online social service has lasted this long. Second, it is strange a person has stuck with a social service for this long.

LastFM does several interesting things with the intent of encouraging users to discover and purchase new music (I am guessing this is the official justification). A confession – I purchase a lot of digital music, but none through links from this site. I also pay LastFM $4 a month for a pro account. Lets see – 4 x 12 x 6 = ???? – it is probably good I cannot do advanced math in my head. This is likely a lot of money for an online service.

What I personally value LastFM for is that it provides data on my listening habits. I am guessing it has a record of well over 95% of the songs I have listened to during the last 6 years. If you care or wonder what the musical interests of a 60+ guy might be, you can examine the public record. You will find no Guy Lombardo or Lawrence Welk (this is funny but you probably do not know who these musicians are so you may not appreciate the humor).

Just for the record, Miles Davis has been my favorite (3155 listens) and Sweet Child O Mine (Guns and Roses – 122 plays) the most frequent song. I wonder how long it would take to listen to one song 122 times.

LastFM identifies other users who share common interests. For some reason, I share a certain taste with 20 somethings from Russia and several individuals in their 40s from Germany. I find it reassuring that those my age do not friend me.

She’s got a smile it seems to me – Reminds me of childhood memories (Sweet child of mine)

My vocation and personal interests concern the potential of changing lives through information. This is what educators do. We provide access to information and we encourage learners to process this input to develop personal understanding. We know we do not always have the answers to all issues and we do speculate, but we are cautious when doing so. We suggest here are perspectives that some take attributing positions to those who propose them and thus exploring options. We do make decisions not to present some positions, but this is typically when science tells us that some perspectives simply do not deserve serious consideration

This is a book report of a sort. Most comments are based on “The information diet” authored by Clay Johnson. The book explores parallels between our overconsumption of food and information. Sometimes when you get caught up in an interesting analogy you can push the comparison further than is useful. It is true that most of us now have access to inexpensive food and cannot handle this temptation. It is also true that most of us now have access to many television channels and the Internet. We have access to plenty of information. Interesting. So – this is the way the book is organized. I am really only interested in the way the author explores the tendency toward an unwise consumption of information.

My interpretation of the author’s main poins is that we are the source of the failure to benefit from the great information resources available to us. With multiple information sources at our disposal, we select those sources that feed our existing biases rather than those that would challenge and inform. The providers, attending to a profit motive and recognizing that a loyal audience can be identified and fed (sorry – the food analogy works here), offer information from a dependable perspective. The no spin zone actually guarantees that all stories will be spun in the same direction.

The most interesting chapter (perhaps because it plays so well to some of my own observations) examines the history of CNN, Fox, and MSNBC. The story begins in the mid-1990s with the Fox News hiring of Roger Ailes. Ailes moves Fox to the top in the ratings battle. The key Ailes decison seemed to be that the competition among the providers was not about “news” in the way I grew up interpreting the word, but in identifying a core audience and delivering the content as valued by that audience. As MSNBC and CNN began to fade, MSNBC adopted a similar strategy leaving CNN with a declining audience. What Fox and MSNBC recognized, according to Johnson, is that the news is not really about the news. It is about entertainment based on a combination of fear and affirmation. It is about playing to the fears of a given group and offering a spin on information that affirms the perspective of this group in addressing these fears. Of course, Fox and MSNBC are spinning the same stories in opposite directions. The author provides some persuasive examples demonstrating the contrasting titles offered for the same story.

Follow the money. A particularly interesting analysis concerned the budget allocations of the various networks. CNN invests the most in “reporters”. Fox and MSNBC have discovered it is more economical and effective to invest in a few million dollar a year “personalities” than many 40 thousand a year reports (do reporters really make this little money) (the source cited if you really are interested). The strategy seems to be to take a story from the wire service, spin the title in a predictable direction, and have the personalities play off each other saying cute things.

Johnson concludes his analysis with an interesting point. He asks which station we all tend to watch when we really want news. When there is an important event, everyone here and elsewhere in the world tunes to CNN. We seem to know when we need to know and when we want our existing views to be supported.

In a way, it is a depressing situation. How do you get the attention of someone content with feeding a skewed view of the world? How do you argue with someone not willing to engage in a discussion? I have no solutions. As is the situation in this election season, I am mostly interested in the undecided – those who can identify the limitations of an uncritical acceptance of an information source with a perspective. I would suggest that these individuals purposefully consider multiple perspectives on key issues. I am a fan of News360.

I have long valued the Internet as a solution to a wide variety of societal problems. It seems a way for most of us to have a voice and make a difference. Especially in this election season as we are besigned by the hundreds of television ads often funded by those of means, the opportunity to give voice to our own perspective seems of great importance. I guess you just keep making the effort to argue your point of view.

I have noticed something about myself and I am concerned.

I think it is possible I am a Fox News junkie. Now, in public I constantly complain about Fox News. How can this organization seriously use the phrase “the no spin zone” as a self reference. I can’t help bringing up Fox News, even though I am to remain neutral and not bring my political views into my instruction, when I talk about the importance of  developing better critical thinking skills so young people are prepared to deal with the information sources they now encounter.

Yet, when I am one particular setting, even with options available, I am strongly drawn to the Fox pundits. This contradiction in my behavior is scary.

The aerobic machines at “the club” are lined up with a view of multiple television screens. I don’t know who has the remote controls, but the options when I show up in the late afternoon are Fox News, Dr. Phil, and the cooking channel. One might think with my psychologist background I would focus on Dr. Phil. For some reason, this show reminds me of Jerry Springer. An unfair comparison perhaps. I guess the audience is not encouraged to break into the chant – Phil, Phil, Phil – so perhaps I should be less critical. I just don’t understand the purpose of doing therapy in public.

I do watch cooking shows at home. I am not sure why. I don’t cook much and when I do I am limited to things that come in a can, things I can cut up, put in a bowl and dowse with dressing, or pizza. Anyway, thinking about food while exercising seems like a form of self torment.

I guess that does leave Fox News.

I derive a certain energy from watching Fox. I become invigorated and I peddle faster or crank up the elevation on the stair master. Yesterday, the Fox guys were talking about the teacher strike in Chicago. The talking point seemed to be – How could anyone making that much money object to being evaluated on the performance of their students? Just to drive home their point, the Fox guys indicated that even they had to be evaluated. Why, if their ratings should fall, they would be gone in quick order. I started thinking about Fox news guys as educators of the general public having to be evaluated on the quality of the knowledge developed in their viewers. I immediately began to imagine a test we might give to viewers of Fox News. I couldn’t come up the second item. Anyway, I haven’t been able to hit “6” on the elliptical for ten years. Fox News has made me young again.

Maybe I should turn up the volume on my iPod and throw a towel over my head. I don’t know. This woman beside me does that and periodically she breaks into song. Usually, the hook from 60s rock songs.

silence, then mumble, mumble, mumble, you can’t always get what you want!

I generally agree, but these random utterances still unnerve me. Better to focus on “News at the speed of live”. Now what – the President is encouraging terrorists. Who would have guessed?

Weeks go by when there is nothing interesting to blog about and then there is a day like today.

I was headed across campus at 1 to have lunch with my wife. The emergency alert system suddenly activates:

Evacuate Grand Forks, Evacuate Grand Forks, you will be given further instructions.

Strange I thought. I have actually evacuated once, but that happened in the middle of the night because of a flood. What could this be? We seem an unlikely target for some kind of military action. Not exactly a high value target.

Two possibilities seemed most likely; 1) students from a rival institution had hacked the system possibly related to the potato bowl this weekend (yes, we have a potato bowl), 2) an ammonia tanker in the rail yard had ruptured.

It occurred to me that we were playing a team from the west coast with which we have little history so hacking the system reserved for emergencies seemed something you would save for a rival. The ammonia thing seemed a possibility so I searched for the instructions that were promised. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing.

I decided to have lunch.

The explanation came 40 minutes later.

The emergency message asking people to evacuate Grand Forks should was intended to be a siren tone test only. A siren-only test is sounded the first Wednesday of each month at 1 p.m.  The Emergency Management Office apologizes for any inconvenience.

You can tell the person writing this announcement was excited. Now, aside from thinking too many people had to be consulted before someone bothered to explain, I am fascinated by this image I now have of the preprogrammed emergency box.

What do you think?

Button one – this is a test

Button two – evacuate Grand Forks

Button three – head for the basement

Button four – head for higher ground

Do you think that in an emergency someone might issue a confusing message or not know what to say? Hence, all emergency messages had to be carefully worded and preprogrammed.

I now think they need a button with the message “Whoops – my bad. Never mind!”