So, evolution still works.

Approximate Reading Time: < 1 minute

photo (C) Mink Hollow Media 2009

Environmental factors limit species diversity, lizard study finds.

Hmmmm. And might I add, well, DUH.

I think the big mistake is to presume that there is EVER any kind of lasting equilibrium. Things change. Climate changes. Species change. Habitats change. We change. (We’re natural too, remember.)

The amazing thing, the thing we SHOULD be trying to figure out is why some species DON’T seem to change. And just because they haven’t changed much in thousands of years doesn’t mean they aren’t changing. First, let’s make sure they actually haven’t changed rather than it being a case of we simply aren’t looking in the right places.

We are so self-centered. We seem to think that what is good for us (climate wise, environment-wise, etc.) is the way it’s SUPPOSED to be. How arrogant is that? We have a tendency to dismiss tings that happened before we cared as being unimportant, especially if it doesn’t fit our current view. The mini ice ages that have happened in the past are dismissed as insignificant because WE are being bothered by climate change NOW.

What if our destroying our own environment is just as natural as anything else that happens? What if it is a normal and natural way for the planet to continue changing? What makes us think WE have a rightful place on the planet for all eternity?

Be the first to like.

Harmonizing the Web in China

Approximate Reading Time: < 1 minute

Harmonizing. What an evil thing to do to such a benevolent word.

Banned in Beijing – NYTimes.com. (Nicholas Kristof, Jan. 22, 2011)

I really think we should STOP trying to help the Chinese government. I keep getting these invitations from various educational and technical groups to join some delegation and go over there to help them advance. Seems like every third conference is in China these days. I don’t think we are helping the ordinary Chinese people AT ALL by doing this. All this does is help the powerful become more powerful. I refuse to go to China. Humanitarian causes are different, but this is not humanitarian.

Forgive me, but I think we should stay the Hell out of China and avoid buying things made there (which is piratically impossible these days) until the Chinese government starts to show some signs that it is ready to stop the tyranny. Maybe even show an inkling that it cares about honesty and honour.

Be the first to like.

BECKER, Michael – November 26, 1954 – January 16, 2011

Approximate Reading Time: < 1 minute

BECKER, Michael November 26, 1954 – January 16, 2011

via Remembering | Edmonton Journal-Read and Search Obituaries, Create a Tribute for a Loved One or Offer your Condolences..

Michael was my brother. It will take me time to put together a fitting personal tribute. This is his obituary.

Be the first to like.

Scientists Fault Universities, and other Mewling

Approximate Reading Time: < 1 minute

Scientists Fault Universities as Favoring Research Over Teaching – Research – The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Yup. Heard it before. The entire time I was at the University of Calgary I kept hearing about how important research was and based on how resources and rewards are handed out, how UN-important teaching was.

Lately, I keep reading these “If we’re not careful, we’re going to loose our greatness” kinds of articles. Living where I do (in the shadow the the no-longer-so-great US of A) I often hear this sort of bellyaching in two main contexts:

  1. The formal education system (including the academy and the school systems)
  2. All things American

My advice: Quit worrying about what might happen if you loose your superiority / greatness / magical powers / whatever. I think that ship has sailed.

Time to start the,”Now that we’ve screwed it up, how do we recover.” inquiries.

Newsflash:

  1. Formal Education is profoundly broken. We DON’T need to patch things or tweek stuff, or even try to get back to the good ol’ days when men were men and women and children knew their place. Formal education needs to be re-designed from the ground up. We are no longer in the industrial age folks.
  2. The rest of the world no longer looks to the US for any kind of leadership. Not in science, not in entertainment, not in how to be civilized, and not in how to manage freedom (cause you’re really not doing a good job of that one). You’ve lost that role guys.

Bah.

Be the first to like.

Comment on Larry Cuban’s Blog: Facebook, Friends, and Online Schooling

Approximate Reading Time: < 1 minute

Facebook, Friends, and Online Schooling | Larry Cuban on School Reform and Classroom Practice.

I think he’s right.

That does not mean that FB is a waste of time or the online learning doesn’t work, although both are true at times. It means the relationships formed online are different from those formed f2f.

A FB ‘friend’ is not automatically a real friend. Real friendship (as well as lasting teacher-student relationships) are formed, like he says, over time. I think it is possible to build real friendships online, but just like in real life, it takes time. I suspect that it takes considerably MORE online time than it would in RL.

Be the first to like.

On leisure and the academic lifestyle …

Approximate Reading Time: 3 minutes

On leisure and the academic lifestyle | Virtual Canuck.

I often see posts from academics about how demanding and busy the lifestyle is. For some reason most of the posts I’ve seen like this come from faculty in Education. I won’t (at least for now) speculate on why that might be. And to be fair, I also know academics in Education who don’t talk about how busy they are – perhaps because they’re too busy.

Now, in the interests of full disclosure, I don’t know Dr. Anderson well and I am not trying imply that his post is anything but genuine – I’m simply pointing to it because it came across my screen today and made me think about the many other posts like this I’ve seen. Dr. Anderson’s post certainly seems to indicate that his own life is pretty well balanced in spite of the demands placed upon him by his avocation. I also know that he has a pretty solid publication record and a sound reputation. That can mean that he does indeed work very hard and it is also possible that he has actually earned all of the praise he has been given.

I say can because I also know academics with impressive publication records who didn’t actually write most of the publications that bear their names (or even do the research). I know academics who hand out faculty teaching award nominations to their own students before their final grades are in (can you say, abuse of power?) I know faculty who nominate themselves for every award they can find, and who go to great lengths to make themselves look good. I take it all with a grain of salt now. Appearances are not always what they seem to be.

A few academics have great integrity; a few are total shysters; the odd one is downright dangerous; most fall somewhere in the middle.

I’ve been an academic for > 30 years. I often hear about how demanding it is to be an academic and how carefully we must balance our lives in order to meet all of our obligations. Some people post itineraries of what they do during a ‘typical’ day to prove how busy they are. I’ve done that too. It’s fun – but it’s self serving. Admit it.

While I’ll grant there are some who really are as busy as they say they are, most aren’t. It’s easy to waste a lot of time during a day. I’m not even trying to imply that that’s wrong – I think it’s important to putz around sometimes, to yak about silliness, and sometimes just to stare out the window or straighten all your pens in your drawer. That’s not what gets under my skin. What gets under my skin is the pretense that people are busy and dedicated when they really aren’t. It’s dishonest. It’s also part of what fuels the image of the Academy that many people from ‘outside’ have.

We should be honest.

Academics are neither unique nor particularly deserving of admiration when it comes to juggling a busy life.

I’ve also been a part-time farmer for 25 years. Many of the full-time farmers I know work considerably harder than any academic I’ve ever met – for far fewer rewards, no benefits, no pension, no health plan or wellness perks, and, often, no holidays (ever) and very little income. Curiously, I almost NEVER hear these people talking about how busy their lives are and how hard it is to balance their profession with their family and other things. Mostly, they just do the best they can. And surprisingly, most of them say they love the life they have.

There’s an old joke about the farmer who wins millions of dollar in a lottery. When asked what he’s going to do with the money, he says, “It means I can keep farming for a few more years.” I know it’s just a joke, but it actually does reflect the attitude of many of the farmers I know.

How many academics would keep doing what they’re doing if they won millions of dollars?

Be the first to like.

Progress in Algorithms Beats Moore’s Law???

Approximate Reading Time: < 1 minute

This was mentioned on slashdot…

They are claiming that progress on algorithms beats progress in hardware because a few algorithms have gotten a lot faster.

Problem is, people are going to believe this is true of all algorithms, and then they are going to generalize to all of programming – and there’s NO evidence to suggest that programs are any better. In fact thanks to the bloatware that is so popular these days we need more and more horsepower just to do the same crap.

Progress in Algorithms Beats Moore’s Law « Algorithmic Game-Theory/Economics.

This is simply goofy – just because they can point to a few algorithms as having been vastly improved does not mean all algorithms have progressed. What’s sad is that so many have picked this up and run with it as though it is meaningful.

Truth is programs have NOT gotten better so whether or not they can waste time more quickly is moot. Also, if they don’t run correctly it really doesn’t matter how fast they do it.

Faster is not always better.

Be the first to like.

Violent games not to blame for youth aggression

Approximate Reading Time: 2 minutes

Finally! A study that looks for the keys where they were lost rather than under the streetlight.

Violent games not to blame for youth aggression.

Ferguson found that depressive symptoms were a strong predictor for youth aggression and rule breaking, and their influence was particularly severe for those who had preexisting antisocial personality traits. However, neither exposure to violence from video games or television at the start of the study predicted aggressive behavior in young people or rule-breaking at 12 months.

Ferguson concludes: “Depressive symptoms stand out as particularly strong predictors of youth violence and aggression, and therefore current levels of depression may be a key variable of interest in the prevention of serious aggression in youth. The current study finds no evidence to support a long-term relationship between video game violence use and subsequent aggression. Even though the debate over violent video games and youth violence will continue, it must do so with restraint.”

This comes on the heels of another study I came across the other day that was more like the typical “videogames cause violence” studies:

Violent Video Games…oh wait, no…Demand Characteristics Have Long-Term Influences

The study being discussed is here.

Very briefly, as is typical, the study authors randomly assigned college students to play either a violent (e.g. Mortal Kombat…which got me wondering if anyone even still plays that anymore) or non-violent (e.g. Grand Turismo 5, Guitar Hero) game.  Some of the participants (again randomly assigned) were then told to think about the game they had played for the next 24 hours.  They then returned to the lab the next day to be tested on their “aggression” using the commonly used “noise burst” TCRTT that has come under increasingly fire for poor validity recently (Kutner & Olson, 2008; Ritter & Eslea, 2005; Tedeschi & Quigley, 1996).  The authors claim results indicated that college students (the males at least, not the women) instructed by the experimenters to think about the video games over the intervening 24 hours were more “aggressive” whereas college students not so instructed were not.

Apparently, crap like this is publishable. Hmmmmm

People think more about videogames for 24 hours when told to think about videogames for 24 hours. Great.


Be the first to like.