Social "scientists" can prove anything they set out to prove. Which is why I say that social "science" is to science as Wonder Bread is to bread. Though to compare social "science" to Wonder Bread defames Wonder Bread. At least with Wonder Bread, you know what you are getting. What social "science" informs us to be so is as changeable as a Texas winter day.
The game, the group claims, is “miseducative" and forces students to display "hierarchies of privilege based on athletic skill," even though the game is mostly just about throwing balls at other children..."
"hierarchies of privilege based on athletic skill..." So it's bad to be competent at a sport? But hierarchies imposed by politically correct people are good, don't you know? And if you don't think these profs don't want to impose hierarchies themselves, imagine how they would react when some kids would tell them that they like dodgeball just fine? The profs have no problem with imposing hierarchies of privilege on others. They just want to be the ones doing the imposing. I bet they hated playing dodgeball when they were kids- and didn't like it that they were in the minority.
We see this in writers portraying the athletes and cheerleaders as evil and victims as adults - because that's not who they were in high school and they resent it. You will notice that environmentalists are also usually drawn from the people who didn't understand engines and machines, and getting dirty in general.
Some of us have gotten over not being homecoming king and queen, or having one skill set rather than another. Others seem to hold that grudge forever.
It's probably rooted in their personal histories of getting into dodgeball games where someone of advanced ability took sadistic pleasure in knocking them out of the game in the most spectacular and humiliating ways possible. Those guys existed, it's true. That said, it's a sport where a guy who isn't big can be successful, moreso than many other sports. They should celebrate it, honestly, as it's probably more equitable because of the lack of bodily contact than many other sports.
If we are correct that the author disliked playing dodgeball as a child, this points out an oft-occurring fault of social "science." The social "science researcher" will write narratives- often rather involved narratives- to support a gut reaction. What we see is not so much using reasoning to come to a conclusion, as it is using verbiage to support a gut reaction.
Also note that this narrative masquerading as research is in the field of Education. The Education field is infamous for "research" that doesn't prove anything. Consider the $50 million plus $100 million matching funds on research about improving Chicago public schools that that Barack Obama doled out as chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Chicago public schools that were the beneficiary of Annenberg Challenge-funded research had no effectl: "results suggest that among the schools it supported, the Challenge had little impact on school improvement and student outcomes, with no statistically significant differences between Annenberg and non-Annenberg schools in rates of achievement gain, classroom behavior, student self-efficacy, and social competence."
Beware of Greeks bearing gifts, and beware what researchers in the Education field have to tell you about their great ideas. (Bill Ayers was also involved in the Annenberg Challenge.)
Gringo, i would follow the money. These pweeps are paid research grants to produce studies. Another wholly corrupt human practice billed as scientific orthodoxy.
As for stem, all kinds of problems with gravity, einstein, newton.
Social "scientists" can prove anything they set out to prove. Which is why I say that social "science" is to science as Wonder Bread is to bread. Though to compare social "science" to Wonder Bread defames Wonder Bread. At least with Wonder Bread, you know what you are getting. What social "science" informs us to be so is as changeable as a Texas winter day.
ReplyDeleteWhat social "science" informs us to be so is as changeable as a Texas winter day.
ReplyDeleteWith the difference that Texas winter days don't change at convenience.
Eric Hines
The game, the group claims, is “miseducative" and forces students to display "hierarchies of privilege based on athletic skill," even though the game is mostly just about throwing balls at other children..."
ReplyDelete"hierarchies of privilege based on athletic skill..." So it's bad to be competent at a sport?
But hierarchies imposed by politically correct people are good, don't you know?
And if you don't think these profs don't want to impose hierarchies themselves, imagine how they would react when some kids would tell them that they like dodgeball just fine?
The profs have no problem with imposing hierarchies of privilege on others. They just want to be the ones doing the imposing. I bet they hated playing dodgeball when they were kids- and didn't like it that they were in the minority.
The profs...didn't like it that they were in the minority.
ReplyDeleteThey're still in the minority--but they like their power just fine.
Eric Hines
We see this in writers portraying the athletes and cheerleaders as evil and victims as adults - because that's not who they were in high school and they resent it. You will notice that environmentalists are also usually drawn from the people who didn't understand engines and machines, and getting dirty in general.
ReplyDeleteSome of us have gotten over not being homecoming king and queen, or having one skill set rather than another. Others seem to hold that grudge forever.
It's probably rooted in their personal histories of getting into dodgeball games where someone of advanced ability took sadistic pleasure in knocking them out of the game in the most spectacular and humiliating ways possible. Those guys existed, it's true. That said, it's a sport where a guy who isn't big can be successful, moreso than many other sports. They should celebrate it, honestly, as it's probably more equitable because of the lack of bodily contact than many other sports.
ReplyDeleteIf we are correct that the author disliked playing dodgeball as a child, this points out an oft-occurring fault of social "science." The social "science researcher" will write narratives- often rather involved narratives- to support a gut reaction. What we see is not so much using reasoning to come to a conclusion, as it is using verbiage to support a gut reaction.
ReplyDeleteAlso note that this narrative masquerading as research is in the field of Education. The Education field is infamous for "research" that doesn't prove anything. Consider the $50 million plus $100 million matching funds on research about improving Chicago public schools that that Barack Obama doled out as chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Chicago public schools that were the beneficiary of Annenberg Challenge-funded research had no effectl: "results suggest that among the schools it supported, the Challenge had little impact on school improvement and student outcomes, with no statistically significant differences between Annenberg and non-Annenberg schools in rates of achievement gain, classroom behavior, student self-efficacy, and social competence."
Beware of Greeks bearing gifts, and beware what researchers in the Education field have to tell you about their great ideas. (Bill Ayers was also involved in the Annenberg Challenge.)
Gringo, i would follow the money. These pweeps are paid research grants to produce studies. Another wholly corrupt human practice billed as scientific orthodoxy.
ReplyDeleteAs for stem, all kinds of problems with gravity, einstein, newton.