My Faith in Science and God

I believe in the laws of thermodynamics:

Zero – If two thermodynamic systems are each in thermal equilibrium with a third, then they are in thermal equilibrium with each other.

First – Energy is conserved, it can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only change forms.

Second – The disorder of an isolated system will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.

Third – As temperature approaches absolute zero, the entropy of a system approaches a constant minimum.

I believe in the fundamental forces of gravity, electromagnetism, the weak nuclear force, and the strong nuclear force. I accept the existence of the nuclear forces (and some of the following points, as well) on my faith in the social dynamics of Science. (physics)

I believe the periodic table of elements is an accurate description of the primary material properties of the world. (chemistry)

I believe that the basic unit of life is the cell. (biology)

I believe that all cells that exist today came from parent cells. (non-spontaneous generation)

I believe in the DNA/RNA molecules, that they encode proteins, and that they are central artifacts for cellular reproduction.

I believe that DNA/RNA can be changed because of random environmental factors, such as radiation. (random mutation)

I believe that mates are selected based on features that the selecting animal finds attractive. (nonrandom mating)

I believe that the gene pool of a population changes across time because of the mixing of parental genomes in sexual reproduction. (semi-random mutation/ genetic drift)

I believe that in populations certain characteristics of organisms and by logical extension the particular molecular sequences that encode those characteristics survive at different rates. (natural selection)

I believe that certain characteristics encoded by DNA (technically called alleles) can die out from and enter into the gene pool of a population when individual organisms that contain those characteristics leave or join that population. (gene flow/ formerly known as migration)

The preceding beliefs cover the central tenets of the material and life sciences. The following beliefs are drawn from psychology and related fields. Psychology and those related fields have not yet come to the same level of consensus that these tenets are central, though they should consider the possibility (IMHO).

I believe that animals with brains have consciousness, though not all are conscious in the same way. Following the lead of scientists like Antonio Damasio, V.S. Ramachandran, and Terrence Deacon I believe there are levels of consciousness that correspond to the ability of the brain to map its own operations. We, humans, have the most developed ability to map the operations of our own brains, as attested to by these words. The human ability to actively conceive of and communicate about the deep past and the deep future (beyond the scale of a day or so) represents an activity of consciousness that appears to be unique in our species. The self is a concept that derives from the maps of consciousness by consciousness and is the central frame of reference for the creation of both the deep past and the deep future.

The activities of human consciousness are shaped significantly by primary needs for oxygen (air), water, material nutrients (food), sleep, protection from extreme environmental conditions (shelter), relatedness, competence, and autonomy. Needs are primary when they are universal within the species, have non-neutral effects on well-being, and are not derived from any other needs. The latter three psychological needs are mapped in reference to the self as a locus of causal, volitional, and relational goals and activities.

Based on all these beliefs, I also have beliefs about belief itself. I make a distinction between how we use language to refer to things and ideas and how phenomena occur in the world. The phenomena in the world exist independent of all language that refers to them. Therefore, beliefs are irrelevant except to the degree that they inform decisions that rely on accurate causal models of the world. This belief tempers my faith in both science and all the forms of metaphysics including religion, philosophy, and any other social constructs that may consider issues of causality, volition, and relationships between beings with agency.

Science is a product of human interaction and the use of language to mediate those relationships. So is metaphysics. As human products they are inherently fallible. The best we can hope for is to extensively triangulate on our causal, volitional, and relational goals and activities via language to arrive at increasingly shared understandings.

I also believe in God, but not in personified terms. I believe the term “God” is a placeholder for unspecified causal, volitional, and relational forces.

Using personifications of God in a discussion can be a useful gambit for conveying emotional and non-causal ideas. But if consequential decisions are being made that depend for their efficacy on a personification being an accurate description of some causal forces in the world then those decisions are unlikely to be good decisions. If the causal forces that need to be described in the course of a decision making discussion are utterly inaccessible then reliance on god-language may be acceptable. However, whenever it is practical to do so, it is better to formulate and test hypotheses about the causal forces involved rather than surrender to ignorance from the start.

Altering Perception Experiment Videos & the Hidden Curriculum of Power Distribution

Upside Down Goggles BBC

This is why democratic schooling is so foreign to most people. It is literally disorienting to support children to have so much autonomy when we have grown up in environments that did everything they could to control children (and anybody else at the bottom of a hierarchical power structure.) Instead of inverting vision democratic schools invert the power structure.

Right-Left reversal


Susannah Fine Inversion Glasses


High School Project (momentary use)


Rhett & Link Inversion Glasses Challenge (momentary use)

Frozen Desserts Guide

Ever wondered about the differences between ice cream, sorbet, sherbet, italian ice, granitas, and gelato? I used to work at Elevated Ice Cream in Port Townsend, WA. But that was years ago and I have a hard time keeping the various distinctions straight as time has gone by. The conversation came up to day so I had to consult the Oracle and got this:
http://www.abigslice.com/icecreamdifference.html

I also consulted wikipedia for more information on granitas, italian ices, and shave ice.
Here's a nice infographic  on the differences between shave ice and snow cones:
http://www.1-800-shaved-ice.com/chart23.html

In descending order of fat:
Premium Ice Cream 11-16% fat (Elevated had a custom 12% mixture as their base and mix their own flavors.)
Regular Ice Cream 10-11% fat
Economy 10% fat
The source has more distinctions of Ice Cream, but that's enough for me.

Gelato 20% air instead of 60% air (not sure which grade of ice cream)

Sherbet up to 2% fat

Sorbet whipped no fat 

Italian Ice is made the same way as Ice Cream that is mixing while freezing with no fat. 

Granita Varies in texture from smooth to coarse and is made in various ways from mixing to shaving.

Shave Ice shaved from a block with flavoring

Snow Cone crushed ice with flavoring

Motivating Styles Diagram

I was reviewing some old files and ran across this diagram of motivating styles that I made last year.

This is a great way to reinterpret idea of parenting styles. The old narrative about authoritarian versus permissive with some thing moderate in between has always frustrated me. This has the advantage of providing clear behavioral guidelines. Though this is written for teachers I am certain that parent's can adapt them effectively.

Teacher's Guide to Motivation

High Autonomy Support

Nurtures Inner Motivational Resources

* Interest, Enjoyment, Sense of Challenge

* Creates Opportunities for Initiative

Informational Language

* Informational, Flexible

* Provides Choices, Options

* Identifies Value, Meaning, Use, Benefit, Importance of Requests

Acknowledges & Accepts Students’ Negative Affect

* Listens Carefully, Openly, Understandingly

* Accepts Negative Affect, Complaints are OK

Low Autonomy Support

Relies on Extrinsic Sources of Motivation

* Offers Incentives, Consequences, Directives

* Makes Assignments, Seeks Compliance

Controlling Language

* Pressuring, Ego-Involving

* Should, Must, Have to, Got to

* Neglects Value, Meaning, Use, Benefit, Importance of Requests

Counters & Tries to Change Students’ Negative Affect

* Blocks/Counters Expressions of Negative Affect

* Negative Affect is Not OK, Is Unacceptable, Is Something to be Changed/Fixed

During Lesson Introduction

High Structure

Clear, Understandable, Explicit, Detailed Directions

* “What to do” is Clear

* Well Organized

* Frames Upcoming Lesson Well

Low Structure

Absent, Unclear, Ambiguous, Confusing Directions

* “What to do” is Absent, Confusing

* Poorly Organized

* No Clear Frame for Upcoming Lesson

During Lesson

High Structure

Strong Guidance

* Much Guidance, Leadership

* Clear Action Plan, Clear Goal

* Many Control-Establishing Hints

Low Structure

Weak Guidance

* Little Guidance, Leadership

* No Action Plan, No Goal

* Few Control-Establishing Hints

During Feedback

High Structure

Skill-Building, Instructive

* Constructive, Informative

* Competence-Relevant Information

Low Structure

None, Ambiguous

* None, Off-Task, Rambling

* Competence-Irrelevant Information

Source: Jang, H., Reeve, J., & Deci, E. (2010). Engaging students in learning activities: It is not autonomy support or structure but autonomy support and structure. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 588-600.

Almost Advocating Self-Directed Learning

This blog post presents four myths about self-directed learning:
http://www.nureva.com/blog/debunking-4-myths-about-self-directed-learning#comment-388326484
When I pointed out another one in the comments the author posted it. But when I further suggested resources that show how self-direction can be used as the whole enchilada she did not post that comment. So, here it is:

For more substantial examples of self direction in action I suggest you look at democratic schools and unschooling. Instead of just 20% time for self-direction these are more like 100%. When kids of any age are given the opportunity and support to make real decisions for themselves then great things can and do happen.
Links:

This article addresses unschoolers: http://ww2.kqed.org/mindshift/2014/09/02/how-do-unschoolers-turn-out/

This is the website for one of the most well-known democratic schools in the USA http://www.sudval.org/

A Straw Man Against Self-Directed Learning

Journalist Annie Paul Murphy asks, "Are You an Autodidact? Or Do You Need Other People To Learn?" The answer to both of the title questions is yes, despite the author's attempt to suggest they are mutually exclusive. And there is a raft of research supporting that conclusion despite the author's ignorance of that research. The source article is misrepresented and the perspective of the source article is framed as if it represents a comprehensive view of educational psychology, which it is not. There is also a direct contradiction between the premise set at the outset and the final sentence, though this is a trivial issue and nothing more will be said about it. The post seems like it could have made an important point against the assumption of individualist ideology in education, but it currently misses that mark, too.

The source article was specifically addressing internet learning by “digital natives” while this article gives the impression that it is addressed to learning in general. The source article is not generalizable beyond that specific context which I will explain in a moment. Regarding the source of autodidactic learning the author was clearly not aware that there is a large and significant psychological literature going back to the 1970's that can be said to address this issue without using that term. The over-all theoretical framework is called Self-Determination Theory (SDT) and the specific sub-theory that effectively addresses the origins of autodidactic learning is the Basic Psychological Needs Theory (BPNT).

SDT explains the origins of autodidacticism because it starts with the assumption of an active organism. Humans are inherently active organisms. This activity is not random, it is directed by primary or basic needs, including the psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Under conditions in which the primary needs are supported then autodidacticism can be expected to arise. The problem is that all mainstream K-12 schools studied to date since 1979 have been shown to thwart basic primary psychological needs. This includes studies from various theoretical and methodological traditions, not just SDT.*

The non-generalizability of the source article is based on specific research conducted within the SDT tradition that looked at the issue of the mythical contradiction between autonomy and structure**. It turns out that what is necessary is both structure AND autonomy. It helps to understand this finding to know that what counts as autonomy in any given situation is the subject's perception of autonomy not the objective circumstances. What the source article points out is that structured interactions are necessary for effective learning. The authors of the source article essentially arrive at the same conclusion that structure and autonomy are necessary, but their phrasing implies that the objective circumstance of autonomy are what matter. Given a proper understanding of autonomy their statement is slightly misleading and should instead emphasize that students should be given maximum support for their perception of autonomy with appropriately customized structure for their specific levels of development and skill.

As the author concluded all learners are embedded in social systems. The question is how well those social systems support their basic psychological needs. The generalization of the specific lack of structure in certain studies of the effects of structure on learning via the internet to the statement that “the very notion of self-directed learning [is] 'an urban legend in education.'” is grossly misrepresenting the psychology generally and the specific article. In fact, self-directed learning communities are the only schools to have data showing that they support the psychological needs of their students*** (Disclosure: I conducted one of those studies).

The truth is that schools are systems and as a consequence individualism as an assumed ideology**** is detrimental to managing that system properly. School systems have become dysfunctional under the influence of individualist ideology that frames all significant issues in term of the holy trio of students, parents, and teachers and completely ignores the systemic features. This post could have been an important contribution to pointing out how the individualist framing in education is detrimental, but it does not accomplish that purpose in it's current form.

Sources:

* Bouffard, Marcoux, Vezeau, & Bordeleau, 2003; Corpus, McClintic-Gilbert, & Hayenga, 2009; Gottfried, Fleming, & Gottfried, 2001; Harter, 1981; Hunter & Csikszentmihalyi, 2003; Lepper, Corpus, & Iyengar, 2005; Otis Grouzet, & Pelletier, 2005; Pintrich, 2003; Prawat, Grissom, & Parish, 1979; Wigfield, Eccles & Rodriguez, 1998 (Full citations can be found at http://www.teach-kids-attitude-1st.com/intrinsic-motivation-research.html)

** Jang, H., Reeve, J., & Deci, E. Engaging students in learning activities: It is not autonomy support or structure but autonomy support and structure. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 588-600.

*** Berg & Corpus, 2013; Newell & Van Ryzin, 2009; Van Ryzin, Gravelly, & Roseth, 2009; Van Ryzin 2011; Vedder-Weiss & Fortus, 2011 (Full citations can be found at http://www.teach-kids-attitude-1st.com/intrinsic-motivation-research.html)

**** FrameWorks research paper: Reform What? Individualist Thinking in Education: American Cultural Models on Schooling (2008) http://frameworksinstitute.org/toolkits/educationreform/resources/pdf/education_cognitive_interviews.pdf

The original article got wider distribution here:
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/07/ed_tech_promoters_need_to_realize_we_re_not_all_autodidacts.html

What Can Home Schoolers Teach Schools?

It might seem like an odd idea to think that schools can and should learn from home schooling. But, I am a psychological researcher and in 2013 a colleague and I published a paper showing that a home school resource center and a democratic school (similar to A.S. Neill's Summerhill or Sudbury Valley School) accomplished something that all the mainstream public and private schools studied for the last thirty years have not. Those schools maintained the intrinsic motivation of their students. This is particularly important because, first, intrinsic motivation is the gold standards for learning and, second, the levels of intrinsic motivation are an indirect indicator of psychological well-being. They are nurturing their children in ways that mainstream schools do not. My new book is called Every Parent’s Dilemma: Why Do We Ignore Schools That Nurture Children? Other researchers also found similar results for other democratic schools and a charter school network. But home schooling is the largest of these options with an estimated 2 million children in the USA (~4%). The other models are estimated to serve only hundreds or, at best, thousands of children. My book proposes that that our education system should stop ignoring these models by presenting a policy proposal that would lay a groundwork for schools to learn from these types of schools that have pioneered methods of maintaining the intrinsic motivation and engagement of their students. Check out the 3.5 minute video about my book and the crowd funding campaign that ends Saturday (Valentine’s Day) here: http://igg.me/at/parents-dilemma

Education for Entrepreneurship

Yong Zhao, in two of his recent books, points out that we can PREVENT entrepreneurship through high-stakes testing. That is the experience that China, Zhao's native land, has had for about 2000 years. They want more entrepreneurship and are eliminating testing as part of their plan to get it. Professor Zhao, in his book World Class Learners, points to democratic schools like Sudbury Valley School (SVS) as examples of places that do produce entrepreneurs. Based on a study of SVS alumni a friend and I figured that they produce about twice as many entrepreneurs compared to the national average. The study data is only suggestive since it was produced by SVS, but Zhao's exploration of what is required for entrepreneurship makes the claim more credible. SVS does not force children (its a K-12 school) to take any classes. The only requirement is participation in the democratic governance of the community itself. Students of all ages have the opportunity to participate in every aspect of the operations of the school including hiring and firing staff. More importantly they are empowered to make and enforce all the rules that govern day-to-day life. The children are "forced" to be self-directed in their learning due to the lack of traditional instructional requirements but within a democratic social structure that reinforces awareness of how any actions they choose might negatively affect others. Access to resources is explicitly codified so that they understand that if they wanting funding they have to either make a case for being given funds or earn the funds directly by providing value to others. Other types of resources also involve systems that balance access with reasonable preservation of the asset along with management of controversy and safety, if necessary. Another line of evidence from my own work also suggests that democratic schools like SVS and home schoolers provide important supports for students that would lead to more entrepreneurism. I am a psychological researcher and in 2013 a colleague and I published a paper showing that a home school resource center and a democratic school (similar to Sudbury Valley School) accomplished something that all the mainstream public and private schools studied for the last thirty years have not. Those schools maintained the intrinsic motivation of their students. This is important because, first, intrinsic motivation is the gold standards for learning and, second, the levels of intrinsic motivation are an indirect indicator of psychological well-being. Those schools are nurturing their children in ways that mainstream schools do not. The way you get intrinsic motivation is to support students to satisfy their primary needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. For the goal of encouraging entrepreneurship this is critical because entrepreneurs must exhibit a balance of independent thinking (autonomy), ability to act effectively to achieve goals (competence), and fit their ideas, products, or services into the needs of the market (relatedness). I do not have data on entrepreneurship amongst home schoolers, but I suspect it is also higher than the national average. My new book is called Every Parent’s Dilemma: Why Do We Ignore Schools That Nurture Children? Other researchers also found similar results for other democratic schools and a charter school network. But all the models put together serve less that 5% of children in the USA. My book proposes that that our education system should stop ignoring these models by presenting a policy proposal that would lay a groundwork for schools to learn from these types of schools that have pioneered methods of maintaining the intrinsic motivation and engagement of their students. Check out the 3.5 minute video about my book and the crowd funding campaign that ends Saturday (Valentine’s Day, 2015) here: http://igg.me/at/parents-dilemma -- Yong Zhaos Other Recent Book Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Dragon?: Why China Has the Best (and Worst) Education System in the World

Freedom, Schmeedom: Need support is what matters

The following is a post I composed for the democratic education community. For those who are not familiar with democratic schools then you should understand that this movement was known as the "free school movement" in the 60's and 70's. While the name has waned in use there is still a tendency in the schools discussions of what they do to refer to freedom. The post: Talking about freedom may be hurting more than its helping our schools. Democratic schooling has a long rhetorical tradition that has touted “freedom” as a central feature of its pedagogy with many schools including “free” in their names as a marker for it (such as the Village Free School in my area). As a psychological researcher who has done one of only two scientific studies that suggest that democratic schools actually get a measurable and valuable outcome that has never been found in mainstream schools, I contend that the rhetorical gloss of “freedom” obscures more than it clarifies the most educationally important feature of democratic schools. The “freedom” rhetoric is dangerous to the success of democratic schools in two ways. Internally, within schools that are attempting to create “freedom” for children, the term is likely to mislead the community about what is necessary for them to succeed as an educational environment. And it is also likely to mislead parents who are considering democratic schools as an option for their children. The internal problem arises because freedom has a variety of meanings and can be used to defend a variety contradictory positions. For example I refer you to cognitive linguist George Lakoff's book Whose Freedom?: The Battle over America's Most Important Idea which is an exploration of the use of the word freedom in political discourse in the United States. One of the main points is that the extremes of our political field use the same term but mean opposite things with one side emphasizing “freedom to” do things while the other side emphasizes “freedom from” other things. This inherent flexibility leads to a situation in which both sides of a debate are using the same term to mean opposite things and the decision making that follows may devolve into mutual accusations of insanity and a contest of wills instead of authentic consideration of the best interests of the community as a whole. The external problem arises from the same inherent flexibility in the term but hinders effective communication with outsiders who are attempting to figure out what to expect from an institution that would become a major influence on the development of their beloved child if they enroll. In this case the same problem with misunderstanding arises but has another level of complexity with negative outcomes for the school. Independent of whether parents share the same understanding of the term they may in either case disagree that “freedom” is what their child needs. I suggest abandoning the rhetoric of freedom and instead adopting a more scientifically respectable approach to helping everyone understand how education happens in democratic schools. Specifically I suggest that democratic schools adopt the idea that primary human needs are the foundation of education and that democratic schools are especially good at supporting the primary psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. It is also advantageous to point out that no mainstream school has ever been shown to support those needs while two scientific studies published in peer reviewed journals show that democratic schools do. You will notice that autonomy is one of the needs. This is why there is a kernel of truth in the freedom rhetoric. Autonomy is defined as the perception that you are the causal and volitional source of your own activities. Autonomy support is the provision of circumstances that enables a person to have that perception. In the United States and much of the Western world that will mostly look like having choices, while in Asian countries it may not. Thus for us Americans it is easy to fall into the trap of thinking about our autonomy as “freedom.” But this is a mistake because of the slippery slope of ambiguity that the term brings with it. The fact is that the three needs are interdependent and what may look like “freedom” may inhibit relatedness or competence and inadvertently end up being need thwarting. Autonomy support is a very clear set of behaviors. Plus there is a clear opposite, control, that can be described with similar precision. This means that democratic schools can provide parents with a guide to the specific behavioral supports for psychological supports they can expect to see. The schools can also refer to the behavior guidelines to be specific about what makes them special as an educational environment. Support for primary human needs is the foundation of education and democratic schools are one of only three models that have evidence showing they provide that foundation. My new book presents a policy that directly acknowledges primary needs as the foundation of education. Adopting that policy might be a way that democratic schools could clarify for themselves and the world-at-large how they can consistently deliver on the promise of providing an effective environment for education. My crowdfunding campaign for the book ends on Saturday, February 14th, 2015, so, please, check it out: http://igg.me/at/parents-dilemma