Don't bother posting a Colbert link. Address the accusations that have been presented here.
You blamed 'others' for the Giffords shooting.
You were wrong.
Your default world-view is wrong. Every time it comes up. How does that make you feel? Do you ever feel ashamed? Do you ever feel that you must be hanging out with the wrong crowd? Because you are 'hanging out' [electronically, at least] with people that think you are so incredibly wrong, and incredibly consistently so, that they make fun of you. Right in front of your electronic face. How does that feel? Especially in this latest exchange re: the AZ shooting. Pretty much everything you posted was proven wrong by the simplest argument.
Your chorus of believers can't post much more than a 'you go girl'.
oojc/angie/blk/tess/?
Can you help him here? Without a quote from some other person, can you help Mark get his opinion straight? I bet you can't. In your own words, express your support for Mark's position. Ready, set, GO.
There's no such thing as a "wrong" opinion. Mark backs his up with facts quite well. I put a comment along the line of what you are requesting in the Michael Jordan thread and was told "shut the fuck up you stupid cunt." I'm not sure if that was you but there seems to be someone posting here under a bunch of different names. Not sure if it is you so I'll ask you to re-read my comments in that thread which are in my own words in support of Mark. I'd be happy to continue a conversation from that point. Here is what I wrote.
I've read this twice now and have to say it's one of the best pieces you have ever written. The way we interact does change us. Take a look at how texting has changed the way we communicate. Talking to someone is considered weird now and people gripe to me all the time, "Why didn't you just text me that?" I don't know. Maybe it's just that I want to talk to you! Our culture does change as a result of interactions.
The sports thing as well is way out of control. Every football team in my town is as revered as the NFL. Schedules and lives are re-arranged for the games each week. Many people I know operate under the same delusion you are talking about here, Mark. It's all corporate driven and that's the only message that gets through to people in this day and age.
Really Tess? Neither you nor M (nor any other leftie/progressive/liberal here) have yet put up an example of how a rich person fucked you over, for profit or even just for fun.
Perhaps you are as poorly acquainted with facts in general as M sadly is.
No Tess. Don't snip your comments regarding a Mark post, and claim it as your epiphany.
Tess, name a 'worldview' of yours. If you are of the same mindset as Mark, [and how could I possibly know if you are] then I'll pick one of yours for you.
You think that a "rich" person got rich by stealing it from the backs of the working man.
Now please, either make me pick a different premise, or defend 'your' opinion in your own words.
Ready? GO!
p.s. In my opinion, 2+2=5. Is that a wrong opinion?
Well, I'm not sure if Tess wants to go any further but I can tell you, Anon, that I'd like to hear what you think about her comment above. I thought her point about texting in the MJG post was pretty unique. I didn't think of that. So there is a comment that expresses support for me in her own words. Respond to it.
Respond to the idea that some people text more than talk? Umm, sure. What a pithy observation. I was just thinking the same thing the other day, hanging out at the buggy whip factory. "Not so many buggy whips these days", I thought to myself.
Well, at least that's a start. How about taking it to a slightly higher level on Bloom's and synthesizing what she said with my thoughts on MJG? To me, it's another example of how interactions change the way we behave.
How about taking it to a slightly higher level on Bloom's
I hadn't heard of this, so I did a little research. More than you apparently M. Bloom didn't claim the structure was a hierarchy, but a categorization.
The funny thing is, I can just picture Mark screen-flipping from wikipedia to this blog, and framing his comment. He doesn't understand what the words mean -when placed in that order- but he is framing!
Take note of the description above and to the right of the pyramid:
This pyramid depicts the different levels of thinking we use when learning. Notice how each level builds on the foundation that proceeds it. It is required that we lose the lower levels before we can effectively use the levels above it
When looking at Bloom's taxonomy from an educational standpoint, instructors should strive to not simply relay knowledge or comprehension of a particular topic but move towards application, analyses, synthesis and evaluation. The latter of these skills are key to critical thinking. Let's take the example of the Bay of Pigs incident as an illustration.
Knowledge: Where is the Bay of Pigs? What date did the Bay of Pigs incident occur? Who was President?
Comprehension: Briefly explain the Bay of Pigs incident. What facts or ideas show that it was a foreign policy failure for the US?
Application: What facts from this event would you choose to illustrate constraints on foreign policy decision making (satisficing, prospect theory, procedural rationality)
Analysis: Why do you think the Bay of Pigs incident is considered a foreign policy failure? (looking for an answer here that contains an explanation of groupthink)
Synthesis: How would solve the problem if you were President Kennedy? What would you have done differently?
Evaluation: Do you agree with President Kennedy's actions? Why or why not? How would your prioritize the facts differently from President Kennedy?
I have used this as part of unit in the past. So, as you can see, it is a hierarchy if you are looking at it in the cognitive domain. There is also a hierarchy in the affective domain as well. It's very rudimentary and limiting if you only know people, places and dates. Enduring understandings come from operating on the higher levels. I In the case of this example, operating on the higher levels offer a width of vision of a foreign policy failure. I have used the instructional strategy of global simulation/role playing many times with this topic and it speaks to these higher levels of Bloom's.
So, instead of a quip about a buggy whip factory, how about a comment or two about how texting has allowed people to be more insular and, thus, socially awkward (analysis). This awkwardness could lead to problems later in life during a job interview, for example (evaluation). How has the interaction of texting changed our behavior and how does it relate to Mark's ideas about MJG? (synthesis and evaluation).
Interesting that you make the quip about Wikipedia, Anon. I'm not certain of this but if juris did go check out it out there, the first section is indeed about Bloom's original work on domains. Scrolling down, one can see a more detailed description of the domains and how they were intended. In addition, they were intended to be modified to meet the specifications of a variety of disciplines. Where did you do your research, juris? This is a topic I have been interested in for over 25 years. It's the basis for how I achieve enduring understandings. I'd be keen to read any additional info you have on the subject.
Do your own Google-ing M and show me. Isn't that your standard line. How fun to put the shoe on the other foot. [And to really complete the role reversal, I'll put up links that don't support the point I'm making.]
See my comment under the diagram itself. But quite frankly I'm not interested in discussing it further, least of all until you step back up to our earlier (on-going) discussions.
His taxonomy appears to be an awfully flexible structure. I guess you see in it what you wish to see - how appropriate for you.
Yes, it is flexible because that's the way he intended it.
But quite frankly I'm not interested in discussing it further
I would like a retraction of this comment
One more thing you fucked up on.
because it's clear that I did not fuck up. Why is it so hard for you to admit that I may have more knowledge than you do on a few subjects? I have no problem admitting that you know more the law than I do. I have no problem admitting that some of the engineers that post here know a great deal more than I do about engineering, math, and science.
But that narrative doesn't extend to me for the usual reasons (winning the argument, never admitting fault, adolescent power fantasies) and that really is too bad. I do, in fact, have a great deal of knowledge in education, psychology, sociology, history, and political science. You simply don't like what I have to say regarding these subjects (emotional reaction) and so I must be stupid.
What's even more ironic is that operating on the higher levels of Bloom's means critical thinking...a goal that seems lost based on the general theme of your posts.
Isn't that what he wanted, though? Evaluation is a key component to critical thinking...especially evaluation that is clear of bias.
I've apologized to you in the past, juris, and I will do so in the future, I'm sure. I've never personally attacked you even though you have with me on several occasions. In short, I am much kinder to you than you are to me and will be that way forever.
16 comments:
Don't bother posting a Colbert link. Address the accusations that have been presented here.
You blamed 'others' for the Giffords shooting.
You were wrong.
Your default world-view is wrong. Every time it comes up. How does that make you feel? Do you ever feel ashamed? Do you ever feel that you must be hanging out with the wrong crowd? Because you are 'hanging out' [electronically, at least] with people that think you are so incredibly wrong, and incredibly consistently so, that they make fun of you. Right in front of your electronic face. How does that feel? Especially in this latest exchange re: the AZ shooting. Pretty much everything you posted was proven wrong by the simplest argument.
Your chorus of believers can't post much more than a 'you go girl'.
oojc/angie/blk/tess/?
Can you help him here? Without a quote from some other person, can you help Mark get his opinion straight? I bet you can't. In your own words, express your support for Mark's position. Ready, set, GO.
I'm waiting.
There's no such thing as a "wrong" opinion. Mark backs his up with facts quite well. I put a comment along the line of what you are requesting in the Michael Jordan thread and was told "shut the fuck up you stupid cunt." I'm not sure if that was you but there seems to be someone posting here under a bunch of different names. Not sure if it is you so I'll ask you to re-read my comments in that thread which are in my own words in support of Mark. I'd be happy to continue a conversation from that point. Here is what I wrote.
I've read this twice now and have to say it's one of the best pieces you have ever written. The way we interact does change us. Take a look at how texting has changed the way we communicate. Talking to someone is considered weird now and people gripe to me all the time, "Why didn't you just text me that?" I don't know. Maybe it's just that I want to talk to you! Our culture does change as a result of interactions.
The sports thing as well is way out of control. Every football team in my town is as revered as the NFL. Schedules and lives are re-arranged for the games each week. Many people I know operate under the same delusion you are talking about here, Mark. It's all corporate driven and that's the only message that gets through to people in this day and age.
Thanks to oojc for showing us how to italicize!
Mark backs his up with facts quite well.
Really Tess? Neither you nor M (nor any other leftie/progressive/liberal here) have yet put up an example of how a rich person fucked you over, for profit or even just for fun.
Perhaps you are as poorly acquainted with facts in general as M sadly is.
You're welcome, Tess.
No Tess. Don't snip your comments regarding a Mark post, and claim it as your epiphany.
Tess, name a 'worldview' of yours. If you are of the same mindset as Mark, [and how could I possibly know if you are] then I'll pick one of yours for you.
You think that a "rich" person got rich by stealing it from the backs of the working man.
Now please, either make me pick a different premise, or defend 'your' opinion in your own words.
Ready? GO!
p.s. In my opinion, 2+2=5. Is that a wrong opinion?
Well, I'm not sure if Tess wants to go any further but I can tell you, Anon, that I'd like to hear what you think about her comment above. I thought her point about texting in the MJG post was pretty unique. I didn't think of that. So there is a comment that expresses support for me in her own words. Respond to it.
Respond to the idea that some people text more than talk? Umm, sure. What a pithy observation. I was just thinking the same thing the other day, hanging out at the buggy whip factory. "Not so many buggy whips these days", I thought to myself.
Well, at least that's a start. How about taking it to a slightly higher level on Bloom's and synthesizing what she said with my thoughts on MJG? To me, it's another example of how interactions change the way we behave.
How about taking it to a slightly higher level on Bloom's
I hadn't heard of this, so I did a little research. More than you apparently M. Bloom didn't claim the structure was a hierarchy, but a categorization.
One more thing you fucked up on.
The funny thing is, I can just picture Mark screen-flipping from wikipedia to this blog, and framing his comment. He doesn't understand what the words mean -when placed in that order- but he is framing!
I'm probably wrong, I'm just saying it's funny.
I'm very comfortable in discussing Bloom's Taxonomy. In fact, if both of you would like, we can clog up this thread for however long you see fit.
I took the liberty of uploading a photo to the blog that we can use as a reference point.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_zSktzKGEi4g/TTM337JfAuI/AAAAAAAABMs/3D1aGWKMKEo/s1600/bltax.gif
Take note of the description above and to the right of the pyramid:
This pyramid depicts the different levels of thinking we use when learning. Notice how each level builds on the foundation that proceeds it. It is required that we lose the lower levels before we can effectively use the levels above it
When looking at Bloom's taxonomy from an educational standpoint, instructors should strive to not simply relay knowledge or comprehension of a particular topic but move towards application, analyses, synthesis and evaluation. The latter of these skills are key to critical thinking. Let's take the example of the Bay of Pigs incident as an illustration.
Knowledge: Where is the Bay of Pigs? What date did the Bay of Pigs incident occur? Who was President?
Comprehension: Briefly explain the Bay of Pigs incident. What facts or ideas show that it was a foreign policy failure for the US?
Application: What facts from this event would you choose to illustrate constraints on foreign policy decision making (satisficing, prospect theory, procedural rationality)
Analysis: Why do you think the Bay of Pigs incident is considered a foreign policy failure? (looking for an answer here that contains an explanation of groupthink)
Synthesis: How would solve the problem if you were President Kennedy? What would you have done differently?
Evaluation: Do you agree with President Kennedy's actions? Why or why not? How would your prioritize the facts differently from President Kennedy?
I have used this as part of unit in the past. So, as you can see, it is a hierarchy if you are looking at it in the cognitive domain. There is also a hierarchy in the affective domain as well. It's very rudimentary and limiting if you only know people, places and dates. Enduring understandings come from operating on the higher levels. I In the case of this example, operating on the higher levels offer a width of vision of a foreign policy failure. I have used the instructional strategy of global simulation/role playing many times with this topic and it speaks to these higher levels of Bloom's.
So, instead of a quip about a buggy whip factory, how about a comment or two about how texting has allowed people to be more insular and, thus, socially awkward (analysis). This awkwardness could lead to problems later in life during a job interview, for example (evaluation). How has the interaction of texting changed our behavior and how does it relate to Mark's ideas about MJG? (synthesis and evaluation).
Interesting that you make the quip about Wikipedia, Anon. I'm not certain of this but if juris did go check out it out there, the first section is indeed about Bloom's original work on domains. Scrolling down, one can see a more detailed description of the domains and how they were intended. In addition, they were intended to be modified to meet the specifications of a variety of disciplines. Where did you do your research, juris? This is a topic I have been interested in for over 25 years. It's the basis for how I achieve enduring understandings. I'd be keen to read any additional info you have on the subject.
Do your own Google-ing M and show me. Isn't that your standard line. How fun to put the shoe on the other foot. [And to really complete the role reversal, I'll put up links that don't support the point I'm making.]
See my comment under the diagram itself. But quite frankly I'm not interested in discussing it further, least of all until you step back up to our earlier (on-going) discussions.
Haha... don't bother 'clogging' anything up, Mark. You win something I'm sure.
So, Tess. Us grown-ups were talking a minute ago... Talk to me.
His taxonomy appears to be an awfully flexible structure. I guess you see in it what you wish to see - how appropriate for you.
Yes, it is flexible because that's the way he intended it.
But quite frankly I'm not interested in discussing it further
I would like a retraction of this comment
One more thing you fucked up on.
because it's clear that I did not fuck up. Why is it so hard for you to admit that I may have more knowledge than you do on a few subjects? I have no problem admitting that you know more the law than I do. I have no problem admitting that some of the engineers that post here know a great deal more than I do about engineering, math, and science.
But that narrative doesn't extend to me for the usual reasons (winning the argument, never admitting fault, adolescent power fantasies) and that really is too bad. I do, in fact, have a great deal of knowledge in education, psychology, sociology, history, and political science. You simply don't like what I have to say regarding these subjects (emotional reaction) and so I must be stupid.
What's even more ironic is that operating on the higher levels of Bloom's means critical thinking...a goal that seems lost based on the general theme of your posts.
I would like a retraction of this comment
Fair enough, it was uncalled for. I should've just stated the fact - that Bloom's approach was not strictly hierarchical.
Now, will you ever apologize for any of the bountiful mis-characterizations and/or outright lies you've posted about my positions?
What's even more ironic is that operating on the higher levels of Bloom's means critical thinking
You mean like adapting a theory to fit with the observed data? You might just choke on that you know.
Isn't that what he wanted, though? Evaluation is a key component to critical thinking...especially evaluation that is clear of bias.
I've apologized to you in the past, juris, and I will do so in the future, I'm sure. I've never personally attacked you even though you have with me on several occasions. In short, I am much kinder to you than you are to me and will be that way forever.
Post a Comment