As the OECD prepares its 2025 PISA assessment, a new 'critical' component of science evaluation has been added to facilitate the brainwashing of students and render them all activists
Yikes 😬 That missive given by the brainwasher at the end is the worst pandering I have seen by a PhD "expert" in her own mind. Not even well structured research in the realm of social science statistics. Thematic Review. Truly the publishers must be desperate to placate their owners.
Ah, you see, these 'journals™' are owned by conglomerates, and they make money by having university libraries buy subscriptions to packages. Once such a library is told to acquire this or that journal or book series, they'll do it without asking further question.
That request comes from the same people who publish in these 'journals™' or book series, hence they have a vested, if 'scholarly™' interest in libraries buying these products.
What's arguably way, way worse is that these people 'train™' primary and secondary school teachers--with their batshit 'ideas™', which is to say that these teacher-students then impart these ideas, concepts, etc. into your children.
(As to academic publishing, well, that should be expanded to include what's called 'Open Access' publications, which means that authors fork over money for their piece being available 'freely' on the internet--most scholarly work occurs in public universities to begin with, and 'Open Access' thus removes the incentive for publishers to produce high-quality output as there's no risk attached to anything.)
If taken as true (which it objectively speaking is, given how the brain functions) then whatever you do, you get better at doing. Which by the by is what AI and machinelearning is based on too.
The question then instead becomes: "What do you want children (in this case) to become better at?"
And since morals and ethics too are learned behaviours, and these inform our System 1/2-decision making processes (after Kahneman) - by having children repeat behaviours coupled with moral instruction on the (in)correctness of said behaviours we shape them for the rest of their lives.
(The above can be summed up as reinventing the wheel, something I doubt Trott understand she is doing.)
"Teach a boy how to walk, and when a man he will not stray from the path" is what, 2 500 years old or more a saying?
What the Trotts of the world empathically do not want, is them being challenged on the contents of these learned moral patterns of behaviour/thought, nor who is to be the one teaching them to the children.
"What gives you the right?" and similar questions, which they must be asked in public, before a forum or in quorum (we know full well why they want "safe spaces" and censorship: no debate, since they know deep down that most people reject their ideas and ideals) so that they can figuratively horsewhipped, mocked and scorned.
Yikes 😬 That missive given by the brainwasher at the end is the worst pandering I have seen by a PhD "expert" in her own mind. Not even well structured research in the realm of social science statistics. Thematic Review. Truly the publishers must be desperate to placate their owners.
Ah, you see, these 'journals™' are owned by conglomerates, and they make money by having university libraries buy subscriptions to packages. Once such a library is told to acquire this or that journal or book series, they'll do it without asking further question.
That request comes from the same people who publish in these 'journals™' or book series, hence they have a vested, if 'scholarly™' interest in libraries buying these products.
What's arguably way, way worse is that these people 'train™' primary and secondary school teachers--with their batshit 'ideas™', which is to say that these teacher-students then impart these ideas, concepts, etc. into your children.
(As to academic publishing, well, that should be expanded to include what's called 'Open Access' publications, which means that authors fork over money for their piece being available 'freely' on the internet--most scholarly work occurs in public universities to begin with, and 'Open Access' thus removes the incentive for publishers to produce high-quality output as there's no risk attached to anything.)
I wonder if Trott would agree with:
(Every experience is a learning-experience]
If taken as true (which it objectively speaking is, given how the brain functions) then whatever you do, you get better at doing. Which by the by is what AI and machinelearning is based on too.
The question then instead becomes: "What do you want children (in this case) to become better at?"
And since morals and ethics too are learned behaviours, and these inform our System 1/2-decision making processes (after Kahneman) - by having children repeat behaviours coupled with moral instruction on the (in)correctness of said behaviours we shape them for the rest of their lives.
(The above can be summed up as reinventing the wheel, something I doubt Trott understand she is doing.)
"Teach a boy how to walk, and when a man he will not stray from the path" is what, 2 500 years old or more a saying?
What the Trotts of the world empathically do not want, is them being challenged on the contents of these learned moral patterns of behaviour/thought, nor who is to be the one teaching them to the children.
"What gives you the right?" and similar questions, which they must be asked in public, before a forum or in quorum (we know full well why they want "safe spaces" and censorship: no debate, since they know deep down that most people reject their ideas and ideals) so that they can figuratively horsewhipped, mocked and scorned.
Hopefully, inducing positive change within them.