#psychology scientific research

[melancholyghoul]

I mentioned writing my paper on crime reduction about hate crimes against trans people to my lecturer because I obviously think about it all the time and he said none of his students have ever written a paper focused on trans people and that he'd be excited to read it

Great and all but finding enough references is going to be a nightmare, it's so niche and so under researched that my usual ~10 for a 1500 word report is going to be a stretch

Proves that it's even more necessary though

[tallysgreatestfan]

Interesting study about ableism in autism research done by an autistic psychologist that I found linked on their twitter.

Main variables it uses are "autistic researcher vs not-autistic researcher", "researcher uses medical model vs uses social model" and "ableist cues present vs not present". Simplified, it tries to find out if the first two things correlate with the last one and how.

Two disturbing details are that the more time spent in autism research, the more ableist the researcher typically gets, not less (though this might not necessarily mean radicalization but could just come from progress in the field in the last years, if I read it right it was not specified), and that having an autistic family member typically does not lower the chance of the researchers work being ableist.

Participants highlighted that research often set autistic people up to fail, or was shaped in such a way that resulted in autistic people always being viewed as deficient: “We know so much (though really, still so little) about non-autistic cognition, interaction, and perception. But comparatively little about autistic people and what research we do have is often from the perspective that autistic people are “worse” at whatever it is than non-autistic people. More work needs to be done to develop tests and measures that aren’t predisposed to “fail” autistic people” (ID111).

Another really interesting thing I never before noticed conscioually but that makes a scary amount of sense is a detail in the language these researchers use: Ableist researchers refer to "autism" as this amorphous idea that needs to be eradicated, in that process, they don't see the actual people and they don't see any of their human traits or individuality. If they refer to "autistic people", they are forced to see that their subjects are indeed people, humans, and that autism is part of them and you can't eradicate it without eradicating these humans or at least fundamentally harm them.

Generally, and again, this is something every single autistic person would know already, but we need these kind of studies to proof neurotypicals/those in power that this is actually true, because they don't believe minorities otherwise: Around 60% of autism research showed ableist cues.

[omegaphilosophia]

Rigorous Methods of Inquiry and Their Role in Achieving Objectivity

Rigorous methods of inquiry are systematic approaches to investigation that aim to eliminate bias, enhance reliability, and allow us to achieve objectivity in our understanding of the world. These methods are used across disciplines, from philosophy to science, and each method emphasizes a set of standards that help ensure conclusions are as objective and valid as possible.

Here are some key rigorous methods of inquiry and how they contribute to objectivity:

1. Empiricism (Empirical Method)

Description: Empiricism is the method of acquiring knowledge through direct observation or experimentation. It emphasizes the collection of data through sensory experience, particularly in the natural sciences.

Contribution to Objectivity:

Data-Driven: Empiricism relies on observable and measurable evidence, reducing reliance on subjective opinions or personal biases.

Reproducibility: Findings must be reproducible by others, ensuring that the knowledge is not based on individual interpretations.

Falsifiability: Theories are tested and must be falsifiable, meaning they can be proven wrong if evidence contradicts them. This constant testing refines and improves knowledge, moving it toward objective truth.

2. Rationalism (Deductive Method)

Description: Rationalism involves reasoning and logic to derive knowledge, particularly through the deductive method. It involves starting with general principles and drawing specific conclusions from them.

Contribution to Objectivity:

Internal Consistency: Logic is independent of personal experience and can be universally applied. The emphasis on logical consistency helps ensure that conclusions follow from premises without bias.

Clarity in Argumentation: Deductive reasoning breaks complex problems into smaller, well-defined parts, helping eliminate subjective assumptions.

Mathematical and Philosophical Proofs: Formal systems in mathematics and logic are often considered paradigms of objectivity because they rely on clear, universal rules.

3. Scientific Method

Description: The scientific method is a process that involves making observations, forming hypotheses, conducting experiments, and analyzing results to draw conclusions. It combines both empirical and rational methods.

Contribution to Objectivity:

Controlled Experiments: By controlling variables, researchers can isolate specific factors and establish causal relationships, limiting external biases.

Peer Review: Scientific findings are subject to scrutiny and validation by the wider scientific community, ensuring that personal biases of individual researchers are minimized.

Statistical Analysis: The use of statistical methods allows for the quantification of uncertainty and the identification of patterns that are more likely to reflect objective reality than random chance.

4. Phenomenology

Description: Phenomenology is the study of subjective experience and consciousness. It involves a rigorous analysis of how things appear to us, but with careful reflection on how these perceptions relate to reality.

Contribution to Objectivity:

Bracketing: In phenomenology, "bracketing" is the practice of setting aside personal biases, assumptions, and presuppositions to focus purely on the phenomena being experienced. This helps eliminate subjective distortions in the investigation of consciousness and experience.

Universal Structures of Experience: While phenomenology studies subjective experiences, it aims to identify structures of experience that are common across individuals, providing insights that transcend personal perspective.

5. Critical Thinking and Analytical Philosophy

Description: Critical thinking involves rigorous analysis, evaluation of evidence, and the logical assessment of arguments. Analytical philosophy, a branch of philosophy, uses precise argumentation and linguistic clarity to assess philosophical problems.

Contribution to Objectivity:

Identifying Fallacies: By learning to identify logical fallacies and cognitive biases, critical thinking reduces the influence of faulty reasoning on conclusions.

Clear Definitions: In analytic philosophy, precision in language helps to clarify concepts and avoid ambiguities that could lead to subjective misinterpretations.

Systematic Doubt: By questioning assumptions and systematically doubting unverified beliefs, critical thinking helps individuals avoid dogma and achieve more objective conclusions.

6. Historical Method

Description: The historical method involves the critical examination of historical sources, contextualizing information within a time period, and synthesizing narratives based on evidence.

Contribution to Objectivity:

Source Criticism: Historians critically assess the reliability, bias, and perspective of sources, weighing them against one another to form a balanced, objective view of historical events.

Triangulation of Evidence: By using multiple sources and comparing them, historians reduce reliance on any one biased or incomplete account, moving closer to an objective understanding of history.

Contextualization: Placing events in their proper historical context helps avoid presentism (judging the past by modern standards) and enhances objectivity by understanding events within their own framework.

7. Hermeneutics

Description: Hermeneutics is the study of interpretation, particularly of texts. It involves analyzing and interpreting language, meaning, and context, commonly used in fields such as theology, literature, and law.

Contribution to Objectivity:

Interpretive Framework: Hermeneutics encourages the awareness of the interpreter's own biases, enabling a more reflective and critical approach to understanding texts.

Contextual Sensitivity: By emphasizing the importance of context, hermeneutics helps ensure that interpretations are not anachronistic or overly influenced by the interpreter’s preconceptions.

Dialectical Process: It involves a dialogue between the reader and the text, promoting a balanced, evolving understanding that seeks to approximate objectivity.

8. Game Theory and Decision Theory

Description: These methods involve mathematical models of decision-making, often under conditions of uncertainty. Game theory examines strategies in competitive situations, while decision theory studies rational choices.

Contribution to Objectivity:

Rational Decision-Making: By using formal models, these methods help individuals make decisions that are logically consistent and optimal given the available information, removing subjective impulses.

Objective Payoffs and Strategies: Game theory provides objective tools to analyze strategies that lead to optimal outcomes, independent of personal preferences or biases.

9. Quantitative and Qualitative Research

Description: Quantitative research uses numerical data and statistical methods to find patterns and correlations, while qualitative research explores meanings, experiences, and narratives in a more interpretive manner.

Contribution to Objectivity:

Quantitative Research: The use of large datasets and statistical analysis minimizes individual biases, offering a more objective understanding of phenomena. Methods like random sampling and control groups add rigor to research findings.

Qualitative Research: While more interpretive, qualitative research can still strive for objectivity through triangulation, thick descriptions, and transparency in the research process.

Rigorous methods of inquiry, from empiricism and rationalism to critical thinking and statistical analysis, provide frameworks that enhance objectivity by reducing personal bias, improving reproducibility, and systematically analyzing evidence. Each method contributes to objective understanding by ensuring that conclusions are not shaped by subjective perspectives or unverified assumptions, and instead rely on clear, structured, and replicable processes. These methods are indispensable in fields ranging from science to philosophy and help us approach truth in a methodical, unbiased manner.

[ginger-education]

Intro!

Back to navigation!

Hello! I'm Kayde, I also go by Ginger and Maple! My pronouns are She/her!

I'm 18 years old, my birthday is October 3rd.

I'm a trans woman as well as pansexual!

My discord is dandelion713

Here are some of the things I'm passionate about learning! (In no particular order)

Social Sciences (Archeology, geography, anthropology, psychology, sociology, political science)

Natural Sciences (Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Earth Science (Geology, Mineralogy), and Space Science)

Formal Sciences (Statistics, Mathematics)

Professional Sciences (Education, Medicine, Public Policy, Law, Journalism, Architecture, Transportation)

Humanities (History, Religious Studies, Literature, Art, Philosophy, Linguistics)

And I'll add more to this as I think of more!

[queenoftheashes]

Please participate in my psychology scientific research - Should our leaders be psychologically tested before occupying positions of power?

Hello and good evening, I'm doing a scientific research for my uni and I need your responses - it's a one question questionnaire and the only info I require is your name/initials(whatever you want to give is what I'll take) and your country of residence. What I aim to demonstrate is that regardless of where we come from, we all have and share a similar need - for our political leaders to be FIT to lead. Thank you so very much and please share and help an academic girl out!

[merriclo]

sometimes when you read about behavioral psychology you learn some incredibly fascinating things that you never would’ve thought about otherwise and your entire perception of yourself and how you behave is changed. and then other times you sit there like well yeah. duh. you didn’t need to spend years doing experiments to figure that shit out.

[femkethefaineant]

Really, this was made by professionals? Dont get me wrong, it's a fun test, but it pretends to be something it's not. Well, there's a tiny disclaimer about 'online' and 'educational purposes only' but really, the internet is not the problem here and this test can't educate anyone. It's pure entertainment. And the majority of the front-page does outline that this test thinks it's trustworthy and scientific etc.

Like, it implies it's based on a phd and refers to previous writings. The sources are a garbled mess, it's not even clear where one reference ends and another begins. At least two references are by the same people that made this website. That's not a source. One is the same test but in Spanish. That's not a source. It can therefore not be concluded that this test has any basis in scientific consensus.

Second, it claims to "deliver a clear picture of the respondent's current food sensitivity according to standardized systems" and "ensure maximum accuracy and validity of the test scores". How? Those standardized systems, I already said, don't have a proper visible source. And this test most definitely does not control for other factors.

Like, the question about a roast pig on a spit. Does it disgust you because you dislike dead animals in general? Because you kept a pet pig, or because your religion says not to eat pork? Or maybe because a spit out in the open is unhygienic, independent of its contents? There is no way to tell on this test. I answered that I would not eat a browning avocado, and the test confidently concluded I must be disgusted by rotting fruit. It's wrong, I'm disgusted by avocados.

It's also unclear if the test cares about health. I answered that I would not eat moldy bread, because I know it is invisible but still present in the entire thing. Cutting off mold from bread will make you sick. Is that what they meant by 'sickening' in another question? Unclear. I would also not drink from someone elses glass because there's a whooping cough epidemic in town. But I can't tell the test, I can just say I do or I don't and then it decides for me that it must be disgust. In short, this test cannot accurately measure disgust based only on whether you would actually eat something without even attempting to measure why.

Lastly, the statistical controls. How will they control for mistakes? The questions are inconsistent. Sometimes it asks 'I would not mind', sometimes 'it's sickening', sometimes 'I would eat'. A statistical error might occur if too many people intuitively used the answering mechanic (thumbs up or down) to note how okay they are with the thing mentioned, instead of navigating the negatives in the questions. Without any measures to counter this, you can only control based on previous knowledge of what the question was about - which is the very thing you're trying to measure.

All these things can be easily fixed. Consistent positive phrasing comes to mind, but also control questions, like 'I would eat bread' or being able to skip a question and/or give a reason to not eat something. Also make your list of sources an actual list of actual sources.

So this test is a fun gimmick but it's definitely not as scientific as it claims to be. It can measure disgust for fun internet polls but it cannot make trustworthy empirical claims. And that's not wrong, not everything has to be watertight and error-proof, but if it wants to be, it does have to at least try.

[consuetudinari0]

Exploring Mind Control: Ethics and Implications

The mind is a complex and multifaceted aspect of human consciousness and cognition. It encompasses various mental processes such as thoughts, perceptions, emotions, memories, and reasoning abilities.

[thegirlwithataser]

It’s so important to understand that researchers are human and therefore cannot escape their own biases even when they think they can.

This isn’t about weight loss or exercise, but I recently had to review and break down a relatively well known experimental study in social psychology and the data was so obviously saying that the researchers’ initial hypothesis was incorrect, or at the very least, the data did not support their hypothesis.

So much so that they ran the experiment four times with both small and large changes to the methodology to figure it out. In the end, their manipulations in the experiment resulted in data that less dramatically indicated that their hypothesis was false, but still did not provide evidence that their hypothesis was true.

Guess what happened. While discussing the results, they provided possible explanations (guesses, essentially) for why the data wasn’t supporting their hypothesis. From that, they drew the conclusion that because the data wasn’t a flashing “YOU ARE WRONG” sign in their face and was instead just saying “Hey you might not be correct here” that their hypothesis was supported by the data, just to a lesser degree than they’d initially predicted.

The thing is, it wasn’t. I’m not going to purport myself as an expert in the field, but I’m finishing out an honors degree and the data was not difficult to understand. Their study did not provide evidence to support their hypothesis, but because of their preconceived biases on both the topic and their own work, they drew the conclusion that it was, and if you only read their discussion on the data, you would believe it too.

Please understand that researchers are susceptible to bias just like everyone else. To understand research you have to learn to understand data and draw conclusions from that, not just what the researchers are telling you about it.

Me: Exercise does not cause weight loss. This is a fact that has been demonstrated so robustly in research that even doctors, who hate and fear evidence, are grudgingly starting to admit this.

Someone reading that post: Cool, but have you considered that exercise leads to weight loss?

Me: I am going to eat you

[mental-mona]

Some of this is actually useful for understanding autism and how to help autistic people and neurotypical people understand each other better. Some of this seems to be more along the lines of "big news, we found that autistic people feel human emotions!" I know that "water is wet" type studies are sometimes necessary, but it's disturbing that this one was actually needed in the year 2024.

[grunclepeepaw]

Does your ex really love you like they keep claiming? Make them prove it

[fanciedfacts]

Is it true that either you're right brain or left brain dominant?

[arayapendragon]

dr. jacobo grinberg, the scientist who went missing for researching shifting 🗝️

the man, the myth, the legend. being a keen enthusiast of the human brain from a young age, dr. jacobo grinberg was a mexican neurophysiologist and psychologist who delved into the depths of human consciousness, meditation, mexican shamanism and aimed to establish links between science and spirituality. 

grinberg's theories and research can be tied to reality shifting, seeing as he explored the fusion of quantum physics and occultism. being not only heavily established in the field of psychology but also a prolific writer, he wrote about 50 books on such topics. he was a firm believer of the idea that human consciousness possesses hidden and powerful abilities like telepathy, psychic power and astral projection. 

the unfortunate loss of his mother to a brain tumour when he was only twelve not only fuelled his interest in the human brain but also pushed him to study it on a deeper level, making it his life’s aim. 

he went on to earn a phd in psychophysiology, established his own laboratory and even founded the instituto para el estudio de la conciencia - the national institute for the study of consciousness. 

despite sharing groundbreaking and revolutionary ideas, his proposals were rejected by the scientific community due to the inclusion of shamanism and metaphysical aspects. on december 8th, 1994, he went missing just before his 48th birthday. grinberg vanished without a trace, leaving people thoroughly perplexed about his whereabouts. some believe he was silenced, while others believe he discovered something so powerful and revolutionary that changed the entire course of reality, or well, his reality. 

grinberg's work was heavily influenced by karl pribram and david bohm's contributions to the holographic theory of consciousness, which suggests that reality functions the same way as a hologram does. meaning, reality exists as a vast, interconnected macrocosm. it even suggests that all realities exist among this holographic structure. 

lastly, it also proposes that the brain does not perceive reality, rather actively creates it through tuning into different frequencies of existence. 

this not only proves the multiverse theory (infinite realities exist), but also the consciousness theory (we don’t observe reality, but instead create it). 

grinberg’s most notable contribution was the syntergic theory, which states that, “there exists a “syntergic” field, a universal, non-local field of consciousness that interacts with the human brain." - david franco.

this theory also stated that 

the syntergic field is a fundamental and foundational layer of reality that contains all possible experiences and states of consciousness.

the brain doesn’t generate consciousness, it instead acts as a receiver and its neural networks collapse the syntergic field into a coherent and structured reality. 

reality is created, not observed. 

we can access different variations of reality (which is the very essence of shifting realities)

the syntergic theory is even in congruence with the universal consciousness theory (all minds are interconnected as a part of a whole, entire consciousness that encompasses all living beings in the universe). 

grinberg concluded that 

all minds are connected through the syntergic field 

this field can be accessed and manipulated by metaphysical and spiritual practices, altered states of consciousness and deep meditation. 

in conclusion, the syntergic theory proposes that our consciousness is not a mere byproduct of the brain, but rather a fundamental force of the universe. 

grinberg was far ahead of his time, and even 31 years after his disappearance, the true nature of reality remains a mystery. regardless, the syntergic theory helps provide insight and a new perspective on how we access and influence reality. 

summary of grinberg’s findings:

the brain constructs reality 

other realities exist and can be experienced

other states of consciousness exist and can be experienced 

consciousness is not limited 

all minds are connected through the syntergic field 

shamanic, spiritual, metaphysical and meditative practices can alter and influence our perception of reality. 

some of grinberg's works that can be associated with shifting:

el cerebro consciente

la creación de la experiencia

teoría sintérgica

[drdemonprince]

Most healthcare institutions will resort to physical force, restraint, drugs, guilt, theft of personal property, forced nudity, and denial of privacy in the pursuit of prolonging a life. This despite the heaps of scientific evidence showing involuntary hospitalization increases distress and the desire for suicide. Being held in a psychiatric institution has been shown to raise a person’s risk of suicide by 100 fold — including among patients who weren’t suicidal before they got locked up. That’s largely because of the trauma of losing one’s freedom.

Suicidal intention is at its root a longing for escape — and you don’t ease that longing by giving a person more to escape from. 

But there are alternatives. It actually is possible to respect the bodily freedom of a suicidal person while still providing them comfort and aid that could prolong their life. We can make peace with our inability to control another person’s destiny and mourn the potential loss of them while sitting with them in their suffering. 

We don’t have to run away from our own hopelessness and thoughts of suicide while we do this. either. And we may find that frank, accepting, and even mundane discussions of suicide will do both us and our suicidal friends a whole lot of good. 

For this piece, I spoke to dozens of suicidal people, read harm reductionist guides on supporting the suicidal, examined the psychological research literature on the subject, and mined my own life experiences for any wisdom I could find. Based on all these resources, here is my advice for supporting people who are suicidal — no matter what. 

I wrote a big long guide to supporting the suicidal, which you can read (or have narrated to you!) for free here.

[eternlmoonshine]

theoretical knowledge vs. practical application ☆ spencer reid

summary: spencer studies intimacy like any other subject, but nothing prepares him for the reality of being with you. in your arms, he finally learns that some things can’t be understood- only experienced. pairing: inexperienced!spencer reid x reader warnings: fluff galore, lots of kissing (practically making out), intimacy, but no explicit sexual content! wc: 1.1k masterlist. a/n: this brilliant idea came from my very lovely moot @/jackiesistired over on twitter <33

Spencer had read five books about kissing.

Not just any books, no. They were scientific, psychology-based books that broke down the act of kissing into its most basic neurological, physiological, and psychological components. He’d also skipped numerous peer-reviewed journal articles, and, at some point, had managed to venture into less scientific territory- modern dating guides that made his skin crawl but ultimately did provide insight into what people expected in relationships.

And then, there was the… other research.

The kind that led to him sitting in front of his laptop at 3 a.m., his ears burning as he read about intimacy in ways he hadn’t yet experienced. He took notes. Intricate organized, handwritten notes in which he annotated his key findings, storing them away like highly classified information.

But all of it- all of the extensive research- meant absolutely nothing the moment your lips crashed against his.

⊱ ───────── {⋅. ✯ .⋅} ───────── ⊰

You and Spencer had been dating for a few months now, and while things had been progressing steadily, he hadn’t made any major moves beyond gentle, lingering kisses and hesitant, shaky touches. 

He was shy about it- not because he didn’t want you to know, but because he was terrified of messing up. He’d told you early on about his utter lack of experience, and you had reassured him earnestly that there was no pressure.

But he wanted more. He wanted to touch you the way you touched him. He wanted to kiss you until you were both breathless, and he wanted to see if reality could really live up to things he had spent so long reading about. He wanted to know if he was capable of making you feel good.

Most of all, he desperately wanted to stop overthinking.

Which is how he found himself here.

Spencer hadn’t realised just how sensitive he was until he was beneath your hands, beneath your lips, and was trying (and failing) to stay coherent.

You had started slow and gentle, kissing him with a sweet, lingering tenderness, but the moment he responded- the moment he made the quiet, needy sound in the back of his throat- you deepened it. Suddenly, he wasn’t sure if he could survive this.

Your fingers tangled in his curls, tugging softly, and the delicious whine that escaped him was so involuntary, so desperate, that you felt him tense in embarrassment.

You pulled back just enough to whisper against his lips, “Don’t hold back.”

His breath hitched. His head spun as his grip on your waist tightened, unsure whether to pull you closer until there was no air between you or to push you away before he completely unraveled under your touch.

“I- I don’t-” He swallowed harshly as your lips gently brushed across his jaw. “I didn’t know I was this-”

“Sensitive?” you supplied graciously, dragging your lips down his neck.

Spencer shuddered. “Y-yeah,” he admitted, voice wrecked already.

You smiled against his soft skin. “I like it.”

He let out a ragged breath, his eyes fluttering shut as you pressed kisses down the column of his throat. “I- I think I do too.”

You laughed softly as you trailed lower, and Spencer actually whimpered.

You’d never heard a sound quite like that from him before- so high and desperate- a noise that he clearly hadn’t intended to make. His whole body twitched beneath your teasing touch, and he was gripping the couch cushions like they were his sole tether to reality. 

“Oh, God-” His voice cracked as your teeth grazed over his pulse point, his hips shifting instinctively beneath you.

He inhaled sharply as you went back up and pressed a kiss just beneath his jaw. Suddenly, his brain kicked into overdrive. "Did you know that the skin along the neck has an increased concentration of sensory receptors? It’s why-" His words cut off with a sharp inhale when your lips gently caressed the skin where his neck met his shoulder.

"Why what?" you teased, brushing your lips lightly over his neck.

"Why- it’s- um- " His breath hitched. "It’s a- an erogenous zone- highly sensitive- oh-" 

"You were saying?" you murmured, dragging your lips up the column of his throat.    

"I-" He tried again, but when you nipped lightly at his jaw, his thoughts crumbled.    

You pulled back to take in the sight of him. He was flushed, panting, his pupils blown wide with something akin to pleading.

“Spencer,” you murmured, running your fingers through his tousled curls, reveling in how he leaned into your touch like he was starving for it.

He looked up at you in a daze, his lips parted like he was trying to form words, but he failed to find them.

“I-” He swallowed hard. “I did research on this.”

You tilted your head slightly and bit your lip, amused. “Uh-huh?”

“Very extensive research,” he admitted, his voice hoarse. “A lot of it.”

“And what did your research tell you?” You hummed softly as you trailed your fingers lightly down his chest.

He inhaled sharply as he tried not to react to your touch. “That, uh- physical contact increases oxytocin, which promotes bonding, and- oh-” His voice broke when you pressed a kiss just below his ear, his whole body trembling beneath yours.

You grinned. “Go on, Spencer.”

“I- I-” His fingers clenched at your hips as you shifted, his breath stuttering. “Oh, my God-”

You kissed him again, slow and deep, and he let out the softest moan against your lips, feeling utterly helpless.

His hands trembled where they held you, like he was overwhelmed and he didn’t know where to move them. Like he was afraid that if he moved too much, or breathed too much, he might just lose control completely.

“You are adorable,” you whispered against his lips, dragging your nails lightly down his back.

He exhaled shakily. "I- um- "

Your smile softened, pressing a kiss to the corner of his mouth. “Let’s practice more.”

Spencer’s hands tightened on your waist, and for once, he didn’t overthink.

He just felt.

And it was so much better than anything he had ever read.

⊱ ───────── {⋅. ✯ .⋅} ───────── ⊰

Later, when you were curled up against him, fingers tracing lazy circles on his chest, he let out a quiet, disbelieving laugh.

You lifted your head. “What?”

He shook his head, cheeks still tinged pink. “I spent weeks preparing. Studying. Making sure I knew everything I could possibly know. And yet…” He looked down at you, still dazed. “Nothing I read could have prepared me for you.”

You smiled, pressing a lingering kiss to his jaw.

“That’s because,” you murmured, “some things you just have to experience.”

Spencer exhaled shakily, pulling you closer.

“Then I think I still have a lot to learn.”

You grinned, playing with the curls at the nape of his neck. “Good thing I loved teaching you.”

And when you kissed him again, he decided that practical application was his new favorite subject.

[3liza]

after meaning to get around to it for years i finally listened to almost the entirety of Sold a Story and it is as groundbreaking as everyone says it is. it's also the most confusing, to me, single event in American culture in my lifetime and my reasons for thinking that are pretty complex so im not sure theyre fully formed yet. there's a list of shit in this podcast that made me feel like i was going insane

i KNEW something was going on at a population level, i've been noticing it for years, people kept telling me i was imagining things, but i was RIGHT, two generations of kids have been reduced to barely-literate levels of language function because of this shit and you CAN see it and hear it while talking to people in the world!

the entire adoption of the Calkins programs in the first place were based on the majority of people responsible for American child education deciding basically overnight that "children don't need to learn phonics in order to become strong readers" which is literally and not figuratively equivalent to saying "children can learn algebra without learning what numbers are". it is so self-evidently false i dont even know how to respond to such an assertion. you have to be fundamentally devoid of common sense to think this is true. language is comprised of sounds (phonemes), sounds are represented by letters, letters make up the alphabet, the alphabet makes up words, and words make up sentences. you cant just skip over the parts of this you dont like, it's the basis of our entire civilization. "i dont need to learn individual notes i just want to play to saxophone" okay well. too bad? you cant

american primary education apparently has no communication whatsoever with the scientific fields of human behaviorism, pediatrics, neurology, linguistics, the science of learning generally, and there is next to zero communication between teachers who are actively responsible for educating children and the entire research field of educating children. they just dont talk to each other, at least in huge swaths of the country. in retrospect this is obvious, i just have been assuming incorrectly this entire time that maybe, surely, some aspect of how our public schools are administered is in some way being guided by scientific evidence and research. this has apparently not been the case for 20+ years. Lucy Calkins herself claims she "didn't know" that the research on how children acquire language had been essentially settled by the 1990s, she just wrote her stupid book based on her own self-assurance that what she THOUGHT children were doing when they learned language was correct. she ddin't check, she didnt ask about research or studies, she didn't test her hypothesis, she just told everyone she had figured out how to teach kids to read based on nothing but her own untested assumptions. and everyone was like "okay sounds good". every single person involved in this process is or was in a position of responsibility for educating american children. and almost none of them thought to ask "okay, but have you tested it? does it work?" because they didn't test it, and it doesnt work, and for some reason that was never even brought up

teachers kept being interviewed on this podcast who kept saying things like: "they never taught us how to teach children to read" and "they didn't teach us how children learn so i had no idea how it worked" and then explaining this was why they were so easily hoodwinked by the Calkins program. i don't understand this. what is actually taught during the two year degree programs at teaching colleges? if it's not child psychology, pedagogy, neurology, and actual techniques for teaching children, what are they teaching you to do there? one of my friends who went to a teaching college told me they mostly provided classes on lesson planning.

individual teachers apparently are not reading books or articles or papers on any of these subjects either. so having graduated from a teaching college knowing nothing about children, teaching, or even basic english literacy ("i didn't know how to teach phonics and no one told me" is another thing actual teachers kept saying on the podcast. girl, SESAME STREET can teach basic english phonics, and it does), almost none of them actually do any investigation on their own. they just show up to their workplace (the school) and "teach" whatever admin hands them. ?????????????? how is this possible?

i realized last night in a fugue of post-exertional malaise that the three-cueing method of teaching reading is training children to approach language very similarly to how a large language model does it. they laboriously instruct the children to guess what the next word in a sentence will be, often by actually covering the word with a post-it note and then cajoling and badgering the child until he guesses the word under the post-it, based on the vibes on the sentence he's reading. this doesnt teach you to read, it teaches you to act like youre reading

this isnt directly addressed in the podcast but we used to just teach everyone english like it was an actual system that has parts and rules and structures, because that's what a language is. everyone would start with phonics and the alphabet, then later do stuff like sentence diagramming and grammar, neither of which have been taught in primary schools in decades. i think i was probably the very last generation of kids to get ANY of that stuff unless they went to an exceptional school, and it was only because my 8th grade teacher knew it was important and went against school admin's instructions in order to teach it. the couple days of sentence diagramming and grammar he gave us, out of SPITE, have been more useful to me in reading and writing than the entire rest of primary english education i received in public school, and i didn't even go to a school that had adopted three-cueing stuff yet.