Domain Expiration

Greetings,

Due to the expiration of my old domain, I have reverted to a Google Blogspot domain.

All the best and good luck to y'all on a successful school year.

:)

Student Athletes: Self-Reflection

I have a profound respect for student athletes.  Not just because I was one in my youth, but because they demonstrate, on a regular basis, qualities that I feel that all people should have.

For example, in order to succeed as an athlete, you have to roll with the punches.  You have to be willing to stumble and fall to perfect yourself in your craft.  It's this level of determination and perseverance that people who don't take sports seriously will never understand (or would never go through themselves).  This level of focus requires lots of discipline and this is not something that is easily taught to youngsters.  When athletes look at their shortcomings and work to improve themselves in their weakest areas, they demonstrate all of the aforementioned attributes, namely resilience, character, and discipline.

Some of the most dangerously motivated people I've come across are athletes coming off a loss.  You won't find a more determined group of people than a team that lost a competitive game they should have won.  There's no athlete in the world that will admit that they love to lose competitive matches.  If you don't believe me, try talking to an athlete after they've just lost a game, good luck giving them positive feedback...  You're better off keeping your mouth shut, trust me.  For athletes, it's losing games that make you a reflective practitioner of what you do.

Imagine going to a training session where you are continuously judged/evaluated, corrected in front of others, and occasionally embarrassed/punished/chastised for something you're not born to do well.  Most people would throw their hands in the air and give up.  But athletes are not most people.  In the realm of a classroom, this behavior amounts to mental or psychological torture or bullying, but in practice on a pitch, it's a form of character development.  Athletes grow thick skin for verbal abuse (by classroom standards) after a while (they also loosen their tongues - which can be good or bad).  This can be a grey area in coaching youngsters, but it tends to focus on a coach's ability to provide meaningful and effective feedback without deteriorating a player's self-confidence.

My closest friends in life all stemmed from school sports.  They may not have been my inner circle at the time, since school sort of socially categorizes kids in strange ways, but the friends that have persisted and stuck with me in life have all come from my youth soccer team.  As I coach the U-18 girls team here, I start to think back to when I was still a lad, specifically about playing the game and the dynamics of the team.  These girls don't realize it yet, but even if they're not in the same social circles now, they'll turn to each other later in life with the same level of intensity and passion that they show on the pitch.  Who am I kidding, every time I join a local intramural or traveling team, I end up socializing with the other players.

Team sports teaches players to make irrational sacrifices.  There are universal instances where players will play through injury or pain to give their team that extra edge.  Every athlete has done it before, just ask (each one has their own stories to tell about this).  As a coach, this can be a dangerous and nerve-racking character attribute.  No benevolent coach encourages players to risk serious injury.  But recognizing signs of serious injury can be masked by the endorphin-saturated, fight-or-flight atmosphere of a competitive match.

As a player, you oftentimes find yourself sizing up your opposite number.  Now that I coach, I do it all the time to evaluate weaknesses in opposition...  But this behavior has diffused to players and now they do it also.  It's a normal behavior to scrutinize your competition to see what you're up against or to see what you can do to embarrass them and send them home in tears (some athletes think this way, I don't fault them for it).  In sports, it's kill or be killed.  If you're not owning your competition, then you're the one being owned.  Identifying players with this mentality weeds out the players who are only in it for fun (win or lose - so not a committed, competitive athlete) and the others who have fun dominating their opponents (who can be occasionally excessive)...

In this light, it is also notable that athletes recognize other athletes.  Players always look for ways to improve their group with new players.  It's a strange and contradictory dynamic.  If they're your opposition, you hate their guts, but if they plan to join your team, you embrace their abilities with high fives and thumbs up!

Autonomy, Mastery, and Purpose

I was in Curacao attending a professional development convention for this region of the world:  The AASSA conference.

One of the underlying themes I took away from this professional development experience is the absence of the 3 critical elements of motivated individuals: Autonomy, mastery, and purpose.  This revelation brings back memories of watching this RSA talk about what motivates people to do great things.

Another recurrent theme of this conference is the use of technology.  Though I have my reservations about the immersion of technology in the learning environment of high school students, I can't help but agree that technology has become a vital component of a student's learning experience (for better or for worse).  An educator's conundrum in this arena can be summarized in a single question: How does an educational organization create a safe learning environment within a classroom when students are granted unrestricted access to broadband devices within classrooms?  It is either too authoritarian with the censorship and firewalls, or it's too open leading to the distracted and uninterested student.  How does a school capture the middle ground?

Though we rarely discuss these issues outside of egregious violations, it seems that the high school students are too little, too late to learn and demonstrate responsible online practices (one of the learning points from the keynote speakers - by the time they're in high school it's too late).

Below is the RSA clip I mentioned earlier, as it is posted on YouTube.

How you know a conversation has lost scientific credibility

Conversations pertaining to science oftentimes transforms into meaningless debate on personal positions and emotional issues.  The parrot-effect of media, where people who watch TV shows and repeat what a host says as fact, is a toxic influence.  There are some simple ways to derail this effect that has arisen in recent interviews that should really be emphasized and explained to people...

1. The need for a nullifying criterion that you establish in advance to clearly define what observations or information you would need to reject or negate your perceptions.  This is grossly absent in the media.  Not many self-proclaimed experts understand that you must set a clear set of criteria that can effectively change your position on a matter.  In the absence of a nullifying criteria, the conversation is no longer scientific, it is ideological.  When you encounter someone who seems committed to a particular set of ideas, ask them the simple question of "What would change your mind?"  If they have no null hypothesis, then don't waste your breath.
2. Cherry-picking of information to suit the needs of arguing parties.  An inability to agree on facts is pretty consistent with this practice.  "My facts are true, your facts are not."  This is an argument strategy that attacks the observer and not their observations.  When you encounter someone who cherry-picks information, it would be useful to clarify before moving forward why they hold these observations to be true in spite of other observations that are available.  What makes these set of facts or observations more valid than the dozen of other studies that say otherwise?  The burden of proof is on the observer to prove that their ideas are more significant or are more valid than others.  In the absence of this proof, their position should really not be validated.  This is very much like the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham.  There's an abundance of evidence to support the model of evolution by natural selection, while there is an absence of evidence to support the other.
3. Pointing to history or anecdotal examples.  This is the most aggravating to deal with.  Many people will often point to the past in an attempt to validate future or current behaviors.  The only way that this approach holds true is if there is a rationale and if they have a criterion to negate their current position.  If a person's point-of-view has no other rationale, other than history or anecdotal evidence, to influence their perception, then you must question how they would ever negate the adherence to their decision.  It's the equivalence of stating that one observation is enough to apply it to all future observations...
4. Inability to invalidate studies.  One thing that bothers me is when people will speak out against known studies and they either play dumb or fail to invalidate the studies presented.  The CDC, FDA, the NIH, the international agencies that produce these studies are responsible for these studies, not congressmen.  When people go on television and claim that these agencies are bogus have the burden of responsibility to generate the necessary evidence to substantiate their position.  In the absence of their evidence (as convenient as it is to leave them at home), their argument collapses.
5. Inability to clarify their own point.  The absence of depth is damning in this case.  If a position is to be taken, it must be thoroughly investigated in multiple dimensions.  To simply impose a narrow view in the absence of neighboring and relevant context only illustrates how shallow the position really is.

The following YouTube clip (removed since the account was "terminated") emphasizes the clear distinction between people who conduct actual research and people who simply spread propaganda.  Can you spot the difference?  Who is the one who has done their research and who is the parrot who claims that research suggests otherwise?

Since the YouTube account was terminated, I'll summarize it's contents.  A former congressman was arguing with a news anchor about the claims made that the MMR vaccination is tied to autism.  And despite the news anchor's inquiries about the legitimacy of their findings, the former congressman held his ground, but not for scientific reasons.
 
In the clip, it was quite clear who had done their basic research and who had simply looked up on Google, "Anti-Vaccination Arguments."

The Modern Day Problem with a Student's Perception of Failure

Here's the modern day issue with dealing with failure.

Student perceptions are not a reflection of the necessary reality.

Allow me to clarify.  Students will oftentimes cite outstanding failures in school systems or institutions and say that their failure is just the beginning for reaching greatness.  Though I have no doubt that many great individuals of today have dealt with failure at some point in their lives, they had the motivation to innovate their way around the rigid nature of the school system.

I cannot tell you as an educator how frequently I have been told by my failing students that some of the greatest human beings who have achieved great things were total failures in school (Thomas Edison, Albert Einstein, Bill Gates, etc.).

Don't get me wrong, I have complete faith that my students will find success later in life - I don't expect their lives to be defined solely on their ability to answer my exam questions. However, it is my professional responsibility to develop their capacities whether the students care about them or not.

Here are my usual responses to these infamous citations:

• What's important about these individuals is not that they were called failures by their superiors at the time, but what they did in response to that feedback.  So unless you intend to emulate their efforts, then the label of being a failure is pretty accurate.
• You are not Thomas Edison, Albert Einstein, Bill Gates, or whoever you think your life will be modeled after for failing your classes.  These individuals made names of themselves through self-discipline, resilience, and perseverance (not by pointing at someone else and saying "That'll be me someday"). 
• If you take an unbiased look at everybody that were labeled failures, the notable successes are statistical anomalies - which means the law of averages usually points towards these labels as having merit.  To claim that failing at something means you'll automatically aspire to greatness is hardly a healthy outlook on the reality of the here and now of your present situation.
• You're ignoring the historical context of their achievements.  For instance, when Edison was around, there was an absence of things like light bulbs, movie theaters, and indoor plumbing...  You can typically do great things when you start with nothing.  This generation doesn't start with nothing (we have global positioning satellites in geosynchronous orbit!), but students anticipate they'll achieve great things at the same exponential rate as Edison after failing basic courses in high school...
• Your current reality trumps your optimistic outlook on your life every time.  There's a disconnect with your citation of famous individuals.  It's a deflection and a distraction from the current reality that you were not good enough in a measurable way.  Sadly, having a positive outlook does not change your current circumstances...

I usually try to address these citations immediately, since students are often caught in the trap of aspiring to something they have little capacity to pursue.  The key word here is capacity.  Don't get me wrong, students are typically motivated to do great things so it's not an issue of motivation, it's an issue of competence and capacity.

When students confuse their motivation for competence then it's dangerous towards their development as students, especially when we're really only covering the basics (reading, writing, simple arithmetic).

Why Ken Ham is a Quack

Here are my responses to the use of the Bible to explain the origins of life on Earth.  I know it's been a while since the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham, but I've been busy, with a legitimate career and I've only had time now (during my spring break) to finally address this issue.

1. History is a matter of interpretation.  So his notion that the historical record of a written text that has been translated from various languages, re-written, and reformatted from one edition to another only adds to the inconsistency of his beliefs.  Who is to say that the current translation or interpretation of the Biblical story of creation is in any way consistent with the original observations of the author?  Only Ken Ham.  Stratification layers in sediments are far more consistent than the interpretations of scripture - just look at how many different churches have come about as a result of these interpretations of scripture.
2. Ken Ham offers no reason to believe his version of the young Earth story over other stories from different cultures.  This is a vital component to gain credibility that your position carries any weight.  Why should we be compelled to only incorporate his preferred version of the young Earth story instead of the Chinese variant, or the Egyptian, or the Norse, or the Greek/Roman?  He offers nothing in this regard, which in essence tells these viewpoints that they are also wrong simply because he holds his own beliefs to be true over others.  Science cannot revolve simply on individual belief and interpretation - it has to be a consistent body of knowledge that is constantly revised, verified, and re-verified.
3. Ken Ham does not offer any room for doubt.  This is not a scientific practice - in essence, it defies one of the fundamental criteria of science pertaining to changing viewpoints given new evidence as well as the ability to replicate an experiment or observation.  Not a single observation noted in the Genesis story can be replicated under controlled conditions - so how does this substitute for science?  It cannot.  Also, the absence of a null hypothesis automatically undermines the validity of his beliefs since he cannot come up with a viable criteria that would convince him that his current views are incorrect.  The ivory tower from which he proclaims that the genesis story represents a valid, literal, and scientific observation offers no room for questioning the original observer or their observations.
4. Ken Ham loses all credibility as an objective individual and as an analytic thinker by deferring all his misunderstandings to a book that actually doesn't answer the question to begin with.  Just because you are personally incapable of answering a question does not mean the act of forcing scripture to answer the question is rational.  This is a form of propaganda and his constant reference to a non-scientific text for scientific answers makes him lose lots of credibility.
5. Ken Ham is unwilling to live with open question about the origins of humanity.  Science will never be able to bring back all of the extinct species that have lived on this Earth.  If that is a criteria for validating his position, then the validating position for his should be to have his notion of God physically visit Earth and convince all of humanity that Ken Ham's personal beliefs are the one true interpretation that matters (this will never happen).
6. Ken Ham is more interested in convincing you that he's right than getting you to convince yourself that the merits of the arguments presented by both sides consistently point towards his point of view.  This indicates that the merits of his argument are groundless.  He cannot talk about a boat that he's never seen before but seems to take the Bible's word for it and even makes the attempt to justify futuristic designs for a ship that has never been found nor had ever been constructed for the purpose of carrying so many animals.
7. Ken Ham did not successfully nullify any of the fossilized evidence nor did he argue against the stratification layers, tree-ring data, or ice core data that suggest the Earth's relative age.  He essentially danced around the observational data and said that it doesn't equal history or it is unreliable (as if the Bible is...?).  Just because we didn't directly observe the fossil at it's time of existence doesn't mean it didn't exist.  The fact that there exist groups who claim that scientists planted these fossils to stay in business or to keep their jobs is pretty outrageous.
8. Ken Ham does not address the concern that the Bible was written before the technology existed to critique it's contents.  Ken Ham is the victim of his own argument here since he points towards the scientific evidence and claims that we cannot know what we have never directly observed, when he points to this anecdotal story (which he was not present to directly observe).  This is the equivalent of taking one of Aesop's fables literally - since children are not able to directly observe (or remember) their own birth, how can we know how we were created from our own mothers?  A stork flew through a window and delivered me to my mother...  That's written in a book somewhere, it must be true.

People like Ken Ham are dangerous to America's scientific integrity and our competitiveness in a global market.  The Ken Ham's of the world offer no solutions to real problems like HIV, malaria, schistosomiasis, or cancer, they simply point to a book and say that all the answers to humanity's unanswerable questions lie in this text that was written thousands of years ago.

BBC: Butterfly Curators...

I thought it was interesting that they even have curators for butterflies, but I suppose as we acknowledge their diversity, it is something that requires close cataloging.

Makes you wonder how significant the next butterfly is that lands on your shoulder...

Thought the audio slideshow, as usual, was quite insightful.  Gave me some new outlooks on the life cycle of these creatures.  Sort of interesting in terms of a field of study.  The description of their metamorphosis caught my attention.

Anyway, here's the link for it, I've added it to the list as BBC - Butterfly Curators.

Enjoy!

CanvasMol 3D Molecule Site

Got a listserv e-mail of this great site that illustrates organic molecules in 3D.  You can take snapshots of your biology favoritees like DNA, Chlorophyll, and others.

Here's the link.

I've added the link under Biology as Flash - 3D Molecules.

Enjoy!