Automate BART

Saturday, October 19th, 2013

BART workers have been holding San Francisco hostage. Couldn’t San Francisco just automate BART?

During last summer’s BART strike, a few outspoken Silicon Valley technologists incurred the wrath of the civil libertarian press for suggesting that San Francisco should simply automate the train operators and be done with the labor mess. Rather than join the techies vs. worker rage fest, I decided to simply ask the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) authority if it was technically possible to automate train drivers, just like Paris and other cities have done around the world.

[...]

Our own Congress has proposed fully automated trains for the U.S. by 2015. But in San Francisco, the home of the robotic car, the silence is deafening.

So I decided to take BART up on its suggestion and ask around. I was surprised at how many people feared talking about the subject, but most of the experts who would speak said that it is definitely possible to automate BART and might be cheaper and safer, too.

[...]

BART will shell out $400 million in labor costs for the $1.6 billion transit system, which pays train operators some of the highest wages in the country ($66,000 – $74,000 a year). More specifically, there are roughly 500 unionized train operators and station attendants, averaging $92,156 a year, with benefits. Automation never fully replaces every worker, but BART would save a maximum of around $46,078,000 per year in labor costs — or more, if it ends up increasing the number of trains from 669 to 1,000.

Though Rubin says automation could cost tens of millions of dollars, ultimately it would save the city a lot of money. Siemens (which has a vested interest in automation) also concurred that automation saves cities money. Lastly, a spokesman from the International Association of Public Transport noted that metro automation typically saves 15 percent, but he couldn’t comment on BART.

We should emphasize that these numbers are ballpark and unverified since, again, BART has apparently never bothered to ask.

Notice how automation gets attacked by “civil libertarians”. (“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”)

The Hole Book

Saturday, October 19th, 2013

The Hole Book taught kids about gun safety back in 1908:

Hole Book 00

Hole Book 01

Hole Book 02

Hole Book 03

Hole Book 04

The Golden Voyage of Sinbad

Friday, October 18th, 2013

The Golden Voyage of Sinbad is the second of the three Sinbad films that Ray Harryhausen made for Columbia. It was released in 1973 — 15 years after The 7th Voyage of Sinbad.

It struck me as very… D&D.

D&D HomunculusI’m assuming that’s where D&D’s homunculus got its wings. (The original concept is just a little artificial man.)

The Harryhausen films seem like a more powerful influence than the books mentioned in Appendix N.

Asian Immigrants and What No One Mentions Aloud

Friday, October 18th, 2013

Education Realist discusses Asian Immigrants and what no one mentions aloud:

The stereotype, delicately put: first and second generation Chinese, Korean, and Indian Americans, as well as nationals from these countries, often fail to embody the sterling academic credentials they include with their applications, and do not live up to the expectations these universities have for top tier students.

Less delicately put: They cheat. And when they don’t cheat, they game tests in a way utterly incomprehensible to the Western mind, leading to test scores with absolutely zero link to underlying ability. Or both. Or maybe it’s all cheating, and we just don’t know it. Either way, the resumes are functional fraud.

[...]

The universities look at the resumes of all Asian kids — recent immigrants, long-established natives, nationals — and know that many of them are fraudulent. They know that many of the kids they accept will not be able to function on their campus, whereas others will be able to get great grades so long as they cheat. They know that many of the students don’t have the inquisitive mind, genuine interest in intellectual pursuits that universities like to see in students (or pretend they do). But the universities want the great, if often fraudulent, stats to puff up their numbers for the rankings systems, to offset the athlete, the legacies (for privates), and the Kashawn Campbells (for publics). And so they try to minimize it, while still getting what they want — an improved profile, out of state fees for four years, instead of just one, while not overloading the campus with too many Asians.

This perpetuates two frauds:

The first, of course, benefits the cheaters and their schools at both high school and university level. But the second perpetuates a much larger misconception: People really believe that our top high school students are taking ten-twelve AP courses during their high school year, maintaining 4.5 GPAs, and have the underlying knowledge one would expect from such study. But this almost certainly isn’t true. And once you understand the reality, it’s hard not to wonder about all the “weeding out courses” in organic chemistry and other brutal STEM college courses, the ones that Americans are abandoning in large numbers. The willingness to accept the cheating, to slap it on the wrist if that, is leading to lies that convince a lot of American kids that they aren’t smart enough for tough courses because they don’t cheat and aren’t aware that others are.

This has been an open secret for decades.

The Asian Ceiling in Elite Schools

Friday, October 18th, 2013

By California state law, race and ethnicity are no longer supposed to be considered in the state’s university system, but the “holistic” admissions process is meant to admit “enough” Blacks and Hispanics and “not too many” Asians.

Despite that, Asian-Americans still made up 43% of Berkeley’s freshman enrollment in 2012 — about four times their representation in California’s teenage population.

In the Ivy League though, the “holistic” admissions process is even more holistic. Asians are the new Jews, restricted to just 16% of admissions.

There is no benign explanation for this disparity, Charles Murray says. This is the unspoken rationale for the Asian-American ceiling:

“Yes, they get high test scores and grades in high school, because that’s all they and their ambitious parents care about. They aren’t intellectually curious. They don’t add to classroom discussions. They don’t have any interests outside academics or maybe music. They don’t come from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds. They don’t add as much to the university environment as other kids whose test scores and grades aren’t as high.”

Murray denounces that rationale:

I didn’t write that down because I believe it, or because I think any admissions officer in any elite university in the country will defend it in public, but because something like that logic is the only justification for a ceiling on Asian-American admissions. Otherwise, it’s just discrimination against hard-working, high-achieving young people because of the color of their skin. And that would be despicable.

Murray is statistically savvy enough to know that the same test scores may not mean the same thing across different groups — but that doesn’t serve his rhetorical purposes.

Slave Owners and Modern Management

Thursday, October 17th, 2013

HBS researcher Caitlin Rosenthal discovered that many of the techniques pioneered by slave owners in the 1800s are widely used in business management today:

Rosenthal, a Harvard-Newcomen Fellow in business history at Harvard Business School, found that southern plantation owners kept complex and meticulous records, measuring the productivity of their slaves and carefully monitoring their profits — often using even more sophisticated methods than manufacturers in the North. Several of the slave owners’ practices, such as incentivizing workers (in this case, to get them to pick more cotton) and depreciating their worth through the years, are widely used in business management today.

Naturally that doesn’t mean that slave owners ever did anything good or productive:

She didn’t want to be perceived as saying something positive about slavery. On the contrary, she sees her research as a critique of capitalism — one that could broaden the understanding of today’s business practices.

Moral quandary solved!

The history:

According to Rosenthal, the history of detailed record-keeping on plantations goes back to at least the 1750s in Jamaica and Barbados. When wealthy slave owners in the West Indies started leaving others in charge of their plantations, she found, they asked for regular reports about how their businesses were faring. Some historians see this rise in absentee ownership as a sign of decline, but it is also among the first instances of the separation of ownership and management, Rosenthal says — a landmark in the history of capitalism.

Slave owners were able to collect data on their workforce in ways that other business owners couldn’t because they had complete control over their workers. They didn’t have to worry about turnover or recruiting new workers, and they could experiment with different tactics — moving workers around and demanding higher levels of output, even monitoring what they ate and how long new mothers breastfed their babies. And the slaves had no recourse.

“If you tried to do this with a northern laborer,” Rosenthal says, “they’d just quit.”

The widespread adoption of these accounting techniques is partly due to a Mississippi planter and accountant named Thomas Affleck, who developed account books for plantation owners that allowed them to make sophisticated calculations and measure productivity in a standardized way.

Tracking this information allowed planters to determine how far they could push their workers to get the most profit. Using the account books, slave owners could see how many pounds of cotton each slave picked and compare it to their output from previous years — and then create minimum picking requirements based on these calculations.

This led owners to experiment with ways of increasing the pace of labor, Rosenthal explains, such as holding contests with small cash prizes for those who picked the most cotton, and then requiring the winners to pick that much cotton from there on out. Slave narratives describe how others used the data to calculate punishment, meting out whippings according to how many pounds each picker fell short.

Similar incentive plans reappeared in early twentieth-century factories, with managers dangling the promise of cash rewards if their workers reached certain production levels.

Planters also used group incentives to encourage honesty, doling out a barrel of corn to each hand with the caveat that if anything was stolen from the farm and no one turned in the thief, double the value of that corn would be deducted from each of their Christmas awards. Collective penalties would later be adopted by salesmen and companies like Singer Sewing Company to encourage workers to police one another.

Rosenthal says the rise of the railroad is often credited with creating new units of production, including the cost per ton mile, but slavery’s comparable “bales per prime hand” unit was developed earlier in the nineteenth century. Comparing the number of cotton bales that different types of workers produced to similar workers on other farms, planters calculated the worth of each slave. A healthy 30-year-old male, for instance, would be considered one worker, known as a hand, whereas a child may be recorded as half a hand, and an older slave might be three-quarters of a hand. Figuring out the total number of “hands” on a farm allowed owners and overseers to compare their results.

The concept of depreciation is also credited to the railroad era, when railroad owners allocated the cost of their trains over time, but Rosenthal notes that slave owners were doing this before then. Starting in the late 1840s, Thomas Affleck’s account books instructed planters to record depreciation or appreciation of slaves on their annual balance sheet. In 1861, for example, another Mississippi planter priced his 48-year-old foreman, Hercules, at $500; recorded the worth of Middleton, a 26-year-old top-producing field hand, at $1,500; and gave 9-month-old George Washington a value of $150. At the end of the year, he repeated this process, adjusting for changes in health and market prices, and the difference in price was recorded on the final balance sheet.

These account books played a role in reducing slaves to “human capital,” Rosenthal says, allowing owners who were removed from day-to-day operations to see their slaves as assets, as interchangeable units of production in a ledger, instead of as people.

Sir Jeffery Hudson

Thursday, October 17th, 2013

Sir Jeffery Hudson was known as Lord Minimus, or Charles I’s dwarf, but a modern audience might call him the real-life Tyrion Lannister:

Among his Worthies of England, published in 1662, Thomas Fuller includes the dwarf, Jeffery Hudson of Oakham in Rutlandshire, immortalised by him in the following words:

Jeffery was born in the Parish of Oakham in this County, where his father was a very proper man, broad-shouldered and chested, though his son never arrived at a full Ell (i.e. 45″) in stature… His father, who kept and ordered the baiting Bulls for George Duke of Buckingham (a place, you will say, requiring a robustious body to manage it) presented him at Burleigh on the Hill to the Duchess of Buckingham, being then nine years of age, and scarce a foot and a half in height, as I am informed by credible1 persons then and there present and still alive. Instantly Jeffery was heightened (not in stature but) in condition, from one degree above rags into Silk and Satten, and two tall men to attend him.

He was without any deformity wholly propotionable whereas often Dwarfs, Pigmies in one part, are Giants in another… And so I take my leave of Jeffery, the least man of the least County in England.

At some point, Jeffery started to take himself rather seriously:

A gentleman of the household, Mr Croft, lost no time in provoking the dwarf to challenge him: a duel, only meant for fun, was arranged in the park at Nevers. Croft and the dwarf were to meet on horseback, armed with pistols. The gibing cavalier took no fire-arms, but merely a huge squirt, with which he meant at once to extinguish his small adversary, and the powder of his weapon. The vengeful dwarf, however, managed his good steed with sufficient address to avoid the shower aimed at himself and his loaded pistols, and, withal, to shoot his laughing adversary dead.

Then Turkish pirates take his ship off the coast of France. After serving as a slave, he grows — to three feet and nine inches. Eventually he makes it back to England.

Forget about Goals

Wednesday, October 16th, 2013

Forget about passion, Scott Adams (Dilbert) says — and while you’re at it, forget about goals, too:

Just after college, I took my first airplane trip, destination California, in search of a job. I was seated next to a businessman who was probably in his early 60s. I suppose I looked like an odd duck with my serious demeanor, bad haircut and cheap suit, clearly out of my element. I asked what he did for a living, and he told me he was the CEO of a company that made screws. He offered me some career advice. He said that every time he got a new job, he immediately started looking for a better one. For him, job seeking was not something one did when necessary. It was a continuing process.

This makes perfect sense if you do the math. Chances are that the best job for you won’t become available at precisely the time you declare yourself ready. Your best bet, he explained, was to always be looking for a better deal. The better deal has its own schedule. I believe the way he explained it is that your job is not your job; your job is to find a better job.

This was my first exposure to the idea that one should have a system instead of a goal. The system was to continually look for better options.

Throughout my career I’ve had my antennae up, looking for examples of people who use systems as opposed to goals. In most cases, as far as I can tell, the people who use systems do better. The systems-driven people have found a way to look at the familiar in new and more useful ways.

To put it bluntly, goals are for losers. That’s literally true most of the time. For example, if your goal is to lose 10 pounds, you will spend every moment until you reach the goal—if you reach it at all—feeling as if you were short of your goal. In other words, goal-oriented people exist in a state of nearly continuous failure that they hope will be temporary.

If you achieve your goal, you celebrate and feel terrific, but only until you realize that you just lost the thing that gave you purpose and direction. Your options are to feel empty and useless, perhaps enjoying the spoils of your success until they bore you, or to set new goals and re-enter the cycle of permanent presuccess failure.

I have a friend who is a gifted salesman. He could have sold anything, from houses to toasters. The field he chose (which I won’t reveal because he wouldn’t appreciate the sudden flood of competition) allows him to sell a service that almost always auto-renews. In other words, he can sell his service once and enjoy ongoing commissions until the customer dies or goes out of business. His biggest problem in life is that he keeps trading his boat for a larger one, and that’s a lot of work.

Observers call him lucky. What I see is a man who accurately identified his skill set and chose a system that vastly increased his odds of getting “lucky.” In fact, his system is so solid that it could withstand quite a bit of bad luck without buckling. How much passion does this fellow have for his chosen field? Answer: zero. What he has is a spectacular system, and that beats passion every time.

Social Mobility

Wednesday, October 16th, 2013

Handle looks at social mobility:

You could assume, for example, that God loves all his children and creates them, if not ‘equally’, then with an eye to group-statistical equal impact (quite the strange Divine Entity, that one; a very Progressive one) and that therefore the potential for high productivity in marketable traits is not heritable but instead randomly distributed to children in each quintile. We start with an ordered deck of cards in terms of the parents’ household income, but in ideal social conditions, the kids’ deck would be perfectly shuffled, with 20% of the kids from each parent’s quintile going to each kids’ quintile. You could interpret any deviation from this as social injustice per se, and warranting compensatory government intervention and economic redistribution.

And that would be a completely absurd theory.

Ok, maybe you don’t expect such perfect deck-shuffling. Maybe there are aspects of biological reality that constrain ‘perfect’ social mobility to some lesser amount of churn.

Still, if we assume the people are more or less the same in every country and in any generation, then we can compare the churning across nations and through time to give us some idea of this ‘cap’ on social mobility, and also to tell us whether we are ‘better’ or ‘worse’ than some other country, or ‘better’ or ‘worse’ than we used to be.

But those assumptions are also absurd. In fact, the only people I know who believe them are the kind of people who have spent most of their life surrounded by other very intelligent people. When you want to deny the unique circumstances of your social group you have to twist elaborate knots like Michael Chabon attempts here. ‘Trained’ my ass.

It’s not exactly a ‘sheltered’ existence, but certainly segregated from sharing the experience of the bulk of humanity. The self-created niche-bubble machine of the blogosphere just amplifies this intellectual isolation. Every iPad an ivory tower. That helps to enable a feeling of plausibility to otherwise faulty assumptions. A kind of reality apartheid. It’s only in that kind of rarefied social environment that extraordinary and false claims would seem ordinary and obvious.

But let’s talk about some societal changes that might make comparisons along a time series illegitimate. For one thing, starting about half a century ago, baby boom women in the West starting going to college and entering the work force in large numbers. They delayed childbirth, and tended to meet their mates at school. It’s called assortative mating, and one sees it everyday. For another, as I mentioned earlier, the economic returns to intelligence have exploded. And finally, intelligence is strongly heritable genetically and varies amongst ethnic groups – expression of belief in which is a strong social taboo which will get you fired. Note the pseudonymity of the still-employed.

Once upon a time, and before it really broke out in terms of marketability, intelligence really was more randomly distributed across wealth and income classes. Plenty of those peasants and hicks down on the farm had plenty on the ball. There were also plenty of ‘mixed-marriages’ with regards to cognitive-ability, which kept the churn and ‘regression to the mean’ phenomena going. Gradually, that changed.

The educational system (in combination with the white collar labor market) is particularly sensitive and adept at finding individuals of talent and creaming them from their localities to our cognitive concentrator cities in a kind of intra-national brain-drain to complement the international one. The selection, sorting, and mate-pairing mechanisms of higher education have been working on the American society for generations now, and we are witnessing the effects as we slowly but surely solidify into something like rigid castes.

And the US immigration system has its own effects, which themselves have changed over time. In the past, the US accepted a lot of immigrants from European societies at a similar, pre-sorted-by-intelligence stage of development and which a similar intelligence mean and distribution. And these immigrants were generally very poor. This meant that, after a generation, the children of these immigrants, despite all originating in the bottom quintile, tended to have a cognitive potential distribution similar to the overall host society, and there was a lot of social mobility and integration. On the other hand, this never happened for the involuntary immigrant blacks or for their descendants.

Nowadays things are quite different and there are two main immigrant streams. The first stream is of millions of low-skill workers mainly from Mexico and Latin America that tend to have less cognitive potential than the American mean, on average. The children of these individuals are, as you would expect, not catching up even after multiple generation in the country. The second stream are of truly elite intellectuals from all around the world, but principally from Asia. They are, on average, well above the American mean, and their kids are not regressing to that mean either. Most of them are quite elite, if not prodigies like Ashok Rao.

The sponsorship system plays a role, where, for example, Brahmins, already disproportionately represented amongst the existing US South Asian population may prefer to bring over others of their group instead of random Indians. And Visas for education and work (for certain companies with pull) tend to prefer the most competitive, brainiest types from East and South Asia, and it even helps if both spouses in a marriage have PhD’s which may be a top percent of the top percent kind of intellectual power-couple in the countries of their origin.

This is good for the US (mostly), good for the power couple, and probably a mixed bag for the country of origin. But it also means the elite couples have elite kids who are not at all representative of the populations of those countries, tending to be at least two or three standard deviations above the mean. That kind of brain power sure helps a lot with social mobility. I’m betting Ashok Rao knows a thing or two about all this. If he doesn’t he should walk around the quad a little. Also take a stroll a little Northwest of 42nd street after dark, but be sure to check the local crime stats first.

There was once this guy called Charles Murray who wrote two unmentionable books on the subject chronicling the History of what happened, but who cares what that guy has to say, wasn’t he excommunicated or something?

New Orleans and School Choice

Wednesday, October 16th, 2013

New Orleans’ local schools are performing better since Hurricane Katrina washed away the city’s failing public education system:

Graduation rates went to 78% last year from 52% before Katrina—surpassing Detroit, Baltimore, Washington, D.C., and Oakland, Calif., cities also struggling to boost achievement among lower-income students. The share of New Orleans students proficient in math, reading, science and social studies increased to 58% in 2012 from 35% before the 2005 storm, state data shows.

It seems like many factors contributed:

The storm killed at least 1,800 people and displaced about 65,000 students, mostly low-income African Americans.

The Orleans Parish School Board fired its teachers after the storm, and the state board of education took control of all but the 13 best schools, which remain under the local board.

The state converted most of the campuses into charter schools, which hired their own nonunion teachers. Today, more than a quarter of the instructors are from Teach for America, a national teacher training program that recruits college graduates from around the U.S.

Since Katrina, the average teacher salary in New Orleans has risen slower than the state average but in 2011 was 20% higher than before the storm: $47,878 compared with the statewide average of $49,246, state data shows.

New Orleans, which previously spent about the same as other Louisiana districts, tallied about $13,000 per pupil in 2011, compared with the state spending average of $11,000 that year, according to state data. The city spent $8,000 per pupil before Katrina, records show.

Denver, Chicago and Cleveland have embraced school choice on a smaller scale, but none give as much freedom—to parents and campuses—as New Orleans does: About 84% of its 42,000 public school students attend charters, the largest share of any district in the U.S.

Public schools are graded, based on academic performance — but it’s not clear what that grade actually measures:

Of the nearly 12,300 slots available in the citywide lottery for this school year, 20% were in schools rated F in 2012, 29% in D schools, 11% in C schools, 14% in B schools and none in A schools, according to an analysis by The Wall Street Journal. Among the open seats were ungraded schools that previously had D and F ratings but recently changed operators.

Complicating results in the education marketplace, some families haven’t used their choices as expected: Nearly 35% of the approximately 6,700 students applying to transfer or enroll at a public school for the fall semester selected either D- or F-graded schools as their first pick, the Journal found.

Forget about Passion

Tuesday, October 15th, 2013

Scott Adams (Dilbert) says you should forget about passion:

Passion will presumably give you high energy, high resistance to rejection and high determination. Passionate people are more persuasive, too. Those are all good things, right?

Here’s the counterargument: When I was a commercial loan officer for a large bank, my boss taught us that you should never make a loan to someone who is following his passion. For example, you don’t want to give money to a sports enthusiast who is starting a sports store to pursue his passion for all things sporty. That guy is a bad bet, passion and all. He’s in business for the wrong reason.

My boss, who had been a commercial lender for over 30 years, said that the best loan customer is someone who has no passion whatsoever, just a desire to work hard at something that looks good on a spreadsheet. Maybe the loan customer wants to start a dry-cleaning store or invest in a fast-food franchise — boring stuff. That’s the person you bet on. You want the grinder, not the guy who loves his job.

For most people, it’s easy to be passionate about things that are working out, and that distorts our impression of the importance of passion. I’ve been involved in several dozen business ventures over the course of my life, and each one made me excited at the start. You might even call it passion.

The ones that didn’t work out — and that would be most of them — slowly drained my passion as they failed. The few that worked became more exciting as they succeeded. For example, when I invested in a restaurant with an operating partner, my passion was sky high. And on day one, when there was a line of customers down the block, I was even more passionate. In later years, as the business got pummeled, my passion evolved into frustration and annoyance.

On the other hand, Dilbert started out as just one of many get-rich schemes I was willing to try. When it started to look as if it might be a success, my passion for cartooning increased because I realized it could be my golden ticket. In hindsight, it looks as if the projects that I was most passionate about were also the ones that worked. But objectively, my passion level moved with my success. Success caused passion more than passion caused success.

So forget about passion.

Teacher Effectiveness

Tuesday, October 15th, 2013

Let’s say you were trying to measure teacher effectiveness, Handle suggests:

You could theorize that any student’s test scores are 100% derived from the teacher’s pedagogic style.  You would then test all the students, take a class average, compare it to all the other class averages, and grade the teacher on where the result fits in the broader distribution.

Well, perhaps you find that theory absurd.  Just ask any teacher; they’ll confirm it’s absurd.  Now what?  Well, maybe you alter your theory and say that the teacher is only responsible for the improvement in the class average from the previous year.  You do the same as above and less unrealistic but still pretty absurd.  The teachers will still resist (in one way or another) if you try to evaluate them that way.

But lets say you test each student for their IQ and average test scores.  You could even measure all their social statistics.  You then put them into tracked, leveled classes according to both cognitive ability and prior knowledge, so that the teacher can teach in one way and use time more efficiently than if she had to deal with a large variation in ability and preparedness.  Then you come up with an ‘average expected value added’ tailored to each student given similar profiles around the country.

And then, finally, you grade the teacher relative to her peers on the basis of how much value she actually added to the students based on what we expected her to be able to achieve.  Now the teachers might relax the grip on their pitchforks and actually get on board your bandwagon.  That’s because you are now measuring something that they know aligns with the notion of ‘teacher effectiveness’ and accords with reality, and not concocted utopian fantasy.

In other words, your latest social theory is now tempered with a lot more common sense reality than when we started.  But, you know, it’s funny, we aren’t actually measuring teacher effectiveness or school quality in this realistic, common-sense way.  Why not?  That ‘structure of taboos’ thing, that’s why not.

Old-Fashioned Education Works

Tuesday, October 15th, 2013

Joanne Lipman explains why we should bring back old-fashioned education, with strict discipline and unyielding demands — because it works:

1. A little pain is good for you.

Psychologist K. Anders Ericsson gained fame for his research showing that true expertise requires about 10,000 hours of practice, a notion popularized by Malcolm Gladwell in his book “Outliers.” But an often-overlooked finding from the same study is equally important: True expertise requires teachers who give “constructive, even painful, feedback,” as Dr. Ericsson put it in a 2007 Harvard Business Review article. He assessed research on top performers in fields ranging from violin performance to surgery to computer programming to chess. And he found that all of them “deliberately picked unsentimental coaches who would challenge them and drive them to higher levels of performance.”

2. Drill, baby, drill.

Rote learning, long discredited, is now recognized as one reason that children whose families come from India (where memorization is still prized) are creaming their peers in the National Spelling Bee Championship. This cultural difference also helps to explain why students in China (and Chinese families in the U.S.) are better at math. Meanwhile, American students struggle with complex math problems because, as research makes abundantly clear, they lack fluency in basic addition and subtraction — and few of them were made to memorize their times tables.

William Klemm of Texas A&M University argues that the U.S. needs to reverse the bias against memorization. Even the U.S. Department of Education raised alarm bells, chastising American schools in a 2008 report that bemoaned the lack of math fluency (a notion it mentioned no fewer than 17 times). It concluded that schools need to embrace the dreaded “drill and practice.”

3. Failure is an option.

Kids who understand that failure is a necessary aspect of learning actually perform better. In a 2012 study, 111 French sixth-graders were given anagram problems that were too difficult for them to solve. One group was then told that failure and trying again are part of the learning process. On subsequent tests, those children consistently outperformed their peers.

The fear, of course is that failure will traumatize our kids, sapping them of self-esteem. Wrong again. In a 2006 study, a Bowling Green State University graduate student followed 31 Ohio band students who were required to audition for placement and found that even students who placed lowest “did not decrease in their motivation and self-esteem in the long term.” The study concluded that educators need “not be as concerned about the negative effects” of picking winners and losers.

4. Strict is better than nice.

What makes a teacher successful? To find out, starting in 2005 a team of researchers led by Claremont Graduate University education professor Mary Poplin spent five years observing 31 of the most highly effective teachers (measured by student test scores) in the worst schools of Los Angeles, in neighborhoods like South Central and Watts. Their No. 1 finding: “They were strict,” she says. “None of us expected that.”

The researchers had assumed that the most effective teachers would lead students to knowledge through collaborative learning and discussion. Instead, they found disciplinarians who relied on traditional methods of explicit instruction, like lectures. “The core belief of these teachers was, ‘Every student in my room is underperforming based on their potential, and it’s my job to do something about it — and I can do something about it,’” says Prof. Poplin.

She reported her findings in a lengthy academic paper. But she says that a fourth-grader summarized her conclusions much more succinctly this way: “When I was in first grade and second grade and third grade, when I cried my teachers coddled me. When I got to Mrs. T’s room, she told me to suck it up and get to work. I think she’s right. I need to work harder.”

5. Creativity can be learned.

The rap on traditional education is that it kills children’s’ creativity. But Temple University psychology professor Robert W. Weisberg’s research suggests just the opposite. Prof. Weisberg has studied creative geniuses including Thomas Edison, Frank Lloyd Wright and Picasso — and has concluded that there is no such thing as a born genius. Most creative giants work ferociously hard and, through a series of incremental steps, achieve things that appear (to the outside world) like epiphanies and breakthroughs.

Prof. Weisberg analyzed Picasso’s 1937 masterpiece Guernica, for instance, which was painted after the Spanish city was bombed by the Germans. The painting is considered a fresh and original concept, but Prof. Weisberg found instead that it was closely related to several of Picasso’s earlier works and drew upon his study of paintings by Goya and then-prevalent Communist Party imagery. The bottom line, Prof. Weisberg told me, is that creativity goes back in many ways to the basics. “You have to immerse yourself in a discipline before you create in that discipline. It is built on a foundation of learning the discipline, which is what your music teacher was requiring of you.”

6. Grit trumps talent.

In recent years, University of Pennsylvania psychology professor Angela Duckworth has studied spelling bee champs, Ivy League undergrads and cadets at the U.S. Military Academy in West Point, N.Y. — all together, over 2,800 subjects. In all of them, she found that grit — defined as passion and perseverance for long-term goals — is the best predictor of success. In fact, grit is usually unrelated or even negatively correlated with talent.

Prof. Duckworth, who started her career as a public school math teacher and just won a 2013 MacArthur “genius grant,” developed a “Grit Scale” that asks people to rate themselves on a dozen statements, like “I finish whatever I begin” and “I become interested in new pursuits every few months.” When she applied the scale to incoming West Point cadets, she found that those who scored higher were less likely to drop out of the school’s notoriously brutal summer boot camp known as “Beast Barracks.” West Point’s own measure — an index that includes SAT scores, class rank, leadership and physical aptitude — wasn’t able to predict retention.

Prof. Duckworth believes that grit can be taught. One surprisingly simple factor, she says, is optimism — the belief among both teachers and students that they have the ability to change and thus to improve. In a 2009 study of newly minted teachers, she rated each for optimism (as measured by a questionnaire) before the school year began. At the end of the year, the students whose teachers were optimists had made greater academic gains.

7. Praise makes you weak…

My old teacher Mr. K seldom praised us. His highest compliment was “not bad.” It turns out he was onto something. Stanford psychology professor Carol Dweck has found that 10-year-olds praised for being “smart” became less confident. But kids told that they were “hard workers” became more confident and better performers.

“The whole point of intelligence praise is to boost confidence and motivation, but both were gone in a flash,” wrote Prof. Dweck in a 2007 article in the journal Educational Leadership. “If success meant they were smart, then struggling meant they were not.”

8.…while stress makes you strong.

A 2011 University at Buffalo study found that a moderate amount of stress in childhood promotes resilience. Psychology professor Mark D. Seery gave healthy undergraduates a stress assessment based on their exposure to 37 different kinds of significant negative events, such as death or illness of a family member. Then he plunged their hands into ice water. The students who had experienced a moderate number of stressful events actually felt less pain than those who had experienced no stress at all.

“Having this history of dealing with these negative things leads people to be more likely to have a propensity for general resilience,” Prof. Seery told me. “They are better equipped to deal with even mundane, everyday stressors.”

Prof. Seery’s findings build on research by University of Nebraska psychologist Richard Dienstbier, who pioneered the concept of “toughness” — the idea that dealing with even routine stresses makes you stronger. How would you define routine stresses? “Mundane things, like having a hardass kind of teacher,” Prof. Seery says.

Handle Summarizes the Dark Enlightenment

Monday, October 14th, 2013

Handle summarizes the Dark Enlightenment and the consequent Neoreaction:

Man expands his knowledge about nature and humanity as well as he can through the scientific method, with due, but not dogmatic, respect given to logical argument, insight, introspection, experience, and tradition.  For various reasons, some of the truths we encounter are part of what Buckley called our society’s ‘structure of taboos’, and so there is tremendous social pressure to either deny or ignore these truths as a society collectively pursues its imperatives.

As it emerged from the Dark Ages and entered the Renaissance, Western society gradually experienced a growing revolution is scientific exploration and discovery that occasionally came into conflict with social taboos in the form of Church dogma.  Eventually the Church lost the upper hand amongst the intellectual class, and the respect for and excitement about the new truths and innovations of the sciences and technology culminated in a period we call ‘The Enlightenment’.  But taboo didn’t disappear, and we’ve got out own set today with which we must contend.

Sometimes these taboos are harmless, perhaps even benign.  Honesty is a virtue, but so are discretion, comity, and civility (the real kind, not the recent scam).  At other times these taboos can lead us to massive waste and human tragedy.  Of course, a lot of people will simply have to keep their mouths shut about what they genuinely believe to be the truth or face ‘social consequences’.  The severity of those personal consequences for the expression of one’s honest sentiments, and the magnitude of the negative societal ramifications of pursuing policies based in taboo-derived error, determine the scale of the problem.

And right now, in the West, we have a big problem with our taboos and error-based policies.  The set of truths that conflict with our contemporary taboos, as well as the social phenomenon of the set of people who believe in and explore the implication of those truths we call, “The Dark Enlightenment”.  Dark only because there is an intellectual aesthetic sense, but our reality is sometimes ugly, tragic, limiting and depressing and conflicts with the human thrill of hopeful optimism and dreams of building utopia.  Repulsive Ugly Truths vs. Seductive, Pretty Lies.

To give a specific instance, the Dark Enlightenment believes, in accordance with our common sense and regular observation (I’m being repetitive for a reason folks), that our current scientific knowledge of human genetics and the heritability of phenotypes makes a traveshamockery out of the progressive religion of hard egalitarianism which includes human neurological uniformity.  Not like they’ll change their minds in public about it anytime soon, but as confirmation data keeps flowing and strengthening, it’s going to become increasingly embarrassing to assert the old dogmas so unreservedly.  People will start calling them ‘deniers’ and such.

This, among other things, helps us to determine which social claims are ordinary and common-sensical, or extraordinary and counter-intuitive.

What is Neoreaction?  If Dark Enlightenment is a set of taboo knowledge, then Neoreaction is the taboo political technology based on the taboo implications of that taboo knowledge.  It is the effort to reject the pretty lies, embrace the ugly truths, and to discover how that should inform our theories of politics, culture, and social organization, inter alia.  If you believe what we believe, then you think most Western countries are very much on the wrong track.

Open-Access Advanced Placement Courses

Monday, October 14th, 2013

Students have a civil right to free iPads, the LAUSD recently decided. Now LA schools have decided that students have an equal right to AP courses, regardless of academic ability:

Alex Wong, a junior at Mark Keppel High School in Alhambra, is working hard for admission to an elite college. His resume boasts nearly straight A’s in rigorous classes, a summer program experience at Stanford University, an Eagle Scout project, club soccer, school choir.

But his steady progress hit an unexpected roadblock this year. Aiming to open access to college-level Advanced Placement courses, the school switched to a computer-based lottery to distribute spaces. Alex initially got shut out of all three courses he requested.

What could be more fair than a lottery?