Education
An academic proposes putting the title of the study without the journal it was published in. The academic journal industry is ludicrous and needs to be stopped.
Where graduating students want to work for 2024
MIT had a history of technology symposium. That means looking at how old tech was used and evolved to predict modern times. One cool speech name.
Eye movement shows how learning is done, a study
Schools need to change everything so universities can have more diverse professors
“Talented” students kept from algebra. We should get rid of early advanced classes entirely
Ed: Uni of Florida
University of Florida strips privileges from faculty to save money
University of Florida President quits after two years in office.
This is a pattern you see crop up all over the place. Most obviously in the "studies" which claim that human brains don't "fully" develop until age 25.
One conclusion (the mainstream leftist one) is that this means that you shouldn't grant humans full agency until age 25.
The other is that human brains develop as quickly as their environment requires them to, they haven't needed to develop as quickly as they needed to in the past; and if you want them to develop faster you need to incentivize them to (ie. push people harder, earlier).
Which (if any) is the correct conclusion? I doubt anyone would fund the study to prove one over the other (assuming the experiment would even pass an ethics review board, which I doubt it would). But out of sheer necessity throughout most of human history we've had to push our young pretty hard out of sheer necessity, and it's only the past hundred years or so we haven't. I think the results speak for themselves.
This is the general theme it seems biology and evolution leads us to believe. Humans don't need to be instantly able to walk and run like most animals, so we can pop out with half formed skulls and giant brains that need to learn basic functions for years. And as we increased the human comfort level, that time frame to reach "capable" got further and further out because it wasn't needed.
I think you can even see it at play in localized areas. Its probably one reason why black teens are far more physically developed and adult in appearance than white counterparts in general, because their environment is much more demanding of physical prowess.
Same with Lefties thinking women in their 20s aren't fully adults. They probably aren't because they have such a privileged protected life their body's didn't need to rush and left them just crawling slowly through maturity. Mentally at least, its almost certain they sexually matured super early because our decadent society pushes that hard too.
Its an interesting dilemma. Because you don't want to push kids too early and stunt their ability to think and reason, but if you go too late then the ravages of aging give them little time to achieve.
Completely agreed, except I don't think the left really believes in evolution. They claimed to 20 years ago because it undermined the Christians of the day, but they don't really act as though they believe it's true.
The left likes to say "'is' does not imply 'ought'", but if you claim to be a secular materialist then "is" is the reference point for the secular, material world; and you can only question that so many times before your claim to secular materialism may seriously be called into question.
I don't think most people do, because it undermines a lot of principles across the board to truly believe in it. Plenty will believe in it vaguely, and pay lipservice to it, but to actually grapple with its full extent is far too heavy for many.
The very notion that most of our traits and ability is determined from the circumstances of our birth and genes is a painful realization for many, as most of us want to believe in the ability to seize our destiny and grow greater than our station. We can to some extent, but only in certain restrictive avenues.