fafferlicious

I did not claim it was scientifically proven. I claimed the evidence contradicts your implication that electronic note taking is functionally equivalent to note taking. (i.e. handwriting notes aren't magic)

The findings involved 14 studies combining 3,075 participants demonstrated that using electronic notetaking methods reduced measured outcomes (average r = −.142). Using the Binomial Effect Size Display, results indicated a decline of 25% of students scoring below the mean when electronic devices when compared to using handwritten notetaking. 1

I was attempting to somewhat steelman your argument by using the nuance and complexity that often comes with research to show that there are caveats. You have an out. You could still be right. I expected someone named it_depends_man would be able to appreciate my nuanced approach. Please don't mistake my embrace of the ambiguity intrinsic to scientific research and progress (things are rarely proven outside of mathematics anyway) as logical inconsitency.

If there are, however, big logical gaps please do point those out. I genuinely would love to learn how I am wrong or ways to improve the way I reason.

Did I, at any point, suggest that students shouldn't take notes? Because I don't think I did. I think I said

No. I didn't say you said that either. I take notes electronically and physically. I understand the use cases of both. I never said don't use a laptop or electronic notes.

It literally legally isn't in my country..

Cool! Legitimately. However, the author of the article is clearly from an American University so we need to discuss from that context.

We’re also an NCAA Division 2 school...

Country context is critical because the claims he makes or issues he brings up may not be applicable to every country's student body.

Please don't be sad. I assure you I'm not stupid and my critical thinking is above average - if only just barely. I'm not appealing to my authority. I'm appealing to the authority of scientific literature. Where I freely admit I'm not equipped to robustly get into a debate about the scientific rigor of an individual study.

One thing I noticed as a student and then a brief stint as as TA for a few years is that the whole slide deck thing would be waaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy less boring if students did any amount of or effort.

Teachers always asked questions. Always tried to stoke conversations. Debate.

Students didn't answer. It was silence. They didn't do the pre-read. They didn't do any of the voluntary work. They showed up and expected to have knowledge transmitted into their brain in a way they get it.

It doesn't work like that.

Tldr; You completely missed the author's point, which only reinforces his point that students are illiterate and don't read. All you did is quibble with nitpicks like $100 of books not being cheap. He highlights students are intellectually stunted when they get to college and how they view college as purely transactional.

There is nothing "magic" about handwriting notes. They get lost, they can't be backed up, they take up space, they can't be shared, etc..

Factually incorrect: blog analysis with journal references. I'm not an expert in this domain, so I struggle to assess the quality of the meta analysis; however, the most conservative statement that can be made supported by the evidence is:

"There seems to be a noticeable improvement in performance associated with hand written notes but it may be partially or completely context or person dependent to see those benefits."

This is supported by the general knowledge that taking the time necessary to write the note helps reinforce the connection and memory recall.

No, it is your fault. You have remained at the technological and societal level of 40-50 years ago. Being a professor is a position of intellectual leadership...

A significant number of professors are intellectual leaders by performing research. That's their job. Students regularly do not recognize that the primary function of academic research university professors is not to educate - it's to develop new knowledge.

There is no official education training that professors go through. But good universities will have some support structures for it (and I don't have experience at teaching focused colleges). A good educator will spark curiosity, excitement, and wonder. Being a good educator is not necessary for being a good professor.

Students must take ownership for their own interests and actions. Students don't care about the material. Students will do the bare minimum to get the grade and regularly do so by cheating, copying, and denying fellow students study materials from previous quarters because it gives them an edge in classes graded on a curve.

Students will use LLMs to write essays with no editing and then argue with you about it when you fail them for cheating. Students will write everything they know about related to a test question and get mad when their shotgun approach loses them points - because summarizing a chapter in answering a specific question shows they do not comprehend the material. Students are hyper results oriented and the only purpose for college is because you were told to do it to get a job and you want a job.

It is not our job to entertain. It is our job to make new knowledge and educate to the best we can, but I'd students don't come to the table jumping around like {CURRENT_TOP_TIKTOK} to be entertaining isn't going to fix things.

The Titanic is still sinking because college isn't about becoming educated.

Bruh. Get the fuck out of here with that fluoride toxicity nonsense. You'll probably die of hydration before fluoride poisoning. This shit is safe and constantly monitored.

In conclusion, based on the totality of currently available scientific evidence, the present review does not support the presumption that fluoride should be assessed as a human developmental neurotoxicant at the current exposure levels in Europe.

In all fairness lmao

Wasn't gonna reply again, but I want to clarify. By they I meant OP because I wanted to be gender neutral. I have no way of knowing OPs mind.

They (Republicans and others), as I assume you're referring to, want to erase trans people - 100%. I don't extend that assumption to specific people.

I'm loath to commit the ecological fallacy by using population data to infer something about an individual.

Maybe I am being too generous, but from everything I see now people are not generous enough. It's a random person on the internet for crying out loud. Who knows if they're even real. Maybe they are. Maybe they do want to erase trans people. I'll never know. And honestly. Who cares? Their opinion only really matters if they're in your advocacy group.

I guess my point ultimately is Americans (as a whole) don't fucking care about marginalized people. Democracy's security wasn't even in the top 5! So if they can't be arsed to care about the dissolution of a representative government what makes you think you'll get the support you need on a national level?

That's why I love capitalizing on state's rights. We did it in 2004 with same sex marriage in California. It forced every state to recognize the unions. Things were set back with prop 8. Yes. But change comes from the states.

So to me it's a sound strategy - when going for national level attention focus on things that have broad national appeal. God. I crave a DNC leader with some actual fucking vision for a change. Someone that will take the billions in national fundraising money and shove it down to the local level and build activist groups.

But you're also very, very right. Research into understanding how to even help them and how effective it is being mothballed. Scrutinized. Censored. I can't fathom their terror as they're being scapegoated and erased. I guess that's our beliefs diverge. Sectioning fights between local and national stages isn't leaving people behind to me - it's how to support them, but that's why I talk. To think. So, thank you.💖

I don't think that having an effective strategy with a small set of demands focused on American's top concerns right now, immigration, cost of living, & inflation, doesn't mean we leave anyone behind. we still bring them with us.

We champion nationally on broadly popular pain points. We mobilize locally on protecting our friends. Use the protests and activism to identify, young, future political leaders. Bring them up through the city council. Bring them up to the Mayorship. Governorship.

I can't fathom a world where Republican politicians will ever say "yeah okay were wrong trans people have rights - our bad". Ever. We have to force them, but we don't have that power. We don't have the power for a segregation-like showdown. What supreme Court is going to uphold trans rights? Who's going to call in the national guard? What do you propose we do in places that red senators live and breathe that makes them reconsider?

We have to get the red states involved - broadly. We need to need a general strike. We need unionization. We need to take back our power with collective action. We need to be an unstoppable phalanx of pain that will burn all the wealth and value they steal from us to the ground until we get what we want.

We need to have momentum and energy and excitement and a slate of candidates in 2026 that will stand up and FUCKING FIGHT. We need to replace the impotent, geriatric representatives we have with someone whose spine isn't already bent.

The most impactful thing we can do to protect and help our brethren is to get power and give them their rightful seat. That starts locally. So fight with them. Fight for them. But have it be separate from the opposition to what is going on in D.C.

But what do I know. I'm not an organizer or an activist or a strategist. I'm as good as a 5 yr old. It just seems to me that true salvation will only come from running head first into states rights. Long term building of future leaders. National holiday election day, mandatory voting, and strong pushes to remove the cap on the house of representatives so that the voice of the people is just a little less distorted by money and land. That's my victory.

While violence behind diamond mines is real and should never be forgotten, don't be obtuse. It's not some thing you pulled from dirt.

It's still beautiful. It's still a gem. It's still something that naturally formed over millions of years in the crucible of fire and pressure beneath our crust. That history is astounding and something people can marvel at.

Don't begrudge Geoffrey Farrow his wonder at the world around him.

P.s. Fuck De Beers. Fuck the false scarcity. Fuck the slavery and violence and exploitation of nations the diamond trade relies on.

censorship does not require a government and it does apply

But if you look at the swing states that resulted in her loss, MI, WI, PA the votes are comparable to 2020.

(Votes in millions) MI: 2.80 Trump - 2.72 Harris vs 2.65 Trump vs 2.80 Biden WI: 1.70 Trump - 1.67 Harris vs 1.61 Trump vs 1.63 Biden PA: 3.51 trump - 3.44 Harris vs 3.38 Trump vs 3.46 Biden

Yes, Harris got generally fewer votes (Though not in WI). If Trump performed exactly as he did in 2020, Harris would have won. Trump did better. More people said "yes I want Trump" or more people turned out to vote to make sure it was "too big to steal"

If those numbers are "trumps votes stayed flat too" then, Harris receiving a similar number of votes to Biden in 2020 is flat too, right?

Like yeah there was an enthusiasm gap that seems pretty clear from the popular vote. But if you just look at the must win states it wasn't as far as what the nationwide popular vote would sugget. I think the safest conclusion to draw is Repubs were more energized to beat the fictional steal, and for some asinine reason some anti-trump voters went "...eh..Harris isn't good enough for my vote so we'll risk a fascist winning."

Yeah trump did better with young men, but I don't like % point comparisons like they show. If dem voters don't show up, it appears like Trump "wins". There were definitely articles where it was clearly he was picking up iconically reliable blue votes - Black and Latinos specifically. I think it's more just that people are hurting. The economy sucks for them and has for the past 12+ years. Even considering increased wages, it's still costing ridiculous more to exist.

The only shot the Dems had of not having that around their neck is an actually open primary. Biden needed to stick to what he said he was going to be - a bridge to the next generation. But he didn't. And then hung on top long where the only logical step with three months to go was Kamala. Even if a snap primary on all 50 states could happen again in a month, all the headlines would be "DEMS SKIP OVER CLEARLY QUALIFIED BLACK WOMAN -ARE THEY RACIST?"

Politics is messy. Dems needed a dem candidate. They've asininely let Republicans become the agents of change. The people that will shake things up. Fight the establishment. And it doesn't matter they don't actually do that, most voters are low info. The Democratic party needs to get people back on the picket line. Fight more. Go after business more. Swing for the fences and lose. Propose a negative income tax bracket. Yeah it's more conservative bullshit from the Reagan era, but it's a decent fucking alternative to UBI which doesn't have the broad appeal.

2020 Data 2024 Data

It's not inconsistent. We see it habitually. Republican power is oversized in the Senate, House, and arguably the Executive due to structural issues caused by our bicameral system and the cap on representatives. This results in the GOP having a much stronger majority control over all three branches - added also that Republican politicians toe the line more frequently for the radical things they want to push.

It isn't an objective matter of how powerful or effective the Executive branch is, but also the power structures in the party in control. It is not a false dichotomy to think that Democrats struggle to pass impactful changes while on power, but the Republicans are able to do that more effectively while in power.

A substantial majority of people do not fetishize (not necessarily sexualize) anthropomorphic animals, dress in ears and tails, or wear full on fursuits. Furries are not normal by definition. Being abnormal is not intrinsically bad.

It's generally good! Diversity of thought and behavior, like genetics, leads to healthy and robust systems.