houseoftolstoy @[email protected]
Looks like this will be my new home. Warning: I (probably) have Asperger's, so my be prepared for my autism to show through.
I don't think I am a right wing extremist, but I am sure anyone with low testosterone might think otherwise.
Joined Sep 2022
houseoftolstoy
boosted
Turns out all the UN produces is reports no one reads. Bureaucrats don't do anything besides push paperwork and water is still wet. More news at 11.
houseoftolstoy
boosted
Why Johnny still can't read.
https://www.apmreports.org/episode/2019/08/22/whats-wr...
Given the original book examining that question was published in 1955 my guess is because Johnny 78 and can't remember where he left his glasses.
But back in the Eisenhower years little Johnny couldn't read because teachers weren't teaching phonics, the relationship between written letters and spoken sounds.
Back in the core of the boomer years the trend was to jump too quickly from phonics to sight reading, recognising an entire word and its pronunciation from memory. If you were already a strong reader you were likely fine with this; if you were at all behind you would be left struggling.
Fast-forward a few decades and we find new generations of children who still can't read because they have been trapped by the once new trendy pedagogies. Molly Woodworth was a poor reader as a child and came up with tricks to help make it through lessons, though the tricks never worked terribly well.
When she looked at the reading lessons for her daughter Claire, she was horrified to discover that the tricks she created for herself, the same ones that didn't work for her, were being taught as standard practice.
>A couple of years ago, Woodworth was volunteering in Claire's kindergarten classroom. The class was reading a book together and the teacher was telling the children to practice the strategies that good readers use.
>The teacher said, "If you don't know the word, just look at this picture up here," Woodworth recalled. "There was a fox and a bear in the picture. And the word was bear, and she said, 'Look at the first letter. It's a "b." Is it fox or bear?'"
>Woodworth was stunned. "I thought, 'Oh my God, those are my strategies.' Those are the things I taught myself to look like a good reader, not the things that good readers do," she said. "These kids were being taught my dirty little secrets."
Why are teachers deliberately sabotaging reading skills?
Enter Ken Goodman.
>The theory is known as "three cueing." The name comes from the notion that readers use three different kinds of information - or "cues" - to identify words as they are reading.
>The theory was first proposed in 1967, when an education professor named Ken Goodman presented a paper at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association in New York City.
>In the paper, Goodman rejected the idea that reading is a precise process that involves exact or detailed perception of letters or words.
Goodman still believed that when this article was written in 2019, the author requested and was granted an interview.
The problem is, Goodman was proven wrong fifty years ago:
>So, in 1975, Stanovich and a fellow graduate student set out to test the idea in their lab. They recruited readers of various ages and abilities and gave them a series of word-reading tasks. Their hypothesis was that skilled readers rely more on contextual cues to recognize words than poor readers, who probably weren't as good at using context.
>They couldn't have been more wrong.
>"To our surprise, all of our research results pointed in the opposite direction," Stanovich wrote. "It was the poorer readers, not the more skilled readers, who were more reliant on context to facilitate word recognition."
Or to put it another way:
>Goldberg realized lots of her students couldn't actually read the words in their books; instead, they were memorizing sentence patterns and using the pictures to guess. One little boy exclaimed, "I can read this book with my eyes shut!"
>"Oh no," Goldberg thought. "That is not reading."
Why did Goodman still believe in his failed ideas after all this time? (At the time the article was written, he was 91 and had just published a new edition of his book.)
Put as politely as possible, he is an idiotic kike:
>"Word recognition is a preoccupation," he said. "I don't teach word recognition. I teach people to make sense of language. And learning the words is incidental to that."
No, he really meant that:
>I pressed him on this. First of all, a pony isn't the same thing as a horse. Second, don't you want to make sure that when a child is learning to read, he understands that /p//o//n//y/ says "pony"?
>And different letters say "horse"?
He dismissed my question.
>"The purpose is not to learn words," he said. "The purpose is to make sense."
Like a true jew he tripled down minutes later:
>In his view, three cueing is perfectly valid, drawn from a different kind of evidence than what scientists collect in their labs.
"My science is different," Goodman said.
And why is fashionable nonsense so entrenched in education?
Lots of reasons, one primary reason, is because jews want you to learn this way. It is actually how hebrew is taught.
https://www.apmreports.org/episode/2019/08/22/whats-wr...
Given the original book examining that question was published in 1955 my guess is because Johnny 78 and can't remember where he left his glasses.
But back in the Eisenhower years little Johnny couldn't read because teachers weren't teaching phonics, the relationship between written letters and spoken sounds.
Back in the core of the boomer years the trend was to jump too quickly from phonics to sight reading, recognising an entire word and its pronunciation from memory. If you were already a strong reader you were likely fine with this; if you were at all behind you would be left struggling.
Fast-forward a few decades and we find new generations of children who still can't read because they have been trapped by the once new trendy pedagogies. Molly Woodworth was a poor reader as a child and came up with tricks to help make it through lessons, though the tricks never worked terribly well.
When she looked at the reading lessons for her daughter Claire, she was horrified to discover that the tricks she created for herself, the same ones that didn't work for her, were being taught as standard practice.
>A couple of years ago, Woodworth was volunteering in Claire's kindergarten classroom. The class was reading a book together and the teacher was telling the children to practice the strategies that good readers use.
>The teacher said, "If you don't know the word, just look at this picture up here," Woodworth recalled. "There was a fox and a bear in the picture. And the word was bear, and she said, 'Look at the first letter. It's a "b." Is it fox or bear?'"
>Woodworth was stunned. "I thought, 'Oh my God, those are my strategies.' Those are the things I taught myself to look like a good reader, not the things that good readers do," she said. "These kids were being taught my dirty little secrets."
Why are teachers deliberately sabotaging reading skills?
Enter Ken Goodman.
>The theory is known as "three cueing." The name comes from the notion that readers use three different kinds of information - or "cues" - to identify words as they are reading.
>The theory was first proposed in 1967, when an education professor named Ken Goodman presented a paper at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association in New York City.
>In the paper, Goodman rejected the idea that reading is a precise process that involves exact or detailed perception of letters or words.
Goodman still believed that when this article was written in 2019, the author requested and was granted an interview.
The problem is, Goodman was proven wrong fifty years ago:
>So, in 1975, Stanovich and a fellow graduate student set out to test the idea in their lab. They recruited readers of various ages and abilities and gave them a series of word-reading tasks. Their hypothesis was that skilled readers rely more on contextual cues to recognize words than poor readers, who probably weren't as good at using context.
>They couldn't have been more wrong.
>"To our surprise, all of our research results pointed in the opposite direction," Stanovich wrote. "It was the poorer readers, not the more skilled readers, who were more reliant on context to facilitate word recognition."
Or to put it another way:
>Goldberg realized lots of her students couldn't actually read the words in their books; instead, they were memorizing sentence patterns and using the pictures to guess. One little boy exclaimed, "I can read this book with my eyes shut!"
>"Oh no," Goldberg thought. "That is not reading."
Why did Goodman still believe in his failed ideas after all this time? (At the time the article was written, he was 91 and had just published a new edition of his book.)
Put as politely as possible, he is an idiotic kike:
>"Word recognition is a preoccupation," he said. "I don't teach word recognition. I teach people to make sense of language. And learning the words is incidental to that."
No, he really meant that:
>I pressed him on this. First of all, a pony isn't the same thing as a horse. Second, don't you want to make sure that when a child is learning to read, he understands that /p//o//n//y/ says "pony"?
>And different letters say "horse"?
He dismissed my question.
>"The purpose is not to learn words," he said. "The purpose is to make sense."
Like a true jew he tripled down minutes later:
>In his view, three cueing is perfectly valid, drawn from a different kind of evidence than what scientists collect in their labs.
"My science is different," Goodman said.
And why is fashionable nonsense so entrenched in education?
Lots of reasons, one primary reason, is because jews want you to learn this way. It is actually how hebrew is taught.
In theory I can run a sub 7 minute mile. I say "in theory" since it was done on a treadmill, which is not the same thing as regular running.
I doubt I will get to the point of being at my peak for distance running, but I at least am happy to be capable of improving my running back to a level I am happy with. And since my main exercise focus is lifting heavy, there is no way I am training optimally for distance running. But I am just fine with that.
houseoftolstoy
boosted
Older boomers used to have go to dance halls to meet girls, kissing was taboo on the first date, abortions were also taboo and rare, pre marital sex did happen but it was frowned upon and a "Shotgun wedding" was considered mandatory if you knocked a women up, otherwise the girl would be sent to the "home for unwed mothers" for a bit and you would be ostracized from polite White society as a despicable degenerate and all around horrible piece of shit, child support wasn't necessary because White people policed their own and niggers, only 7% of the population, were mostly good with keeping a two parent household.
Then sometime in the mid to late60s/early 70s all of this fell apart, boomers, if they didn't actively contribute to its downfall of this ordered society, let it happen with virtually no resistance.
If you ask boomers about that today they'll say "yeah things ain't like they used to be." Why is that grandpa? Was there possibly something that happened when you became a young adult that contributed to this?
Then sometime in the mid to late60s/early 70s all of this fell apart, boomers, if they didn't actively contribute to its downfall of this ordered society, let it happen with virtually no resistance.
If you ask boomers about that today they'll say "yeah things ain't like they used to be." Why is that grandpa? Was there possibly something that happened when you became a young adult that contributed to this?
houseoftolstoy
boosted
if war ever comes to the US mainland again 99% of "high skill" immigrants are going to run right back home to avoid danger and hardship, which will cripple a bunch of critical industries that have been freezing out real americans for decades
Another complaint about it "being too expensive" to cook for yourself is people refusing to eat the same thing for days in a row. It also prevents the "it takes too much time" excuse, because if you only cook a couple times a week, you get more bang for your buck.
"But I don't want to eat the same thing every day!" If you are broke, too bad. You can't afford variety, so learn to eat leftovers. Also, leftovers "tasting bad" is just a skill issue.
The worst excuse I have seen for broke people not conserving their budget by not cooking for themselves is "It's too expensive!"
Bullshit. You need to learn how to shop and plan for cheaper ingredients. And you clearly do not know how to do math if you cannot see that ordering takeout is more expensive than making it yourself.
Yes, it takes practice. But if you are broke, you cannot afford not learn this skill.
And "we have to support single mothers". Yeah, we have been doing that. And it is only making things worse, as it makes it harder for families to afford having their own children given the welfare state taxing the productive to pay for the single mothers.
Not that I accept the reasoning that it is all economical, as I argue there is not such thing as a "good enough economy" to raise birth rates. But I know it does not help.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scnYVZyJ280
I give credit where credit is due regarding the fact that focus on careers creates fewer children (though not explicitly stating it is more a problem with women), as well as pushing against the idea that "we should have policies like the Scandinavian countries" as a solution to birth rate issues when those countries are also below replacement rates.
No solutions beyond "changing the culture," but we all know why that is the case.
Those that are incapable of accepting generalized statements of truth regarding any topic will often proclaim that they are doing so due to their superior intellect:
"It's more complicated/It's more nuanced than that."
The purpose of a generalized statement is that it is true for most cases, not for every single case. Exceptions exist, but focusing on the exceptions too much shows that you are actually not intelligent and/or you are pushing an agenda.
houseoftolstoy
boosted
houseoftolstoy
boosted
houseoftolstoy
boosted
> It's extraordinary because I say so.
Leftism requires a level of intellectual dishonesty.
Leftism requires a level of intellectual dishonesty.
houseoftolstoy
boosted
Both female cops would have been raped and murdered had that man not been there to save them. Women dont belong in Police Forces or the Military.
houseoftolstoy
boosted
houseoftolstoy
boosted
Bills in Congress are a lot like women: when they are big, they are not beautiful, no matter how much anyone insists on coupling the terms "big" and "beautiful."
Making a bad choice that is not entirely your fault does not mean the choice was not bad. It is just that you were not making decisions based on correct information. The conclusion you should gather from that is not to double down and claim that you made the right choice and say that others are just jealous, but rather to use the information you now have to help others not repeat the same mistakes.
Taking the double down option just shows that you are no wiser in spite of the experience.
Looks like this will be my new home. Warning: I (probably) have Asperger's, so my be prepared for my autism to show through.
I don't think I am a right wing extremist, but I am sure anyone with low testosterone might think otherwise.
Joined Sep 2022
