Sunday, September 5, 2021

Sunday, September 5, 2021 

 

   I was in pain last night. The tennis ball cure worked like a charm. I didn’t get out for my walk until 6:30 this morning. I spent a lot of time dozing for most of the night instead of sleeping. I periodically did the exercises my PT had recommended, pushing my heel down while lying on my back and raising my hips with bent knees to strengthen my hamstrings. I woke up feeling fine. As I walked, I ran into folks I hadn’t seen before. I also ran into two folks that must have slept in as I did. I headed up the hill today. I made it to the first fire hydrant. I hadn’t taken that route for at least a year now. The only body part that bothered me was my left ankle.

    Yesterday, the pain in my right foot had a reprieve. I spent about half an hour rolling my foot over a golf ball. When I got home and checked my foot, I could see the tendons stand out on my right foot for the first time since this problem began.   On Friday, the PT commented on how the foot was still swollen. I have no idea why it would be down now, but happy to see my foot looking normal again.

    When I downloaded the updates to the blog, I checked my numbers as I always do. They continued to be on the low side, under 10.

      I spent much of the day anticipating the session with Matthew, head of the special ed division of the local middle school. He was the first teacher who had shown interest in my work. Amy Marlin showed interest when I was teaching at Licking Heights South. I gave her a two-minute demonstration. It could be enough, but it requires a conceptual leap, particularly for teachers trained in other reading methods. In addition, this method requires the teacher to make conscious what is currently unconscious.

    Before an adult teaches a child how to tie a shoelace, they must rediscover the steps involved. In doing so, they are making what is unconscious conscious. We love doing things automatically. It is like falling off a log. Making conscious what is unconscious can be an unpleasant feeling. In using Phase I of the reading method, it is vital that the teacher focus on sensory input, discovering what they do.

   The Zoom session started at 2 pm and lasted until 3:30. Matthew had watched the YouTube video before meeting with me twice. He is a learner who understands that you don’t absorb new material immediately, especially if it is not close to what you know already. My method is based on a very different concept of teaching. It teaches a process rather than information. We agreed there would be other sessions.  

   Matthew had one bright student who had problems with math. When he added 4 + 5, he made four marks, then five more, and counted them. He was in middle school. What is the problem? My first thought is poor number sense. He does not associate abstract numerals with concrete objects. If I were to ask him, which is larger, an adult or a child? Could he answer that question? If I were to ask him which number is larger, 3 or 7? Could he answer that? I’m already thinking about the problem. I love solving mysteries like that. Sadly, even if I diagnose the problem correctly, it doesn’t mean I can find the solution.  

   I watched a documentary on Linda Ronstadt. I always loved her voice, but then I heard her sing in the Pirate of Penance. Holy Cow! That woman had a truly amazing voice. 

  _____ -____-_____

    Musings:

Statistics versus heuristics or anecdotal evidence. 

 

     There’s a big to-do about statistical evidence. While ‘statistical’ evidence is valuable, people, including statisticians, find it hard to relate to. We all prefer heuristics or anecdotal evidence. What is the difference between statistics and heuristics?

     In heuristics, the test cohort is people we have had direct contact with or know someone who knows someone. In statistics, a cohort is a group of people we have had no contact with. The sample of people in heuristics is usually smaller than the one cited in statistical evidence. While we may know someone who fits the bill, we’re unlikely to know a large group. Of course, we may know a large group. I heard of someone who pulled over 300 cards from his Rolodex of people he knew who died of Aids. 

   In heuristics, we estimate the likelihood of an outcome. In statistics, the evidence is diligently accumulated and put through algorithms. Neuroscientists say we are born with an inner statistician.   Babies have to calculate the likelihood of one thing versus another. They, of course, are comparing objects; they are well rooted in their senses. Heuristics requires that information appeal to our senses. 

   Evidence from statistics is distant and abstract. While we can ‘understand’ its value, it doesn’t hold much meaning for us. Statistics are good for challenging our dearly held conceptions. However, even the best scientists are biased. All research is skewed. While statistics are less skewed than heuristics, they’re not free from the ‘taint’ of preconceived ideas.

    I come across people who dismiss the result of my work because it is all anecdotal, meaning heuristic. It is. But eventually, that evidence accumulates. It took me years to be convinced of the value of my approach to teaching. Evidence accumulated over time and as the number of positive results increased.