Black Harvard economics professor wrote a research paper investigating whether racial differences in police shooting rates were the result of “racial bias” or “statistical discrimination”. Statistical discrimination = an individual or institution treats people differently based on data that reflects the average behavior of a racial group. Racial bias = if police pull over black drivers at a rate that disproportionately exceeded their likelihood of drug possession, that would be an irrational behavior representing individual or institutional bias.
Jewish Harvard Health & Human Rights Fellow finds flaws in methodology, but also shows extreme lack of neutrality to social science research! These are two of his opening statements: 1. "There should be no argument that black and Latino people in Houston are much more likely to be shot by police compared to whites." 2. "the idea of “statistical discrimination” is just as abhorrent as “racial bias”."
Methodological flaw one seems valid.
1. pulling people over who are most likely to have done something illegal, and making more arrests is rational behavior by police. It isn't the right approach to shootings though, as police officers are not trying to rationally maximize the number of shootings.
2. flaw two is described as this: actual study assumes a population of people who are shot by police OR people who are arrested. Proper approach is to assume a population of drivers stopped by police that can have one of two outcomes: they can be arrested, or not. This is a less valid criticism, because "proper approach" doesn't even have shooting as an outcome! Finding is that of the two groups (shot OR arrested), racial disparity in arrest rates is larger than the racial disparity in police shooting.
An extended discourse ensued in and around the status of connectivism as a learning theory for the digital age. This led to a number of questions in relation to existing learning theories. Do they still meet the needs of today’s learners, and anticipate the needs of learners of the future? Would a new theory that encompasses new developments in digital technology be more appropriate, and would it be suitable for other aspects of learning, including in the traditional class room, in distance education and e-learning? In this article, I highlight current theories of learning and critically analyze connectivism within the context of its predecessors, to establish if it has anything new to offer as a learning theory or as an approach to teaching for the 21st Century.
"Jonas Bååth kritiserar iden om postdigitalitet och att samtidskulturen vänder sig bort från digitala lösningar. Han menar istället att mediet integreras och naturliggörs."
Début septembre 2010, une poignée d'économistes lançaient un manifeste pour dire qu'après la crise, tout ne pourra pas repartir comme avant, qu'on ne pourra pas reprendre les mêmes doctrines et les mêmes fausses évidences.
Seit dem Jahr 2007 beobachten wir nun im verstärkten Maße das Versagen unseres bisherigen Gesellschaftssystems. In einer Zeit, in der vielerorts Geld zu einer Art Gott ernannt wurde, zu einem goldenen Kalb, das die Menschheit wie im Wahn umtanzt, benötigte es erst größere finanzielle Verwerfungen, damit dies vielen Menschen klar wurde. … Was wir jedoch statt fundierter Beschäftigung mit den zu Tage geförderten Erkenntnissen um so häufiger beobachten können, sind a) die Verlagerung der Diskussion auf Nebenkriegsschauplätze und b) bewusste Ablenkungsmanöver durch die Massenmedien. (Von Florian Hauschild)
Y. Jin, W. Cai, L. Chen, N. Htun, и K. Verbert. Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, стр. 951-960. ACM, (ноября 2019)