Tag Archives: research

Playing with Bing copilot

Leave a reply

I asked Bing copilot about myself:

What does David Truss write about on http://davidtruss.com

The response:

David Truss writes about various topics related to education, learning, and technology on his website http://davidtruss.com. He shares his thoughts, experiences, and reflections as an educator, a student, a thinker, and a dreamer. He also showcases his presentations, podcasts, resources, and projects that he has created or contributed to. Some of the themes that he explores on his website are:

  • Inquiry-based learning and teaching
  • Blended learning and distributed learning
  • Leadership and innovation
  • Student voice and choice
  • Global citizenship and social responsibility
  • Personalized learning and professional growth

You can find more information about David Truss and his work on his website 1 or on his blog Pair-a-Dimes for Your Thoughts.

—–

I followed up more specifically with my daily blog:

What does David Truss write about on http://daily-ink.davidtruss.com?

The response:

David Truss writes about his personal and professional experiences, reflections, and insights on his daily blog Daily-Ink. He describes his writing as his artistic expression, and his keyboard as his brush. He commits to writing daily to feel like an artist. He covers various topics related to education, learning, technology, leadership, innovation, global citizenship, and more. Some of his recent posts are:

  • Rewind: He looks back at the past year of the pandemic and how it changed his life and work. He also rewinds to previous years and how different decisions and events shaped his career and family. He wonders how he will look at February 2021 a decade from now.
  • Headspace: He shares his thoughts on meditation and mindfulness, and how they help him cope with stress and anxiety. He recommends some apps and podcasts that he uses to practice meditation and mindfulness.
  • Cruise ships and education: He draws an analogy between cruise ships and education systems, and how they both need to adapt to the changing needs and expectations of their customers and stakeholders. He argues that education needs to be more personalized, flexible, and relevant for the learners of today and tomorrow.

—–

I had to update the links to the posts because they all went to my blog’s home page, but those were correct post titles. Also the ‘Headspace’ post made no mention of meditation and mindfulness, though I do mention those frequently in other posts… and that particular post isn’t really typical of the things I write about.

I then switched from asking questions to clicking on Bing’s copilot suggested questions. The first one was:

What is David Truss’s background?

The response:

David Truss is a Canadian educator and administrator who is currently the principal of three programs in Coquitlam, BC: Coquitlam Open Learning, Inquiry Hub Secondary School, and Suwa’lkh Learning Centre. He has a background in inquiry-based learning, blended learning, distributed learning, leadership, innovation, global citizenship, and social responsibility. He is also a blogger, podcaster, author, and speaker who shares his thoughts and experiences on education, learning, and technology. He has a website Pair-a-Dimes where he showcases his work and resources. He also wrote an eBook called Twitter Edu where he shares his tips and tricks on using Twitter for professional learning and networking.

—–

This time I didn’t change the links… because I think it’s valuable to mention how wrong they are. The link to my blog, Pair-a-Dimes, above actually goes to a Barbara Bray podcast about me, and the link to my Twitter book actually goes to the Encyclopedia Britannica page for Liz Truss, former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. The rest of the data is quite accurate (other than I no longer run Suwa’lkh), but it seems copilot has a linking issue.

The next suggested question:

Can you show me some of his projects?

Sure, I can show you some of his projects that he has created or contributed to. Here are some examples:

  • Inquiry Hub Secondary School: This is a high school in Coquitlam, BC, Canada that focuses on independent learning and inquiry-based projects. David Truss is the principal of this school and one of the founders. He also shares his experiences and insights on leading and learning in this innovative environment. You can learn more about this school on its website 1 or on Wikipedia 2.
  • 10 Truss Houses That Brilliantly Blend Architecture With Engineering: This is an article that David Truss wrote for Architizer Journal, where he showcases 10 residential projects that use trusses as a major design element. He explores how these structural systems frame spatial experiences and respond to diverse landscapes. You can read his article here 3.
  • Twitter Edu: This is an eBook that David Truss co-authored with Eric Sheninger, where they share their tips and tricks on using Twitter for professional learning and networking. They explain how to create a personal learning network, find and share resources, and connect with other educators around the world. You can download their eBook here .

—–

The middle point is not remotely about me, and the last one didn’t link to my e-book. This request was the first one that really deviated from my profile with the Architecture article about truss supports. I had to do a search to find this article, since it wasn’t linked, and the link that it goes to above in the search results is an article about Liz Truss.

I followed one more copilot suggested question:

What is David Truss’s Twitter handle?

This was the response:

David Truss’s Twitter handle is @datruss. He is a Canadian educator, administrator, blogger, podcaster, author, and speaker. He tweets about education, learning, technology, leadership, innovation, global citizenship, and more. He has over 18.5K followers and follows over 10.6K accounts. He joined Twitter in March 2008 and has posted over 55.6K tweets as of April 2023. You can follow him on Twitter to get his latest updates and insights

—–

Once again the links went to articles about Liz, but the information was correct other than totals for my follows/following, which are both around 13K.

Overall, I’m impressed by the accuracy of copilot, and disappointed by the lack of reliable links. I think of Bing copilot a bit like I think of Wikipedia, it’s a great place to start your research, but not a definitive source to base any answers on. It’s a copilot when you are taking off on a search but once you are in the air, you need to take over the steering and guide the search plane to more credible or primary sources of information.

—

One final thought: The html code that pasted onto my blog from copilot was very messy. I’d suggest pasting without formatting and adding the correct links after you have pasted everything… lesson learned!

My life before Google

1 Reply

I shared this in a post a few years ago:

I grew up in a pre-Google era, but I had something better… I had my dad. It seemed that no matter what question I may ask, my dad had, and still has, a comprehensive answer. My only hesitation to ask him a question was that I needed to be sure I was interested enough to get his extensive and detailed answer.

He didn’t just have verbal answers, he had books, thousands of books, and files, and files, and still more files. In Grade 11 I had to do a project on tidal power, and so I asked dad if he had any information for me. He did, and after moving some file boxes around he found it. No easy task when there were layers of boxes to reorganize… and not a box, or a file was labelled!!!

The tidal energy file was 2-3 centimetres thick and I blew away my class and teacher with the research I shared. In a pre-Google era it would have taken 15-20 hours searching library bookshelves and microfiche to collect research, newspaper clippings, and magazine articles that I had at my fingertips.

This was the life most people lived before Google:

I always had the information I wanted, I just had to ask my dad.

Not so knowledgeable

An interesting study: Knowledge overconfidence is associated with anti-consensus views on controversial scientific issues

“Recently, evidence has emerged, suggesting a potentially important revision to models of the relationship between knowledge and anti-science attitudes: Those with the most extreme anti-consensus views may be the least likely to apprehend the gaps in their knowledge…

Those with the most strongly held anti-consensus views may be not only the least knowledgeable but also the most overconfident about how much they know.”

This TikTok does a good summary: https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMNWgdpB1/

“Results from five studies show that the people who disagree most with the scientific consensus know less about the relevant issues, but they think they know more. These results suggest that this phenomenon is fairly general, although the relationships were weaker for some more polarized issues, particularly climate change. It is important to note that we document larger mismatches between subjective and objective knowledge among participants who are more opposed to the scientific consensus. Thus, although broadly consistent with the Dunning-Kruger effect and other research on knowledge miscalibration, our findings represent a pattern of relationships that goes beyond overconfidence among the least knowledgeable. However, the data are correlational, and the normal caveats apply.

This explains some of the anti-consensus views I’ve seen being expressed, but certainly not all. I know some very smart people who would probably do well on these kinds of tests, and yet buy into some very suspect but opinion affirming ‘information’. It doesn’t matter if this information can easily be proven wrong, because even though much of their base knowledge is good, their anti-consensus views are rigid. If the consensus view doesn’t fit, it’s perceived as propaganda, misinformation, or just plain wrong.

The biggest area where this is evident is with conspiracy theories. There is so much common knowledge that needs to be wrong for most conspiracies to be true. There are so many people that would need to be complacent and ‘in on the secret’ that it couldn’t possible remain secret. Yet even very intelligent people can be fooled. I think there is a simple litmus test that most people who believe in a conspiracy theory can self administer to determine if they should check their own bias:

How many conspiracy theories do I believe in?

If the answer is one, then you really might be working on specific information that makes consensus views very suspect. Maybe you’ve done your research and have come to some concerning perspective that should rightly be anti-consensus. But if the answer is two or more, you probably aren’t as knowledgeable as you think.

Hot topics and doing your own research

Hot topics

It’s hard to write daily and not touch on hot topics. But I also know that it’s hard to discuss hot topics without being misunderstood or offending people either by intentionally being one-sided or accidentally by making unclear or poor analogies and comparisons. I wrote a whole post today on one such topic then I read and participated in a private conversation with my sisters and deleted the whole post. I didn’t save it to my drafts for later, I deleted it.

There are too many people already writing polarized views on hot topics, completely missing the point that ideas fall on a continuum, on a spectrum. I realize that I’m not knowledgeable enough to share my polarized view. I will upset people, and I will not change any minds… that’s not a good outcome that accomplishes anything.

This is a time for many to speak up, and it makes me feel like I should too. Then I try and realize my voice is the wrong voice. I wish a few more people would think the same way. We have entered a social media culture that says everyone has a voice, and there is a flood of voices not worth listening to.

Do your own research

The solution often given to so many voices sharing information is to ‘do your own research’. What a bunch of bullshit that is… ridiculous advice to solve a problem in an era where anyone can find the information they are looking for to support their already established views. Doing your own research suggests you have the background in doing research, it suggests you can read a scientific paper and understand and meaningfully interpret the data… in a field you probably know very little about.

Yes you can share your opinion, No it doesn’t hold more water than another opinion because you spent 20 minutes or even 2 hours researching it on the internet. Most serious issues are far more complex and nuanced than that. I’m not saying to not do research, however I am saying that you might find research that only supports your bias, and that research may not be interpreted properly by you or the so-called experts you choose to listen to.

It’s extremely unlikely that a blog post from a non-expert is going to change minds unless it’s intentionally deceptive or already leaning in the polarized direction you were considering. So I won’t throw my opinion out into any current polarized arguments right now. I probably will at some point if I’m writing every day, but for now I think I just need to shut up with respect to hot topics. Being vocal might make me feel good but my voice will contribute nothing new, nothing profoundly insightful. It will be nothing but another angry voice screaming on the internet. I haven’t done enough real research to believe I have anything of value to add.

Downward Spiral into the mud

My grandfather had a saying, and I’ve shared it often, “Never wrestle with a pig, you both get dirty but the pig likes it.”

The pig has some success no matter what. This is something that I think is playing out with anti-vax and conspiracy arguments… they have some success every time we argue. The reason for this success is that they are operating from a fixed mindset, their minds are made up… but they are often arguing with people who have a growth mindset and are open to some level of persuasion. It’s a guaranteed downward spiral, with some of their fixed and misguided ideas seeping into the consciousness of people who try to factor all things in to their understanding.

An example of this is when the twin towers fell in New York. There were all kinds of conspiracy theories that started with the premise that ‘steel towers can’t crumble like that just because a plane crashed into them’. Spoiler alert, they can. But at the time we had no examples to go by, no science to support the possibility, and so just raising this concern could put doubt into a reasonable person’s mind. Then came the videos. Google something like “twin tower conspiracy video” and you’ll see what I mean. These videos are well crafted and convincing.

If you are someone prone to the idea that there is some cabal that has a master plan to rule the world, the fall of the twin towers easily fits that narrative. However, if you are someone who looks at evidence and makes sound decisions based on the information you have, too much of this convincing misdirection and misinformation could influence your thinking. In other words the spread of well constructed fake news has influence on all parties… meanwhile simple logic and boring facts only work on those with growth mindsets willing to do the research work.

The pig wins the moment you engage you in the fight. They get you dirty. Here is a study done at MIT, ‘Does correcting online falsehoods make matters worse?‘, which looks at how pointing out mistakes doesn’t help the argument:

Not only is misinformation increasing online, but attempting to correct it politely on Twitter can have negative consequences, leading to even less-accurate tweets and more toxicity from the people being corrected, according to a new study co-authored by a group of MIT scholars.

The study was centered around a Twitter field experiment in which a research team offered polite corrections, complete with links to solid evidence, in replies to flagrantly false tweets about politics.

“What we found was not encouraging,” says Mohsen Mosleh, a research affiliate at the MIT Sloan School of Management, lecturer at University of Exeter Business School, and a co-author of a new paper detailing the study’s results. “After a user was corrected … they retweeted news that was significantly lower in quality and higher in partisan slant, and their retweets contained more toxic language.”

And the article goes on to say,

“We might have expected that being corrected would shift one’s attention to accuracy. But instead, it seems that getting publicly corrected by another user shifted people’s attention away from accuracy — perhaps to other social factors such as embarrassment.” The effects were slightly larger when people were being corrected by an account identified with the same political party as them, suggesting that the negative response was not driven by partisan animosity.

Now in this case the ‘evidence’ will often degrade, and so it may not be too convincing, but research like this suggests that the conspiracy or fake news spreader is very unlikely to change their minds given sound evidence against their ideas… but when their false ideas are well crafted and instil doubt, the same can’t be said for thoughtful people who aren’t fixed in their opinions.

Social media engagement is more likely to influence people towards believing aspects of fake news that to promote facts and sound evidence. It’s a downward spiral, and it’s getting us all a little dirty.

Vitamin D and Covid-19

Have you ever heard of Pascal’s Wager?

Here are 2 videos about how Vitamin D is likely to reduce the seriousness of Covid-19 complications. This is not like a vaccine, preventing you from getting Covid-19. This is not a cure. What Vitamin D seems to do is reduce the likelihood of respiratory complications in people who have contracted Covid-19.

I’ve already shared this idea with you: ‘Vitamin D could save your life’. Now here are two videos sharing some more research.

The first video is on a very small study in Spain, and the details are shared in an easy to understand explanation.

The second video is more technical, but also looks at more than one study.

Back to Pascal’s wager: here are 4 scenarios based on Vitamin D working as the research suggests vs not:

1. Vitamin D can reduce the seriousness of Covid-19 and you don’t take it. -> You might catch Covid-19 and things could get much worse than if you took it.

2. Vitamin D can reduce the seriousness of Covid-19 and you take it. -> You might catch Covid-19 and have a much milder or less serious case. Even if you don’t catch Covid-19, most people are deficient in Vitamin D and so it still helps you.

3. Vitamin D won’t reduce the seriousness of Covid-19 and you don’t take it. -> No loss or benefit.

4. Vitamin D won’t reduce the seriousness of Covid-19 and you take it. -> As said above, even if you don’t catch Covid-19, most people are deficient in Vitamin D and so it still helps you.

It seems that the potential benefits vs no downside makes adding the supplement to your daily routine worth it!

Can you take too much Vitamin D? Yes. Google searches have given me a variety of results, but it seems that it would take excessive supplement overuse for a prolonged period to cause issues.

I’m not a doctor, I don’t pretend to be one. I just see so much upside to taking Vitamin D. Talk to your doctor or share the videos above with friends who are doctors. See what they have to say.

Go to Wikipedia FIRST

20131017-174903.jpg

I hope that the 2012 statistic that 73% of teachers prohibit Wikipedia for research is wrong! For years I have told students (and my own kids but they don’t necessarily listen to me) that Wikipedia should be the FIRST place to go. It’s amazing how many people buy into the idea that ‘it isn’t accurate’ and then not only believe this, but propagate the message too!

I don’t think only going to Wikipedia qualifies as comprehensive research, but I do think it is a great place to START. Wikipedia is a great place to go to learn background information and learn about related terms and topics.

It’s also fun to link-hop too. Pick a random subject, read about it, follow an interesting link, and repeat 5 or 6 times and you are off on a learning adventure with a mystery ending. For example, where else could I go and get from Pythagoras to Pearl Jam in just 5 clicks! 🙂

What do you want to know about teens and social media?

Danah Boyd asked this very question, last June, and here was my response: 

____________

I’m interested in knowing more about:

1. Gaming: As it relates to socializing with others vs isolating & playing on their own.

2. Friendship: Actually two things here, first, definitions of online friendship by teens, and second, more about the duration and quality of friendships teens are creating. I know that as an adult I have created some very meaningful online relationships (in my case with other educators) with people I have never met f2f, is this happening with teens as well?

3. Content creation (trends): What are teens creating and sharing online? Here I’m actually interested in the bleeding edge, where are they taking content creation to a new level? How are they ‘mashing’ things up?

4. Learning: How are teens taking learning into their own hands, what are they doing outside of schools to educate themselves and learn new things?

____________

I’m still interested in these things… who can help me learn more?