Writing is my artistic expression. My keyboard is my brush. Words are my medium. My blog is my canvas. And committing to writing daily makes me feel like an artist.
Mathematician and philosopher Gian-Carlo Rota on teaching: “A good teacher does not teach facts, he or she teaches enthusiasm, open-mindedness and values.” Source: Indiscrete Thoughts
I remember once, early in my career, the topic of abortion came up in my class. It was a student that brought it up as we were discussing debating skills. I decided that I wouldn’t share my opinion. I would let the class make their own choice. That they deserve to decide for themselves.
It was at that moment I realized that I was telling them mychoice. I was sharing my values.
We can’t teach without sharing our values. To pretend otherwise is ignorant. And so we should be thoughtful about the values we choose to share.
We need to value kindness, forgiveness, and openness to new and different ideas. We need to value effort. We need to show that when we discipline bad behaviour, we are disappointed in the behaviour not the child. We need to be restorative, not punitive. Patient, not easily frustrated. Willing to admit we are wrong. Tough with our expectations, but supportive rather than combative when expectations are not met.
Our values define the kind of teachers we are… and we pass those values on to our students whether we think we do or not.
Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR or S/N) is a measure used in science and engineering that compares the level of a desired signal to the level of background noise. SNR is defined as the ratio of signal power to the noise power, often expressed in decibels. A ratio higher than 1:1 (greater than 0 dB) indicates more signal than noise. Wikipedia
This is a scientific term that relates to how much background noise there is interfering with the data or information you are trying to receive. A simple way to think about this is having a conversation in a party. If the noise of the party is too loud, you can’t pick up the signal (what the other person is saying). There is a point at which the noise does not interfere and the signal/communication is easy to hear, then moving along the scale the noise can interfere a little or a lot.
With machines this ratio is easy to calculate. With humans it’s a lot harder. It isn’t always about the quality of the signal, it’s also about the the willingness of the receiver to receive the signal. Sometimes people are not ready to receive the signal no matter how clear it is. Sometimes people choose to listen to the noise. Sometimes the noise is in their own head, not just coming from outside.
We are currently living in a world where a large number of people pay attention to the noise and are missing the signal altogether. A world where the noise is intentionally being spread. A world where the signal is considered noise. But humans aren’t machines, and so the noise isn’t easily calibrated and removed.
Social media used to amplify the signal, now it amplifies the noise. News used to amplify the signal, now it constantly reports about the problem of the noise, thus highlighting the noise and bringing it to everyone’s attention… not always in a negative light… or putting the signal and the noise on an equal footing as if to say here are two equal signals to be weighed and considered. As a result, communities, families, and friendships are being torn apart as they argue about what is signal and what is noise.
I’m reminded of the ‘More Cowbell’ skit on Saturday Night Live.
https://vimeo.com/257364428
The noise is becoming too loud to receive the signal in any meaningful way. We need to simultaneously turn up the signal and turn down the noise. If not, we better get used to the cow bell.
There are moments in your life when doing nothing is better than doing something. These are seldom moments when nothing feels like the right thing to do, but then time and reflection allow you to see that you made the right decision. Here are a few examples:
You are in an incident where someone is displaying road rage. They get out of the car and want to confront you. You keep your windows up and doors locked and drive away.
You own shares and the whole market does a dive (not just your stocks), and rather than selling low, you do nothing. A week and a half later your stock prices are where they were before the crash.
Your child tells you about a very bad choice they made, but they chose to tell you rather than to hide it from you. You want to punish him/her but know that this could cost you the relationship where they feel they can come to you.
Choosing not to act is different than passively doing nothing. That’s the fundamental difference: One is a choice, the other is a lack of choice. Knowing and understanding the difference, that comes with experience, and a good dose of reflection. Because choosing not to act doesn’t always feel right, and only after looking back at the experience later can you truly see if non-action was the best, or at least a good, choice.
When I recently quoted part of a post I wrote back in 2007, I shared this, “why do teachers have parent meetings about a teenage student’s education and not have the student there too?”
I can understand certain circumstances where a student might be too young, or the subject matter too sensitive for a student to participate in a meeting, but I’d guess from about grade 6 onwards, over 9/10 times it would be better if a parent-teacher meeting was a parent-student-teacher meeting. The ultimate question is, whose education is it? The students. So shouldn’t the student be part of the conversation? Shouldn’t the student see their parent and teacher both care and want what’s best for them… and are ‘on the same page’?
With that in mind, I think it’s awesome that at Inquiry Hub, students participate in Parent Advisory Council (PAC) meetings. We had one last night (online) and 3 students showed up, along with 18 parents. Last month one of them was on the agenda.
This started early on when our school was new. I began sending emails usually sent only to parents, to students as well. So when I mentioned the PAC meeting in an email a couple students asked if they could come too. When they came, the parents accepted their presence with open arms, and a tradition was started.
I can honestly say that students have only added value to the meetings. No downside. Parents love it. I love it. Students feel empowered. Students belong in conversations about their education, and their school.
Last Friday was a one sticker day for me. It was my first this year. I have been keeping a sticker chart of daily goals since January 2019. This year I give myself stickers for:
• Meditation (10 min. minimum)
• Exercise (20 min. cardio & a little weights or stretching)
• Writing (this daily blog)
• Archery (with a goal of 100 days this year)
On Friday morning I wrote my post and then got distracted with work emails and didn’t exercise or meditate. I thought I’d come home and make it up. I didn’t. That was the fourth meditation I missed out on in three weeks, whereas I had an over 130 day streak going around this time last year. So I recorded my only one sticker day this year.
Remembering that the best time to start a new streak is right now… I had two four-dot days this weekend, and while I won’t be shooting arrows today, I’ll meditate and exercise right after setting this post to be published this morning. Letting my meditation slide a bit has been a bad habit, and I’ll work on changing that for the rest of the year.
The sticker chart has been life changing for me. It seems simple, but with it I don’t overestimate what I’ve done in a week. It keeps me honest, and it keeps me motivated. No more one dot days for me!
I’m really enjoying my Facebook memories popping up. My daughters save memories on Snapchat and I also enjoy the memories they share from years ago. This morning a Facebook memory of me being at school late at night popped up and I took the 10+ minutes to watch it now, 4 years later.
Here it is:
It is interesting to hear my thoughts on the power of Microsoft Teams a few years before the pandemic made this a regular way to meet.
It’s exciting to be reminded of the school photo wall I’ve done a number of times in my career. I think I’ll get the wheels in motion and do this again this year.
It’s embarrassing that despite my enthusiasm to reengage with a MOOC, I’m still a MOOC dropout all these years later. But at least I made it to week 3.
The biggest takeaway is that we live in a world where it is easy to share, and when we share our memories, we get to enjoy them all over again. These digital reminders of our past allow us not just to connect with others, but also to connect with otherwise forgotten memories.
In compound bow archery you use a trigger release to fire the arrow.
Although the trigger is released by the thumb barrel the correct motion is to use back pressure to fire, rather than squeezing your thumb. I tend to squeeze my thumb, trying to time when my sight is right on the bullseye. This technique can only get you so far, and it leaves you prone to target panic. Target panic is a response where you (unconsciously) rush a shot because you see you are lined up for a bullseye, but it’s caused by unintentionally panicking with a reaction that is neither controlled nor steady. It makes for a bad shot.
When you don’t have target panic, the shot feels good, and while it won’t be perfect, it can be consistent. However, you reach a plateau where you just can’t get much better being trigger happy rather than having good technique.
So I’m in the process of trying to stop using thumb pressure and start using back tension. That is, using a pulling back motion to apply pressure on the thumb trigger. A couple days ago I ended up shooting the worst two rounds I’ve shot in over a year. I’m trying to undo, or unlearn, what I’ve been doing for a long time, and it really sucks. But I’ve got to accept some poor scores while I rid myself of this bad habit. I have to trust my aim and not rush to time my shot while my site drifts past the bullseye. I need to unlearn a bad habit which is much harder than learning it right in the first place.
A big thanks to everyone who takes the time to read my daily writing. In the last week I’ve had comment responses to my Daily-Ink on my blog, as well as on Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn.
If I had to choose, I’d love to see these comments on my blog because then they ‘live’ attached to my post, rather than living on a timeline that passes by never to be seen again. That said, I know that if I didn’t automatically post my blog to these platforms, people wouldn’t see them at all, and it’s just easier to respond on the platform you are accustomed to. That’s the nature of social media these days, they are designed to keep you on their platform, watching their advertising, and engaging with them.
This is why when you share an Instagram picture on Twitter, you don’t see the image on Twitter, you see a link to Instagram, but when you share an Instagram picture on Facebook, you see the photo. Instagram and Facebook play nicely together because they are both owned by Facebook. It would be just as easy to have Twitter do this too, but the competing companies both want your attention.
So, I realize that comments will come in on many platforms, and although I said I do have a preference, I am truly grateful to converse/like/interact on any platform where a comment comes up. I’m quite honestly honoured when anyone takes the time to engage with my posts. I know and appreciate that my mom reads them regularly, and beyond that, I am often flattered and amazed that I get responses from local and distant friends alike… from those I know in my daily life, and from those whom I’ve never met face to face but am connected to inline.
I marvel at the idea that anyone can be their own publisher and share ideas across platforms and across the world, and I thank you for taking the time to interact with my journal of public thoughts.
This is an interesting time that we live in. I find myself in a position where I need to question my own values. I don’t do this lightly. I don’t pretend that my values have suddenly changed. It’s just that present circumstances put me at odds with my own beliefs around freedom of speech.
I am a strong believer in freedom of speech. I think that when a society sensors speech, they are on a dangerous path. I take this to an extreme. Except for slander, threats, and inciting violence, I think people have a right to say and believe what they want. I believe that taking away such freedom puts us on a perilous path where a select few get too much control, and can undermine our freedoms.
An example where I take this to the extreme would be agreeing with Noam Chomsky.
So now, even as an ardent defender of free speech, I find myself agreeing with YouTube’s decision to ban vaccine misinformation:
YouTube doesn’t allow content that poses a serious risk of egregious harm by spreading medical misinformation about currently administered vaccines that are approved and confirmed to be safe and effective by local health authorities and by the World Health Organization (WHO). This is limited to content that contradicts local health authorities’ or the WHO’s guidance on vaccine safety, efficacy, and ingredients.
Two, four, eight, or sixteen years ago when YouTube began, I would have screamed ‘Censorship!’ at the idea of a platform banning free speech. Even now it bothers me. But I think it is necessary. The first problem is that lies and misinformation are too easily shared, and spread too easily. The second problem is that the subject area is one where too many people do not have enough information to discern fact from fiction, science from pseudoscience. The third problem is that any authentic discussion about these topics is unevenly biased towards misinformation. This last point needs explanation.
If I wanted to argue with you that Zeus the Greek God produces lightning and thunder when he is angry, I think everyone today would say that I was stupid to think such a thing. However, if I was given an opportunity to debate a scientist on this in a public forum, what inadvertently happens is that my crazy idea now gets to have an equal amount of airtime with legitimate science. These two sides do not deserve equal airtime in a public, linkable, shareable format that appears to give my opinion an equal footing against scientific evidence.
Now when dealing with something as silly as believing in a thunder god is the topic, this isn’t a huge issue. But when it’s scientific sounding, persuading and fear mongering misinformation that can cause harm, that’s a totally different situation. When a single counter example, say for example a person having adverse effects from a vaccine, becomes a talking point, it’s hard to balance that in an argument with millions of people not having adverse effects and also drastically reducing their risk of a death the vaccine prevented. The one example, one data point, ends up being a scare tactic that works to convince some people hearing the argument that the millions of counter examples don’t matter. And when social media platforms feed similar, unbalanced but misleading information to people over and over again, and the social media algorithms share ‘similar’ next videos, or targeted misinformation, this actually gets dangerous. It threatens our ability to weigh fact from fiction, news from fake news, science from pseudoscience. It feeds and fosters ignorance.
I don’t know how else to fight this than to stop bad ideas from spreading by banning them?
This flies in the face of my beliefs about free speech, but I don’t know any alternative to prevent bad ideas from spreading faster than good ones. And so while I see censorship as inherently evil, it is a lesser evil to allowing ignorance to spread and go viral. And while it potentially opens a door to less freedom, and I have concerns about who makes the decision of what information should be banned, I’d rather see a ban like this attempted, than for us to continue to let really bad ideas spread.
I thought in this day and age common sense would prevail and there would be no need to censor most if not all free speech. However it seems that as a society, we just aren’t smart enough to discern truth from cleverly said fiction. So we need to stop the spread of bad ideas, even if that means less freedom to say anything we want.
Today we will wear our orange shirts. At Inquiry Hub, students will be wearing ones with a design by one of our students with indigenous heritage, Madison D.
On Orange Shirt Day 3 years ago, I shared this on Facebook:
Tomorrow will be the first Truth and Reconciliation Day holiday. We are moving forward, and people will remember.
