#heckman

[catfindr]

[dosa-sambhar]

Nobel Laureate Heckman’s Perry Preschool study found that children who received high quality ECCE grew into less violent adults — stronger socio-emotional skills built early might even help prevent later student suicides.

[kitty-boots]

I'm living my best life hbu?

[easytransitions101-blog]

In our upcoming #EstateSale in a few weeks you'll find some GREAT FINDS & DEALS in this large, beautiful old home in Swarthmore, PA (Delaware County) #Mahogany #Heckman #WilliamAndMary #AmericanMasterpieceCollection #SolidWoodFurniture #Furniture #Collectibles #Auction #EstateLiquidation #EstateSale #TagSale http://EasyTransitions101.com (at Swarthmore, Pennsylvania)

[kdimaanoelit-blog]

18.02.16, Heckman

Readerly is a term he used to describe literature that is focused on expanding the reader’s experience as a reader. Its focus was on the way that the text allowed the reader to enjoy the piece without getting too invested. Writerly is when the reader is so invested in what they’re reading, they lose themselves in it. Heckman talks about how social media turns relationships and experiences into something that has monetary gain. Netprov is short for network improv literature, which sort of embraces the idea of the riderly text, where the reader and writer are one and work with the vessel of their text in order to create more literature. With the talk about the SpeidiShow, that’s a perfect example of riderly text because it allowed the users to create what happened within the show, while also being consumers of the product being created by other users in on the joke. 

[kdimaanoelit-blog]

18.02.16, "The Riderly Text," Heckman

To be completely honest, I was very confused by the opening metaphor that Heckman used when describing the readerly and writerly relationship, mostly because it was comparing the two to different kinds of pleasure. I think it worked, though, in explaining what they mean, because now I think I understand the idea that readerly text is something that is pleasurable but not consuming, while writerly is something that takes you out of your own life and places you in something different or new. That’s a really neat way to see electronic literature, I think, even though the comparison to eroticism was momentarily confusing. 

I love the discussion about the SpeidiShow, though, because it sounds like the kind of craziness that would actually exist in the world. I’m almost a little sad that I wasn’t aware of it while it was still ongoing. He talks about what a riderly text would mean, which is where the user takes their vessel of communication, their “ride,” and takes that, as well as its ever changing atmosphere, into context when they are helping create their content. I really like the idea of riderly texts, even though I’m not sure I would have used that particular term. I don’t have a term I would substitute it for, but the idea of having the medium of the text change how you approach something as well as giving said medium the chance to change parts of the text’s path is really intriguing. 

Would riderly be considered the type of text that fills the gap between writerly and readerly texts? I feel like there might be more that fills the gap, if only because sometimes readerly texts require more work from the other sources of information, rather than just whatever you’re writing yourself. Like if something provides you with a different prompt to write about each and it takes what you write and gives you a new prompt based on that, but is not actively a part of your writing process like Twitter was a part of the author’s, does it still count as riderly? Or is it something else?

[simplydt-blog]

Nobel Prize winner’s theory of human development is wrong, here is the real answer.

James Heckman developed an interesting theory. His theory is widely misinterpreted when making decisions for investment in human development. Since the original idea comes from a Nobel Prize winner, the misinterpretation has spread like wildfire through dry grass.

The poor understanding of his theory leads to bad recommendations. For example some attempt to focus investment on just one particular age group, such as the 0 to 4-year-olds. This often results in the lack of funds for other age groups.

Plenty of evidence out there shows that all ages can benefit in different ways. Neuroscience reinforces this view as brain plasticity is known to continue all life. Even Heckman has changed stances and yet the myth lives on. So, how do we put out the fire?

The answer likely lies in a new model that meets the needs of the people who use the misinterpreted one. The model should reflect real and current science. I have a strong hunch that the real picture may be something we are all familiar with, the normal or bell curve.

The bell curve appears everywhere in the sciences, so why wouldn't it also appear in human development investment? My guess is it does, and as our understanding develops perhaps it will soon become the way forward.

[what-thheck]