Jeff Nichols and his wife Anne Stone are outspoken critics of standardized testing. They have two children in public school. Here is Jeff’s testimony to the Néw York City Council, in which he eloquently explains why the tide is turning against standardized testing. He speaks on behalf of the values of humane education, creativity, diversity, originality, individuality–now almost forgotten in this new age of uniformity and standardization.
Testimony in support of City Council Resolution 1394-2012
Jeff Nichols
Change the Stakes
November 25, 2013
Thank you Councilman Jackson for this opportunity to testify in favor of Resolution 1394. My wife, Anne Stone and I have two young children, Aaron and Gabriel, in fifth and fourth grades respectively. We belong to Change the Stakes, a group of parents and educators with no budget, no hierarchy, which anyone can join, a group of citizens united by outrage over the astonishing direction education has taken in recent years.
In an era of economic scarcity, we are wasting billions of dollars on the futile search for an illusory accountability system that will finally allow us to quantify the relationship between a teacher and a child. Think about that for a minute. Is there a more complex structure in the universe than the human brain? And we’re talking about interactions between two of them. We want a single score or rating to explain how one affects the other. It is beyond my comprehension, but this search is the driving force in national education policy today, despite the fact that not only teachers and parents in ever-increasing numbers, but testing and assessment experts as well decry this practice – not because any of us thinks our children shouldn’t be challenged by difficult tasks in school, or that the performance of teachers in the classroom should not be judged by the highest standards, but because there is no scientific validity whatsoever to the use of these tests as the primary instrument for evaluating children and teachers. We cannot kid ourselves that just because high-stakes testing has become predominant in our schools, it is moral or even rational. Societies go astray just as individuals do. The greatness of the United States is not that we are immune from committing profound social wrongs, but that our system of government allows us to right them.
The tide is turning against the abuse of standardized testing. Now city education officials say they agree with us that test-driven education is wrong, but their hands are tied by state officials, who in turn say they are compelled by federal law. This passing of the buck has to stop. In the United States, we do not accept “I was just following orders” as an excuse for violations of basic rights, like that of our children to a public education based on best practices of the profession. When the state tries to compel educational malpractice, it is the right of citizens to civilly disobey. My wife and I have boycotted standardized tests since they stole our then-third grader’s love of school from him two years ago. We and our fellow parents and teachers at Change the Stakes ask that our local leaders refuse to follow misguidance from above and fulfill their obligation to meet the educational needs of their constituents’ children. Resolution 1394 is a great step in that direction. But we want more — much more. New York City is universally recognized as a major cultural and economic center. Let us also become known as world leaders in education, not just rejecting wrong policies, but promoting true innovation in the classroom by allowing public school teachers the same intellectual freedom that teachers enjoy in the exclusive private schools most of our political leaders send their children to. As the great education scholar Yong Zhao has argued, if we need everybody to be creative, entrepreneurial, globally competent, we need a new paradigm. It would seek not to reduce human diversity through pervasive testing and standardized curricula, but to expand human diversity through the values of progressive education. As he says, “America cannot afford to catch up to others, we must lead the way, be the first to take on so-called progressive education not as something nice to do, but as an economic necessity.” And the central value of progressive education is the empowerment of the individual mind, be it of teacher or child — its liberation from arbitrary and constrictive external mandates.
Today the best our highest education authorities can do to justify their policies is to drone on endlessly about “college and career readiness.” To them I ask, what about citizenship readiness? How are teachers supposed to convey to their students what it means to be members of a democratic society when they are denied any meaningful say in curricula or teaching methods, when the terms of their employment include the equivalent of loyalty oaths, threats of termination if they fail to promote and prepare kids for the endless testing?
Teachers should instill democratic values in children by participating themselves in the governance of our schools, in which they, along with parents and concerned members of the local community, have real power.
And teachers should instill critical and creative thinking by modeling the same in the projects, assignments, and curricula they design. They cannot do that if their job description is to spew Common Core scripts.
We ask the City Council to exercise its powers to place educators in charge of education again, backing teachers and parents as we retake control of our schools and free them of the destructive influence of those who view public education not as the foundation of our democracy but as an investment opportunity.
And I have a message for our new mayor: the teachers of this city know exactly what our children need. They should not have to compete with anyone for your attention. We voted for you over opponents promoting the so-called education reform agenda because we expect you to restore the authority of teachers over their own classrooms, because they, and only they, are the professionals who know and understand our children’s educational needs. They should have your undivided attention as you craft your education policies; only one other group should be on a par with them: parents.
jeff.william.nichols@gmail.com
—
Jeff Nichols
Associate Professor
Queens College and The Graduate Center, CUNY
Bravo, professor. Your letter is incredibly eloquent, yet you used language plain enough so that even the reformers could understand.
These issues have been going on for the last 55+ years. Much of this is based in hubris. When the Soviets “dared” to demonstrate technological superiority to the United States in 1957, this country’s big solution was interference in the schools from military and science professionals toward a technological vision for an advanced society as if technology was the key to a great society. We have been inundated with reform tactics from sources outside of our profession ever since, some positive and many negative. Public oversight is one thing–out-and-out takeover by special interests under the guise of “the will of the people through their elected officials” is another. I don’t remember electing Bill Gates or anyone at Pearson to help run our schools.
When will this madness ever stop?
“. . . in 1957. . . ”
That’s very close to the time that Ray Callahan wrote his “Education and the Cult of Efficiency” documenting and decrying all the “educational deforms” that had taken place in the prior 60 years.
All should read for a good history of educational deforms.
In 1927, John Dewey warned about technology, big business and the destruction of public society by private interests, too. Are these public/private issues cyclical?
[Oh, Señor Duane…I can’t fit anymore education history in my brain!!! I have philosophy and methodology to get in there, as well…for tomorrow is my day of truth. Thanks again for your food-for-thought and all your good wishes. 🙂 ]
LG,
Will be sending “good karma” your way tomorrow!
As I say to my students when I give a quiz or a test “Have at it and HAVE FUN!!”
I agree with LG. A very eloquent letter indeed. Thank you for putting humanity first in educating and guiding children’s lives. I do hope the new mayor hears this testimony, listens and acts in the best interests of students, parents, and teachers.
Abusive testing needs to go, very true. ” College and career ready ” sloganeering by educrat propagandists is sickening. But no amount of trying to reinvent the wheel in the classroom with things like constructivist time wasting etcetera
In the name of ” innovation” will create a creative successful responsible society without any facts in the curriculum.content. The ” create your own reality ” imbedded in progressive education is there in common core and was the purpose of the obe renamed as such. Denying Americans there own history and heritage has caused the cognitive dissonance we see in our youth and the despondency associated with the self hatred taught under the guise of multiculturalism and diversity. We are all diverse individuals. The psychological wobble created by experimental SEL is another plank of this effort that is abusive just like the testing. Curricula should be designed by teachers and graded by same teachers and should include facts. Curriculum should not slander the children in the classroom and purposely harm their psyche. When children have the opportunity to succeed within a boundary of attainable scholarship in a developmentally appropriate curriculum taught by a caring scholar who is honest and open to parents, then we will have a future society full of healthy responsible adults not abused casualties of maniacal billionaires.
“Denying Americans there own history and heritage has caused the cognitive dissonance we see in our youth and the despondency associated with the self hatred taught under the guise of multiculturalism and diversity.”
Man that’s a handful there. By denying “their own history and heritage” students have become congnitively dissonant? Please explain how that is so!
Not only cognitive dissonance but also that “muliticulturalism and diversity” have caused “despondancy associated with self hatred”.
Please explain how that can be true. Please cite references, studies, etc. . . .
(Not that I am holding my breath.)
How does “curriculum slander children”? Please explain!
Sorry, Madre, but me molesta tanto cuando una habla demasiado sobre cosas de que no se sabe casi nada.
So true.. bravo Jeff Nichols… bravo!!! @LG so true when you state, ” I don’t remember electing Bill Gates or anyone at Pearson to help run our schools…” Well, WE DID NOT. It is crucial that we restore checks and balances to government by changing campaign finance reform so that PAC money is extricated from the political process. This is what is enabling corporations like Pearson and uber wealthy individuals like Gates to dictate national policy – simply pay off politicians and groups promoting a particular agenda with vast amounts of money. Robert Reich is a big proponent of campaign finance reform. We have a chance for “this madness to stop” if we cut off the buying power of uber wealthy individuals and corporations toward political campaigns henceforth politicians.
“. . . because there is no scientific validity whatsoever to the use of these tests as the primary instrument for evaluating children and teachers.”
There is no validity for using educational standards, standardized testing and the grading of students at all. Educational malpractices all of them.
As proven by Noel Wilson in his never rebutted nor refuted 1997 study “Educational Standards and the Problem of Error” found at: http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/577/700
Brief outline of Wilson’s “Educational Standards and the Problem of Error” and some comments of mine. (updated 6/24/13 per Wilson email)
1. A quality cannot be quantified. Quantity is a sub-category of quality. It is illogical to judge/assess a whole category by only a part (sub-category) of the whole. The assessment is, by definition, lacking in the sense that “assessments are always of multidimensional qualities. To quantify them as one dimensional quantities (numbers or grades) is to perpetuate a fundamental logical error” (per Wilson). The teaching and learning process falls in the logical realm of aesthetics/qualities of human interactions. In attempting to quantify educational standards and standardized testing we are lacking much information about said interactions.
2. A major epistemological mistake is that we attach, with great importance, the “score” of the student, not only onto the student but also, by extension, the teacher, school and district. Any description of a testing event is only a description of an interaction, that of the student and the testing device at a given time and place. The only correct logical thing that we can attempt to do is to describe that interaction (how accurately or not is a whole other story). That description cannot, by logical thought, be “assigned/attached” to the student as it cannot be a description of the student but the interaction. And this error is probably one of the most egregious “errors” that occur with standardized testing (and even the “grading” of students by a teacher).
3. Wilson identifies four “frames of reference” each with distinct assumptions (epistemological basis) about the assessment process from which the “assessor” views the interactions of the teaching and learning process: the Judge (think college professor who “knows” the students capabilities and grades them accordingly), the General Frame-think standardized testing that claims to have a “scientific” basis, the Specific Frame-think of learning by objective like computer based learning, getting a correct answer before moving on to the next screen, and the Responsive Frame-think of an apprenticeship in a trade or a medical residency program where the learner interacts with the “teacher” with constant feedback. Each category has its own sources of error and more error in the process is caused when the assessor confuses and conflates the categories.
4. Wilson elucidates the notion of “error”: “Error is predicated on a notion of perfection; to allocate error is to imply what is without error; to know error it is necessary to determine what is true. And what is true is determined by what we define as true, theoretically by the assumptions of our epistemology, practically by the events and non-events, the discourses and silences, the world of surfaces and their interactions and interpretations; in short, the practices that permeate the field. . . Error is the uncertainty dimension of the statement; error is the band within which chaos reigns, in which anything can happen. Error comprises all of those eventful circumstances which make the assessment statement less than perfectly precise, the measure less than perfectly accurate, the rank order less than perfectly stable, the standard and its measurement less than absolute, and the communication of its truth less than impeccable.”
In other word all the logical errors involved in the process render any conclusions invalid.
5. The test makers/psychometricians, through all sorts of mathematical machinations attempt to “prove” that these tests (based on standards) are valid-errorless or supposedly at least with minimal error [they aren’t]. Wilson turns the concept of validity on its head and focuses on just how invalid the machinations and the test and results are. He is an advocate for the test taker not the test maker. In doing so he identifies thirteen sources of “error”, any one of which renders the test making/giving/disseminating of results invalid. As a basic logical premise is that once something is shown to be invalid it is just that, invalid, and no amount of “fudging” by the psychometricians/test makers can alleviate that invalidity.
6. Having shown the invalidity, and therefore the unreliability, of the whole process Wilson concludes, rightly so, that any result/information gleaned from the process is “vain and illusory”. In other words start with an invalidity, end with an invalidity (except by sheer chance every once in a while, like a blind and anosmic squirrel who finds the occasional acorn, a result may be “true”) or to put in more mundane terms crap in-crap out.
7. And so what does this all mean? I’ll let Wilson have the second to last word: “So what does a test measure in our world? It measures what the person with the power to pay for the test says it measures. And the person who sets the test will name the test what the person who pays for the test wants the test to be named.”
In other words it measures “’something’ and we can specify some of the ‘errors’ in that ‘something’ but still don’t know [precisely] what the ‘something’ is.” The whole process harms many students as the social rewards for some are not available to others who “don’t make the grade (sic)” Should American public education have the function of sorting and separating students so that some may receive greater benefits than others, especially considering that the sorting and separating devices, educational standards and standardized testing, are so flawed not only in concept but in execution?
My answer is NO!!!!!
One final note with Wilson channeling Foucault and his concept of subjectivization:
“So the mark [grade/test score] becomes part of the story about yourself and with sufficient repetitions becomes true: true because those who know, those in authority, say it is true; true because the society in which you live legitimates this authority; true because your cultural habitus makes it difficult for you to perceive, conceive and integrate those aspects of your experience that contradict the story; true because in acting out your story, which now includes the mark and its meaning, the social truth that created it is confirmed; true because if your mark is high you are consistently rewarded, so that your voice becomes a voice of authority in the power-knowledge discourses that reproduce the structure that helped to produce you; true because if your mark is low your voice becomes muted and confirms your lower position in the social hierarchy; true finally because that success or failure confirms that mark that implicitly predicted the now self evident consequences. And so the circle is complete.”
In other words students “internalize” what those “marks” (grades/test scores) mean, and since the vast majority of the students have not developed the mental skills to counteract what the “authorities” say, they accept as “natural and normal” that “story/description” of them. Although paradoxical in a sense, the “I’m an “A” student” is almost as harmful as “I’m an ‘F’ student” in hindering students becoming independent, critical and free thinkers. And having independent, critical and free thinkers is a threat to the current socio-economic structure of society.
Duane Swacker: never a Quixotic quest.
And adding a little Banesh Hoffman (1964 edition of 1962 original, p.143) to the mix re the seemingly irresistible allure [read: mathematical intimidation] that numbers & stats give to standardized testing—
“The most important thing to understand about reliance on statistics in a field such as testing is that such reliance warps perspective. The person who holds that subjective judgment and opinion are suspect and decides that only statistics can provide the objectivity and relative certainty that he seeks, begins by unconsciously ignoring, and ends by consciously deriding, whatever can not be given a numerical measure or label. His sense of values becomes distorted. He comes to believe that whatever is non-numerical is inconsequential. He can not serve two masters. If he worships statistics he will simplify, fractionalize, distort, and cheapen in order to force things into a numerical mold.”
A small reminder to all viewers and commenters: the overwhelming brunt of the standardized-testing hazing ritual is not borne by the children of those leading the charge to label, sort and rank. THEIR OWN CHILDREN go to Sidwell Friends and U of Chicago Lab Schools and Cranbrook and Lakeside School and Harpeth Hall and the like. No, OTHER PEOPLE’S CHILDREN—and most especially those in public schools—are the recipients of“ rheephorm largesse.”
If only we weren’t so “lucky”…
😱
And, unfortunately these days, there are way too many people (especially the GAGAers in education) who “worship statistics” and “believe that whatever is non-numerical is inconsequential”
“but promoting true innovation in the classroom by allowing public school teachers the same intellectual freedom that teachers enjoy in the exclusive private schools most of our political leaders send their children to”
I couldn’t agree more, but as a school administrator who has done hundreds of classroom walkthroughs, let’s tell the truth about the poor quality of instruction happening in many pre- and non-common core classrooms. I’m talking about poorly defined learning objectives, little to no rigor, ineffective use of assessment, etc. I’ve seen students who are bored out of their minds nonetheless astonishingly compliant as a teacher drones on at the front of the room . . . or sits at his/her desk/computer while the students complete worksheets or comparably low level tasks. Unfortunately many (though I agree not all) of our teachers, who are themselves products of poor-quality teacher education programs, are inadequately prepared to provide creative, intellectually innovative instruction. Then, try to effect change against powerful unions who are closely tied through personal relationships, friendships, business and family connections to the decision makers who sit on publicly elected school boards. Yes, the Common Core roll out has been profoundly flawed, and tying it to high stakes tests, indefensible teacher professional performance evaluation systems, and the push to use public education as a vehicle for channeling taxpayer dollars into the pocket of corporate vendors is appalling. But we MUST DO SOMETHING to ensure that our children are appropriately challenged in school by rich, intellectually exciting and transformative learning experiences.
” But we MUST DO SOMETHING to ensure that our children are appropriately challenged in school by rich, intellectually exciting and transformative learning experiences.”
My limited experience in a low socio-economic school system leads me to understand your frustration. I ran into some very talented teachers and some less than adequate ones. The same was true of the administrative staff. The system was an eye opener. Administrators might be relieved of their duties at one job, but they always popped up somewhere else. The same was true of teachers to a lesser extent. Once you had tenure, as long as you didn’t get caught committing a felony, there was a place for you. They did have a “way” of encouraging veterans to retire earlier than planned. Basically, they really had no clue how to deal with incompetence. Their salary schedule was abysmal, especially for new teachers, and the union protected veteran rights pretty well although they were into not letting teachers volunteer services that did not follow contract specifications. The more affluent communities in which I worked got rid of teachers who did not “fit” early. While experienced staff had their quirks, there was generally little doubt of their competence. As long as you followed the mores of the school community, you were not likely to be forced out. The way contracts were enforced depended on the working relationship between administration and the teachers. Top down micro management led to strict adherence to contract guidelines. A more collaborative approach to management led to more flexibility on everyone’s part.
I do have a little trouble with the idea of the necessity to create a steady diet of “rich, intellectually exciting and transformative learning experiences.” Throw into the mix the requirement that we meet the individual learning needs of every student and the planning of “transformative” learning experiences becomes a nightmare for teachers. There has to be a reality check between what we can do and what we are able to do given a finite amount of resources.
The skill set required to consistently deliver ” rich, intellectually exciting and transformative learning experiences” cannot be learned in even the best teacher education programs – or top teacher colleges would be producing superstars on a regular basis. Attracting top-of-the-class students into teacher education programs is an unlikely solution that requires cultural transformation. Exceptional teaching will never be the norm. No teacher should have to be the second coming of Mary Poppins in order for students to learn. However the sub-mediocrity you describe exists only if administrators continue to observe and allow such unacceptable performances.
First off, what in the world do walkthroughs tell an observer about every evaluative aspect of a teacher’s skill in delivering content among a million other teacher tasks that they perform daily? You are missing so much of the big picture with a walkthrough. These types of observational tactics can be helpful if implemented for constructive and positive reasons–I despise the way they are actually used.
Secondly, you claim, “But we MUST DO SOMETHING to ensure that our children are appropriately challenged in school by rich, intellectually exciting and transformative learning experiences.”
Yes. Administrators need to do something. It’s called supporting your staff as a collaborator and educational colleague. Not every teacher has every aspect of being a teaching professional down to a science, but most have the capacity to be inspired to improve. So what MUST YOU DO? Inspire your staff, work with your staff, and create something better for your staff, and you will see what you think are sound educational practices in every classroom.
WHAT MUST YOU STOP DOING? Stop making every visit to the classroom teacher a test to keep a job. Instead, make the point of your walkthroughs a way to help solve the problems of what you may perceive as a lack of engagement. If you present this assistance and inspiration in such a way that your staff members not only understand your educational expectations, but they feel valued as professionals, your staff will improve. Great educators do this with their students. In fact, teachers are expected to treat each and every person in their classrooms this way–they deserve nothing less from their educational partners, the admins.
Administrators should never lose sight of what it means to be an educator. Too bad that they sometimes do and unions have to remind them not only to abide by the mutually agreed-upon rules of the game, i.e. the board/association contract, but to treat their staff members like the professionals they are.
Bottom line, if you are doing your job as an administrator, you will see what you wish to see in your classrooms, and you know…you might learn something from those veterans, too.
Why does a 7th grader need to be “college and career ready” before he even enters High School? Aren’t we putting the cart before the horse?
Paul, why does a third-grader need to be “college and career ready”?
Reblogged this on Roy F. McCampbell's Blog.
The problem is not testing per se but rather high-stakes testing — that is, testing in which the students’ test scores impact teacher/principal pay/discharge and school closing decisions. It is the high-stakes aspect of the testing that causes rational teachers/principals to narrow the curriculum (to emphasize the tested subjects), to waste time on test prep, to require students to take pre-tests and practice tests, and to make students feel that doing well on the standardized tests was critically important. If the high-stakes element were removed, then these adverse effects would also be removed; students would spend perhaps three hours 1x/year taking a reading test and another three hours 1x/year taking a math test while the balance of their instructional time would be unaffected by the testing.
Unfortunately, high-stakes testing is probably here to stay — at least until/unless we opponents of high-stakes testing can propose an effective alternate vehicle for identifying/removing poorly-performing teachers. Not that high-stakes testing effectively identifies poorly-performing teachers. To the contrary, it is unreliable with too many variables impacting student test scores that are beyond the control of the teacher so that high-stakes testing results in too many false negatives and too many false positives.
But, notwithstanding its unreliability, high-stakes testing is the only game in town for identifying poorly-performing teachers. The traditional principal-observes-and-evaluates approach was used for many years and found wanting; in many school systems, it resulted in the discharge of virtually no teachers and, given the principal’s unchecked authority, it was often abused by principals to unfairly harass teachers who incurred the principal’s displeasure.
The overwhelming majority of parents/voters (drawing from their personal experience) believe — probably correctly — that there are at least some poorly-performing teachers. For these parents/voters, school reforms that promise to identify/remove poorly-performing teachers make sense and these parents/voters will support these reforms. It will not be sufficient for we opponents of high-stakes testing to argue that poorly-performing teachers are a minor problem (because the parents/voters will believe, correctly, that poorly-performing teachers are a problem, even if minor, that should be addressed) or to argue that high-stakes testing is the wrong way to identify poorly-performing teachers (because the parents/voters will support high-stakes testing until/unless we propose an effective alternate).
For these reasons, our protests against testing should: 1) focus on high-stakes testing rather than testing itself; and 2) propose an alternate reform vehicle — such as peer review as successfully practiced in Montgomery County, MD for over 10 years — for identifying/removing the poorly-performing teachers.
I think your 2 “prescriptions” are spot-on.
Threatening, coercive, and punitive school reform based on standardized testing is a proven failure. Ten years of NCLB has demonstrated just how futile this really is. The evidence is overwhelming, yet we decide to jeopardize a generation of students in a repeat of this fool’s errand. According the old cliché, this new version of punitive reform(threatening and punishing teachers instead of Title 1 schools) is the very definition of insanity.
The faux-goal of educrats to eliminate teacher incompetence and fix failing schools is nothing but a smokescreen. Cover for their real goal.
“Unfortunately, high-stakes testing is probably here to stay. . . ”
NO, NO and a billion more NOES.
“. . . our protests against testing should: 1) focus on high-stakes testing rather than testing itself;. . . ”
NO, NO and a trillion more NOES.
All of this is so true but the only people with any power at all to change this have stated over and over that they will not change anything. I heard NYSED Commissioner John King and Regents Chancellor Merryl Tisch say it in person last week in Manorville N.Y. Regent Tilles also agreed. NOTHING will change. They will keep everything the same because “they believe it is good for our children”. So many letters written, emails sent, forums, meetings, Regents reform hearings, endless parents, teachers, even students voicing the truth about this and these people in charge dare to say to us we are wrong. They will not budge. Feeling very helpless here.
Great speech from Prof. Nichols, really spot on, but……..
The problem is that there is nothing to back the rhetoric up, no real threat to the system. The City Council; let alone the reformers like Gates et al. , don’t respond to speeches or reason, no matter how obviously logical. The politicians respond to their campaign contributors, and people like Gates know it.
With teacher unions essentially in the pockets of the “elite”; especially in New York, teachers will have to pull together on their own to start direct action against their local and state government education bureaucracies.
Start by teaching to the contract. No work started a second before the school bell, no work completed a second later then after the school bell. If you can’t finish lesson plans, update “data binders” complete weekly and monthly reports for each student in each subject, attend grade level meetings, etc. etc. etc. Then it doesn’t get done. Here’s where you need to hold your union rep and the union “accountable” and enforce no work for no pay.
Until teachers decide collectively to play hardball against these sob reformers and their lackey state official who foist education for profit on the kids, all the great speeches and appeals to reason will fall on deaf ears and we’ll just be left commiserating on blogs.
It’s true – no work for no pay, if thoroughly adhered to, would change the dynamics of this situation dramatically. At least 80 % of the teachers I know wouldn’t do it, however, because of concerns for their students and the quality of their time in the classroom.
Excellent post! I hope that both educators and leaders read it nation wide.
“…we are wasting billions of dollars on the futile search for an illusory accountability system that will finally allow us to quantify the relationship between a teacher and a child. Think about that for a minute. Is there a more complex structure in the universe than the human brain? And we’re talking about interactions between two of them. We want a single score or rating to explain how one affects the other.”
Common sense to the rescue!
“Is there a more complex structure in the universe than the human brain?”
More likely than not!
That “complexity” surely impedes rational logical argumentation from reigning supreme in what should be in the realm of rational logical argumentation.
Reblogged this on nytechprepper.
Bravo! Truth spoken with clarity, intelligence, commitment, knowledge and passion.