PDA

View Full Version : Need more proof Dr. Al was right in Part I?


TomCollins
01-28-2005, 11:00 AM
School cancels spelling bee (http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=13834334&BRD=1712&PAG=461&dept_id= 478996&rfi=6)

itsmarty
01-28-2005, 01:01 PM
It sounded to me as if the administrators were using this as an excuse to show how stupid the No Child Left Behind Act is. Without knowing a lot more about the school district than I do it's impossible to say, but it seems to have political overtones.

Martin

37offsuit
01-28-2005, 01:06 PM
I like how they put the positive spin on it though. They want to build self esteem in the children so they all can be winners. Of course, what they neglect to point out is that while everyone can, in fact, be winners, when this happens, the winners are also all losers as well.

ZeeBee
01-28-2005, 01:13 PM
I'm sorry Tom, you must have missed a link out of your post.

I found the link to the story cancelling a spelling bee - adding one more small peice of anecdotal evidence indicating that US schools are deemphasising competition.

But I missed your link to anything proving the actual point of the article - namely that deemphasising competition in schools damages the competitiveness of the country as a whole.

Perhaps you could repost a link to that evidence?

ZB

Al Schoonmaker
01-28-2005, 02:39 PM
Thank you.

Al

TomCollins
01-28-2005, 08:31 PM
My point was more that competition was being removed, as many doubted.

But if you think this will somehow make us more competitive, you can keep beleiving it, I won't stop you.

ZeeBee
01-29-2005, 09:24 AM
Hmmm,

Of course your point was to provide evidence that competition was being "removed". But the majority of the doubts as to whether this was true were from people saying that Dr Schoonmaker's evidence was only anecdotal and that he needed to provide more statistically sound evidence. He attempted to do this in a later post (although a google search hardle constitutes solid evidence). Your adding one more piece of anecdotal evidence does almost nothing to support the position. I assume I don't need to explain why this is the case.

As to your comment "But if you think this will somehow make us more competitive, you can keep beleiving it, I won't stop you. " you are far too confident in your seemingly common-sense opinions. A simple glance at the league tables of national competitiveness (e.g. GDP produced per working hour) shows that the industrialised nations which score better than the US are those like Norway, Belgium and the Netherlands - nations which tend to stress cooperation and teamwork in their education systems - and which certainly put much less emphasis on competition than the US system. yet these nations are more competitive - much more in some cases.

There has actually been a lot of research into this subject - the majority of it captured by Alfie Kohn in his book "No Contest: The Case Against Competition". Now Kohn is an anti-competition advocate, so you can expect his writing to be biased against competition. But he does compile a very strong case by looking at the actual research evidence - rather than just twisting personal opinion and anecdotes into "proof" as so many other writers do. For example, he examines 122 studies on the question of whether competition or cooperation produces better results: Sixty-five studies found that cooperation promotes higher achievement than competition, eight found the reverse, and 36 found no statistically significant difference.

Now it could be that Kohn is twisting the research to meet his own needs (I personally have not read the original sources). But the fact is that he seems to have really done his homework. I doubt that you have done the same.

So as to your implication that I was burying my head in the sand by refusing to believe that increased competition in schools leads to increased national competitiveness - then if that means reasearching the available evidence to try to come up with a fact-based point of view - then yes, I will continue to do so.

ZB

Anyway, isn't it time we moved on from the first article. The second one is rather better in my opinion.

BarronVangorToth
01-29-2005, 03:12 PM
[ QUOTE ]


shows that the industrialised nations which score better than the US are those like Norway, Belgium and the Netherlands - nations which tend to stress cooperation and teamwork in their education systems - and which certainly put much less emphasis on competition than the US system. yet these nations are more competitive - much more in some cases.



[/ QUOTE ]


I won't claim to be an expert on the subject, but giving my two cents as everyone is prone to do, I think it's a dangerous association to think that just because X Countries > America that the cause is due to some illogical cooperative model, rather than many other factors that can be attributed to skewing the results one way or the other.

Certainly it MIGHT be the reason, but so could a myriad of other things.

It's wholly counterintuitive, in my belief, to think anything other than struggle and competition breeds the best possible results whereas cooperation and group-think does nothing but stagnate process and reduce it to the proverbial lowest common denominator.

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)

ZeeBee
01-29-2005, 06:33 PM
I would wholeheartedly agree with your point that there may be (in fact surely are) many other factors. However, it's better than basing your assesment on whether competition in schools is good or bad on nothing more than your own inbuilt instinct and biases. I think someone pointed this out in an original reply to Dr Schoonmaker - country competitiveness is due to a whole host of complex factors, not just some oversimplification like "competition" or "cooperation". Hmm, isn't the avoidance of simplifications the main point of this months article?

As to whether its "counterintuitive ... to think anything other than struggle and competition breeds the best possible results whereas cooperation and group-think does nothing but stagnate process and reduce it to the proverbial lowest common denominator" that is a very common perception, but a misperception.

Obviously group-think is a bad thing, but it has nothing to do with cooperation. That's just you labelling cooperation as bad.

But regarding cooperation, a Darwinian would tell you that family, society, the division of labour and other cooperative structures exist precisely because they have survival value. In fact cooperation is one of the key factors which distinguishes humans from lesser species.

But regardles of theories - you have to go on evidence. And the research evidence seems to indicate that increasing cooperation rather than competition leads to higher performance.

Unless you have some better evidence, of course.

ZB

InfernoLL
01-31-2005, 01:08 PM
The division of labor is only a cooperative structure in very small "band" or "tribal" societies. In any modern society of any size, the division of labor is achieved entirely through competition.

Referring to "society" as a cooperative structure is also suspect. You haven't defined "society" so this doesn't really mean anything. If you include the economy in your definition of society, then it cannot be a fundamentally "cooperative structure". If you mean "government" then cooperation only plays a partial role; while law makers must work together, they must also represent the competing views of their constituencies.

"In fact cooperation is one of the key factors which distinguishes humans from lesser species."

This is a pretty ridiculous statement. Ever seen a flock of birds or a school of fish or a pride of lions or a bee hive? I think the best example of cooperation on earth is a group of insects like an ant hill or a bee hive or a termite mound, etc. The actual key factor that distinguishes humans from lesser species is intelligence, which happens to manifest itself in things like language, advanced problem solving, and abstract conceptualization.

"And the research evidence seems to indicate that increasing cooperation rather than competition leads to higher performance."

While I don't read psychology journals or anything like that, it would seem that this result you've stated could be very misleading. I would very readily believe that increased cooperation would benefit those in the lower portion of the continuum, and that competition would hurt them. But this doesn't contradict anything anyone's saying. The purpose of competition is to make the best better, and to force others to earn what they get. I don't think it's likely that the smartest kid in the class is going to benefit from a system whereby he is not able to both demonstrate that he is the smartest and be rewarded for it.

ZeeBee
01-31-2005, 05:20 PM
Look, it's your choice.

You can nit-pick your way through the simple examples I gave and then question whether my interpretation of the research I cite is suspect (without bothering to read it yourself) and then revert back to your own opinions (which, of course, aren't based on any research) - or you can choose to perhaps investigate the research and maybe have some of your assumptions challenged.

Have you ever heard of the "Intelligence Trap"? I suggest you look it up.

I suggest we all move on - I have no more extra knowledge or evidence to contribute, and noone else seems to want to do anything other than argue (or ignore) the existing data without bringing anything new in to play.

I'm not sure what the exact cooperative/competitive balance should be, nor exactly in which cases we need to beed up competition at the expense of cooperation or vice versa (or even when both goals can be achieved). But I do know it's nowhere near as simple (and as one-sided towards competition) as many are assuming (and seem unwilling to consider otherwise).

ZB

InfernoLL
01-31-2005, 08:18 PM
I don't wish to extend this argument past necessity, so it might be better to not respond at all, but I want to comment on a few things. First of all, complaining about "nit-pick"ing here is unfounded. You used a few terrible examples and shouldn't have written them in the first place if you can't accept someone pointing them out as terrible. They were used to support your argument and with out them your argument has less support.

As for the "intelligence trap", this little to do with the argument. Teachers are (or should be) smarter than their students (in primary and secondary education). If the smartest student comes up with the wrong or sub-optimal solution, the teacher tells them that. Whether cooperating or acting alone, that student would come up with that same solution if he really is that intelligent. And whether it's his teacher or classmate which tries to point out something wrong with his work, he made the mistake and is being corrected. In fact, the "intelligence trap" favors an individualistic learning environment, because the student is more likely to accept criticism from the teacher than from a coworking peer.

You are right that I have not read this research you are referring to, but you should consider the possibility that you are giving it too much weight, assuming that you are accurately representing its conclusions. Remember the self esteem movement of not too many years ago? Though it has now been almost entirely debunked, I'm sure it had academic advocates and their various studies to back it up. Trying to reach strong conclusions in the social sciences about any but the most trivial matters is very difficult, and it's often not until well after something is "proven" by research that it is shown to be completely groundless.

Al Schoonmaker
02-01-2005, 05:48 AM
A few days ago I said, "Thank you," and I'd like to repeat my thanks.

We've had four threads with about 90 posts on this article and over 4,000 people read them.

I am delighted to see people thinking about poker and competition, and I hope more people comment. I especially appreciate the ones who say I'm wrong and make good arguments.

Spirited disagreements benefit all of us.

Keep those comments coming.

Regards,

Al

The Dude
02-01-2005, 05:57 AM
Thank you for being here, Al. We appreciate your time and your thoughts.

ZeeBee
02-01-2005, 09:21 AM
You misunderstand the Intelligence Trap. It is nothing to do with the cooperation vs competition argument - it is about how this debate is being carried on. It describes how smart people fail to learn because they use their intelligence and skills to knock down half-formed or half-expressed arguments rather than suspending judgement for a while, investigating the possibilities of the argument, and then forming a judgement based on a wider set of facts. Both Edward de Bono and Chris Argyris have written well on this subject.

You are right that I may be overestimating the evidence I point out - as I keep stating, my position is tentative and I am not fully certain of it. But what I am putting forward is a counterpoint to those who use limited or no evidence (other than a small amount of anecdotal evidence) and "common sense" to form their opinion.

This was my original point about Al's article - there was no real evidence presented to support it. I attempted to present the evidence I know about - which happens to disagree with Dr Al's conclusions. What has happened since is that posters have been happier to pick holes in evidence which challenges their position (it's always possible to pick holes in any evidence - especially in the social sciences as you say) rather than find evidence to support their position or even question the lack of it.

To a large degree I don't care which position is correct, I am just hugely frustrated that no one is producing anything other than anecdotal evidence to support the "pro-competition" side - yet are perfectly prepared to keep arguing the point. If someone can produce some strong, research based evidence then great - it will add to the knowledge base and enliven the debate. Otherwise the debate seems to be at the same level as my kids in the playground arguing whether a Shark would beat a Tiger in a fight.

ZB

PS The Shark would win, of course.

InfernoLL
02-01-2005, 10:45 AM
No additional argument, but a word about style.

"You misunderstand the Intelligence Trap. It is nothing to do with the cooperation vs competition argument - it is about how this debate is being carried on."

The reason I couldn't tell what you were getting at by citing the Intelligence Trap is that you didn't say anything about it other than something like "look up the intelligence trap". It would have been better to actually state how this principle relates to the srgument, rather than allowing me to make the easy mistake and having to correct me in the next post. Part of posting is actually allowing readers to know what you are trying to say. I actually found this very annoying while trying to respond to your post.

ZeeBee
02-01-2005, 01:58 PM
Fair enough. But you could have done what I said and looked it up, rather than assuming you knew what it meant.

ZB

InfernoLL
02-01-2005, 05:24 PM
Well, I did actually look it up. My complaint was that you didn't specify how you meant it to apply to the argument, as it is not clear from your post. I chose to interpret it in the most straight forward manner.

Intelligence Trap (http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A582293)

"Another problem that the intellectually gifted can often have is a tiny, but very significant problem known as "the intelligence trap". This is caused because the gifted individual will see a solution to the problem so quickly that they will not even stop and think that their solution was not the best one, and not falling into this trap takes deliberate training to make sure that it is avoided."

If this isn't what you meant then I apologize for not doing extensive research for the sake of a casual internet forum.

ZeeBee
02-01-2005, 07:00 PM
That's close, but not quite exactly what I meant. This quote from de Bono best sums it up :
[ QUOTE ]
A highly intelligent person will take a point of view and then use intelligence to defend it ... Many excellent minds are trapped in poor ideas because they can defend them well.

[/ QUOTE ]
My point was more related to the ability of the excellent mind to defend and argue a point (rather than just not see an alternative). Apologies if the reference wasn't clear. Although to be quite honest it was thrown out more as a frustrated semi-insult than with an expectation anyone would look it up.

ZB

cpk
02-01-2005, 08:38 PM
If the whole is indeed greater than the sum of its parts, then it would seem that raising the effectiveness of society's weakest members would have a much larger overall impact than raising up those already at the top. Why? Because bumping 95% of the population up by a little does a lot more than bumping the top 5% up by a lot.

Really, we need both. We need to help those who cannot succeed on their own become successful, and we need to challenge and reward those with lots of talents. America had a great scheme for doing this for a great many years--comprehensive public education, ample access to college education, and sharply progressive taxation. Gradually, these institutions have been undermined, and we will all pay the price in the long run.

While we wouldn't have the telephone without Alexander Graham Bell, it wouldn't have become an integral part of our lives without the hundreds of thousands of people over the years that made universal phone service a reality, and the millions of customers who bought the service and used the product. Recall also that Bell never owned a phone himself!

We're all in this together. We need to keep things interesting for the talented, but we also need to work hard to keep everyone engaged in the system. Overemphasis on competition undermines the latter.

Al Schoonmaker
02-02-2005, 01:38 PM
A major point of my "Negotiate to win" and other writing is that overemphazing competition, cooperation, or almost anything is undesirable. As my article in the current issue clearly states, the correct reaction to almost any problem depends upon the situation.

I do not endorse a return to Robber Baron type capitalism, but I am very concerned that we have gone much too far in the opposite direction. When schools regard all forms of competition as unacceptable, I get very worried.

Incidentally, thanks for the trivia bit about Bell. I love historical trivia, and I never knew that he did not own a phone.

More generally, thanks for a well thought out post.

I am disappointed that my second article did not cause the kinds of discussion we had about the first one.

Oh, well.

Al

cpk
02-02-2005, 07:57 PM
Thanks for the compliment, Dr. Al, and I was already aware that you do not think that cooperation is for Communist sissies. :P

CORed
02-10-2005, 06:24 PM
All I can say is it must be hell to be a kid these days. What are they going to do next? Punish kids who keep score in playground games?