Awww - puppy!

May as well toss in another link for the day - this pic is from Cute Overload (thanks John!)


Awwww - I totally feel for you, puppy.

On a side note, but partially responsible for my seeking cute puppy, let's talk about balance. One of my favorite professors said something about balance in class on Tuesday - basically that it's a joke, but also frustrating, that anyone should assume grad students have any measure of balance in their lives. Basically, as he put it (or close to), you are "rewarded" for doing more work, putting in long hours, etc. and NOT for actually looking out for yourself.

And it doesn't get any better once you become a professor - or go on to do anything in your life, I imagine. Granted, he doesn't necessarily agree with this, and is always more concerned for the well-being of his students (contributing to "one of the favorites" status - plus, he is just a rockin' teacher!), but that's just the way it goes.

Amen.

I almost would have expected this to unsettle me. But it didn't. I am totally okay with my life being unbalanced - the problem lies in prioritizing. Because it's not a matter of just being out of balance - it's an issue of how it is going to be out of balance. And how do I prioritize people and events and commitments? Prioritizing mail and homework and such is one thing, but what about the people and beings and "things" going on in my life? I try to assign them equal importance - feel they all "should be" of equal importance - feel guilty if I don't approach them all with equal importance. But that's just damn near impossible to achieve. And where do I draw the line and actually stand up for what I need? And HOW do I do that?

Hm. Food for thought.

To my Advisor:

Oh, my fabulous advisor. Although you are on sabbatical this semester, I think you would be pleased to know that you continue to impact my education and cognitive processes even in your absence.

For example, as I was sitting in my Stats Methods I course today, I could not help but chuckle to myself as the professor used "Gender" as an example of a nominal scale. First, there is the obvious issue of "Gender" versus "Sex." Second, said professor made some offhand comment about that being a "good example" because of it's simplicity - "there are only two choices!" he says, as the majority of the class nods along in agreement.

Ahhh. It took me back to discussions and your examples from Measurements courses last year. Gender versus Sex. Sticky, sticky, sticky. And as for there being but two, clear-cut genders. Well...about that...my, did you enlighten me. If only this professor knew the Pandora's Box he almost opened. But I kept my mouth shut and was content to chuckle alone. We were not, afterall, discussing instrument design, nor the construction of "good" items...he was not looking for a good discussion - merely searching for an example of a nominal scale.

Hehehe.

By the way, did you hear the one about the statistician? He was laying with his head in the refrigerator and his feet in the oven. When asked how he was feeling, he responded, "On the average, I feel fine."

heeheehee - too bad I can't take credit for that one - it's out of our course textbook. But it's still funny! :0)

p.s.

Check out the way hot Statz Rappers (thanks, Crystal!)

And while we're at it, check out the Pachelbel Rant

Scientific evidence: pink is for girls, blue is for boys!

So, in case none of you regularly follow my link to Heidi's blog site, you have gotta' go check out her 8.22 post on a report she found claiming "Women really do prefer pink, researchers say."

Heidi has found quite an impressive gem in this research report. I am sure you will all appreciate it to its fullest! Go now - visit Heidi's blog site and follow the link to the study (oh, alright, I'll give it to you, too: Scientific evidence for gender-based color preferences).

Good find, Heidi, good find. And good luck sorting out the questions this scientific evidence has raised regarding your childrens' gender identities...

:D

Taking things literally is fun!

Heehee. So I just visited The Onion frontpage (thanks, John!), and noticed this:

"World's Oldest Neurosurgeon Turns 100"

Damn! One-Hundred YEARS?!?! But wait... he just turned 100, and yet, he also has 100 years of saving lives under his belt... hmmmm...

So, how old is he really? Or has he, in fact, been "saving lives" since the day he was born?

hehehe. Like I said, taking things literally is fun! ;0)

Save the kittens!

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. And every time you use a double negative, God kills a kitten.

Say what, now?!?

Well, I love...er...expanding my knowledge by reading those stories on MSN that I deem worthy of my time (oh, alright, fine! I was procrastinating - but reading informative articles makes me feel a little better about it than just cracking open Harry Potter...). Anyways, so I see a link to a story titled, "Are students in the digital age getting dumber?" I guessed it had something to do with technology's role in education, which it did - it is a pretty hot topic - has been for centuries.

But I digress.

The article, "Teaching with Tech: Does it Work?" basically focuses on potential negative impacts of technology on the learning process. (Loosely) citing research studies and quoting teachers, professors and authors in the field, the author does try to present some positive support for technology in education, but weakly. More prominent are statements such as, "[Technology] causes a stunting of imagination. A narrowing of mental capacity" (Oppenheimer) and "the language skills of younger students are suffering because of constant use of text messaging and instant messaging" (the latter under the section heading, "OMG! My Paper RoX!").

Even when there IS positive support, it is hidden among poor grammar - thus my warning about double negatives! It is a serious problem, people!! I mean, seriously, when you are trying to support something and trying to sound halfway intelligent about it, particularly being a teacher 'n all, would you choose to phrase an argument, "Kids are drawn to technology and it’s not wise to not incorporate that into how they are taught,” or, hit number two, "I would never not allow a student to use any resource because it made their life easier."

So relatively weak arguments become even weaker because the reader has to stop and figure out exactly what it is you are trying to say. I am still scratching my head.

The point, though, that I really intended to argue is that it's about moderation, people! It's really not about the technology, at all, is it? It's about how you USE it! Define the boundaries - the appropriate use of technology versus the inappropriate use of technology. But, heavens, don't ignore it! It can be a useful tool!

Furthermore, define "dumber" for me. How about it being a different kind of intelligence? In that spirit, work with it, not against it. Again, technology in education does not magically make everything better and everyone smarter, but I hardly think it's fair to say technology is making students dumber. And it certainly isn't going anywhere. I may not go so far as to agree with the teacher who says, "I don’t think it’s a bad thing for students to be dependent on technology" (being overly dependent on anything raises red flags, personally), but she does seem to be on the right track incorporating it, using it to boost motivation and interest, teaching students how to use it in the "real world," even catering to different learning styles (I, for one, rather benefit from taking notes on my laptop).

Again, people - it's not what you've got - it's how you use it. And that goes for technology as well as the English language...

Picture Worth 1,000 Words

(courtesy of Dr. Seuss's Cat in the Hat)

Sorting Skittles

So instead of working on one of the many things I could (& should?) possibly be working on right now, I'm blogging. Hehehe. God bless the blog. Though, you know what I just realized? Originally I had intended to use the blog to post rather regular updates on my life-in-general, but it seems that, as of late, there are the occasional posts on societal curiosities (like soaring through the air in a lawnchair attached to helium balloons), and lots of those posts where I find myself just trying to sort through....things. Sorting through life-in-general, rather than just posting about life in general. It makes sense, though. When things make sense and fall neatly into a line, I am far, far better at focusing and going on my merry way - most of us are. It's when things become a jumbled up mish-mash that some of us take a little extra time and energy laying everything out there - not even to become any less confused or make more sense of things - just in order to feel a little less overwhelmed and then go on about our merry way. My couselor and I talked about that just recently - it's like the Piagetan conservation task with clay - even though you have the exact same amount of stuff, in one instance it's a big, fat lump, whereas in the other, it's nice and streamlined. Or sorting out your Skittles or Jellybeans or M&Ms from one large mass into nice, neat rows by color.** Or maybe not - but the image works for me. No less "stuff" on your mind or in your life, but now it's all laid out.

Sometimes I wonder what it's like for other people. I know there are those of you who are like me - you are thinkers, and have been blessed/cursed with the same high level of curiosity and desire to understand. Understand how, understand why - just understand (on a side-note, but related to that, fortunately I have also come to understand that there are few black-and-white answers out there - if any at all - and I am comfortable with that, for the most part). And our brains just don't ever flippin' turn off - they aren't necessarily going a mile-a-minute, 'cause we can achieve a state of tranquility - a smooth, glassy body of water - but still active. Eesh - all I have to say is God bless horses and meditation (or whatever healthy hobby it is that does it for you)!!! At least then all that activity is funneled and directed towards a common cause, rather than fractured into a thousand little pieces. It is quiet - there are no ripples in the water.

But what about those people who aren't like this. Or even for people who are like this, but deal with it in different ways? I mean, really, the possibilities are as numerous as there are people in the world, aren't they? What and how are others experiencing life?

**Footnote**

Why yes, I DO tend to sort out my candy - I CAN eat them without sorting, one-at-a-time, bu especially M&Ms & Skittles I still prefer to eat in a fashion similar to "Ethel" as described by Brian at http://candyaddict.com/blog/2006/05/17/candy-ocd/.