week 5 dq 2 post

My approach to all things is science (Stavredes, 2011). I use and rely upon the scientific method as a guide.

I have an equal distaste for Freud as this student. But I know why I do not like him; I know why I do not like him from a science and mathematical perspective not from an emotional and feelings format.

My response to this student would be.

Brittany;

This is a science class, since it is science not liking something is insufficient for the scientific method. Not a single aspect of the scientific method mentions emotion or likes. It is all about hard undeniable facts. So, if you want to tear Freud’s ideas apart, do it according to the scientific method.

Example in a couple of his studies his sample size was so small it would not be seriously considered a valid test in the present. The sample size was of one very small community of female Jews living in violently harsh conditions. A small female only does not qualify as a solid study of anything other than the most basic of ideas. It cannot be the foundation for a theory.

Next the living conditions of the sample size is also entirely disqualifying for anything close to approaching a solid scientific measurement. I can think of no less than 5 more subjects, not on that list is his cocaine use which by default disqualifies most if not all of his studies. Can you think of what 5 parameters disqualify his ideas. Can you think of others, minus the completely obvious cocaine use. That one is simply too easy.

Environmentally he was living and having an active practice during the rise of the Third Reich, he was Jewish. That is another about 12 subjects which need to be identified and the scientific method applied to show the lab testable evidence of why his ideas have little validity.

Then of course you can attack full on why some of his ideas which have little direct evidence of being species wide facts, have permeated, why did the cultures affected adopt his facades as reality.

You must write it correctly.

what is the thing

thing; description. Then a paragraph as to why it is junk.

next thing; description. ditto, why this is junk.

Do not just say “it is junk” explain why it is wrong. Details are all that matter in science.

I gave an example above. Sample size; he sampled only upper-class Jewish female living in some small community which can be considered a ghetto. His finding only applies to that very small community for that very small sequence of time.

Solid description, solid evidence why it has no scientific validity.

his obsession with cigars; he was living under the genocidal thumb of the rise of the Third Reich, he saw men with machine guns all the time, and they were just itching to point at him and his people and shoot. Not all that long later, they would be doing exactly that. The cigar is his subconscious mind trying to understand why “there is a man with a gun over their, telling me I Have to be ware” (Buffalo Springfield, 1966).

end of note

For students who have an emotional reaction, redirect them to attack what they do not like using the tools of science. If they want to be in the field, the field is based on the ideas and structures of the scientific method. This note to her would be a way to direct her emotions into attacking the ideas which she finds offensive. Which is how basic scientific criticism works, do not like something explain in scientific terms why you do not like it. Math's (variables, equations), statistical models, and the socioeconomic factors.

her anger can be directed into harsh scientific criticisms of his work (Webster, 2008).

her refusals to participate have a reason to participate.

all subjects redirected with a simple behaviorist and of course scientific method/mathematical solution. use the tools to tear his work apart. I can only stand skinners work when it is applied correctly, in this case his OC applies perfectly. The negative stimulation is already present, so redirect it using positive by allowing the student to use the tools to tear the ideas part.

references

Buffalo Springfield, (1966). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gp5JCrSXkJY

Stavredes, T. (2011). Effective online teaching: Foundations and strategies for student success. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Webster, T. (2008). How to be successful in your first year of teaching college: Everything you need to know that they don't teach you in school. Ocala, FL: Atlantic.