#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. 

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.