![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
So, I'm having a little trouble understanding why people use the phrase "reality-based" to be slanderous. I've heard it in several contexts now, but apparently, basing one's decisions in reality is supposed to be bad? I'm not talking about an inability to enjoy fiction novels or disliking Avatar because it's "not based in reality", I'm talking about opinions and decisions regarding how the world works and how one lives one's life. Shouldn't those be based in reality? Shouldn't we be willing to change our minds if the evidence suggests that reality is not the way we want it to be? Is it really preferable to insist that I can fly when all the evidence suggests that I can't?
So I got a notification about an opinion piece regarding the recent study findings that "abstinence-only education works" (which is not exactly what it says, btw), and the teaser seemed to imply that both that study and a comprehensive-sex-ed study had flaws or was incomplete. OK, not having read either one, I'm willing to accept that as a possibility.
But then it went on to show a distinct anti-liberal bias in its conclusion:
http://www.city-journal.org/2010/eon0204kh.html
So this guy is confusing a liberal political agenda with the scientific-minded and science-based community's insistence on using evidence to base policy decisions. I also followed the link to both Jay Greene & Maggie Gallagher to see what they had to say about this Head Start report, since I was unfamiliar with either Head Start, or the report on it. I also read the official summary of the report, and it didn't actually say that "any gains experienced by children in Head Start disappear by the end of first grade", it said that a bunch of different things, some individual gains not lasting until first grade being one of them. I wrote a letter to the editor, and I'm publishing it here as an Open Letter To the Editor of the City Journal:
As we have shown countless times when a medical treatment has been shown to be ineffective and consequently thrown out, if the studies actually show that Head Start is ineffective, then the reality-based community would most definitely change its tune. That's what "reality-based" means, y'know, based in reality.
When the evidence is there, the opinions are changed along with the evidence.
If you didn't hear anything from the reality-based community, it's probably because the report didn't make news.
Do not confuse a liberal political agenda with "the reality-based community". That many liberals are also reality-based does not mean they are interchangeable. One is a political affiliation, the other is a method of evaluation. Many liberals are most definitely not "reality-based", and many conservatives are.
Having had the chance to skim the report, it's too simplistic to say that Head Start "doesn't work". Rather, the study found certain elements of the program showed significant benefits and other elements of the program had no significant benefits or negative benefits. This is a mixed review, not a negative one, and the results can be used to better refine the program in the future. The study was to determine whether it was better to enroll children at age 3 or at age 4, and compared Head Start students to students who had the opportunity to enroll in other programs, not a comparison between children in Head Start vs. children with no preschool program at all.
"In sum, this report finds that providing access to Head Start has benefits for both 3-year-olds and 4-year-olds in the cognitive, health, and parenting domains, and for 3-year-olds in the social-emotional domain. ... Moreover, several subgroups of children in this study experience benefits of Head Start into 1st grade."
This is a preliminary study, and highlights areas of interest. There are more variables that need to be eliminated to come to any conclusions, but there are several areas here which suggest a modification of the program according to those aspects which do not appear to have a significant impact.
And *that* is a "reality-based" reaction, not a knee-jerk reaction to automatically dismiss or accept a preliminary study based on political affiliation.
I just don't understand why "reality-based" is a slur. I think George W. Bush said something once about reality having a liberal slant. As the old Point of Inquiry segment used to say, "...rational thinking, science, and secular values, what one advisor to the Bush Administration dismissed as the reality-based community. Who could have imagined that reality would need defenders?"
Something I didn't say in my letter, and wanted to, but really wouldn't have benefited my message, was that many liberals are complete and total wackaloons that have no bearing on reality whatsoever, just like many conservatives. Crazy doesn't care about party lines. Is there really much difference between a fundie Christian letting his kid die because it's against his religion to visit a doctor, or a Newager letting her kid die because Deepak Chopra said don't take chemo? Fundies shooting abortion doctors or animal-rights terrorists blowing up labs - same difference, all crazy.
If someone claims to be "reality-based", you can't automatically assume their party affiliation. I have a particular bias against the Libertarian party, for instance. I tend to think that the *party* is based on an extremely high degree of naivete. However, I know some people who identify as libertarians who are incredibly grounded in reality, who base their decisions and opinions on the evidence available, and who change their minds when the evidence is there to support the other side. I tend to be socially liberal but economically conservative. I manage to piss off feminists and "traditionalists", often at the same time.
If someone claims to be "reality-based", but doesn't actually follow the evidence, the conclusion is not that "reality-based" isn't based in reality, it's that the individual is using the wrong label. Just like a Catholic who is pro-abortion, birth control, divorce and re-marriage isn't actually a Catholic according to the definition, regardless of personal use of the label. Just like a monogamist who has extra-marital sexual relationships isn't actually a monogamist, even if they can manage some complicated definition-altering that concludes that sex with prostitutes doesn't count.
By definition, the "reality-based" community is a community who is based in reality. Period. If the evidence shows something, then that's what the community goes with. If new, robust, conclusive evidence shows something different, then the community changes its collective mind. But if the evidence is preliminary, ambiguous, sketchy, or dubious, then the community may reserve judgement temporarily.
And disagreeing with you does not automatically make the reality-based community "all in the framing". It may just mean that you're wrong.
So I got a notification about an opinion piece regarding the recent study findings that "abstinence-only education works" (which is not exactly what it says, btw), and the teaser seemed to imply that both that study and a comprehensive-sex-ed study had flaws or was incomplete. OK, not having read either one, I'm willing to accept that as a possibility.
But then it went on to show a distinct anti-liberal bias in its conclusion:
http://www.city-journal.org/2010/eon0204kh.html
These long-term ambiguous results—at enormous cost to taxpayers, I might add—never bothered liberals until abstinence education came along. If one didn’t know better, one would think that many were more interested in promoting a worldview than in reducing teen pregnancy. As Jay Greene and Maggie Gallagher have noted, the Obama administration recently released a long-suppressed report concluding that any gains experienced by children in Head Start disappear by the end of first grade. You probably didn’t hear the reality-based community announcing that Head Start doesn’t work. Reality, it seems, is all in the framing.
So this guy is confusing a liberal political agenda with the scientific-minded and science-based community's insistence on using evidence to base policy decisions. I also followed the link to both Jay Greene & Maggie Gallagher to see what they had to say about this Head Start report, since I was unfamiliar with either Head Start, or the report on it. I also read the official summary of the report, and it didn't actually say that "any gains experienced by children in Head Start disappear by the end of first grade", it said that a bunch of different things, some individual gains not lasting until first grade being one of them. I wrote a letter to the editor, and I'm publishing it here as an Open Letter To the Editor of the City Journal:
As we have shown countless times when a medical treatment has been shown to be ineffective and consequently thrown out, if the studies actually show that Head Start is ineffective, then the reality-based community would most definitely change its tune. That's what "reality-based" means, y'know, based in reality.
When the evidence is there, the opinions are changed along with the evidence.
If you didn't hear anything from the reality-based community, it's probably because the report didn't make news.
Do not confuse a liberal political agenda with "the reality-based community". That many liberals are also reality-based does not mean they are interchangeable. One is a political affiliation, the other is a method of evaluation. Many liberals are most definitely not "reality-based", and many conservatives are.
Having had the chance to skim the report, it's too simplistic to say that Head Start "doesn't work". Rather, the study found certain elements of the program showed significant benefits and other elements of the program had no significant benefits or negative benefits. This is a mixed review, not a negative one, and the results can be used to better refine the program in the future. The study was to determine whether it was better to enroll children at age 3 or at age 4, and compared Head Start students to students who had the opportunity to enroll in other programs, not a comparison between children in Head Start vs. children with no preschool program at all.
"In sum, this report finds that providing access to Head Start has benefits for both 3-year-olds and 4-year-olds in the cognitive, health, and parenting domains, and for 3-year-olds in the social-emotional domain. ... Moreover, several subgroups of children in this study experience benefits of Head Start into 1st grade."
This is a preliminary study, and highlights areas of interest. There are more variables that need to be eliminated to come to any conclusions, but there are several areas here which suggest a modification of the program according to those aspects which do not appear to have a significant impact.
And *that* is a "reality-based" reaction, not a knee-jerk reaction to automatically dismiss or accept a preliminary study based on political affiliation.
I just don't understand why "reality-based" is a slur. I think George W. Bush said something once about reality having a liberal slant. As the old Point of Inquiry segment used to say, "...rational thinking, science, and secular values, what one advisor to the Bush Administration dismissed as the reality-based community. Who could have imagined that reality would need defenders?"
Something I didn't say in my letter, and wanted to, but really wouldn't have benefited my message, was that many liberals are complete and total wackaloons that have no bearing on reality whatsoever, just like many conservatives. Crazy doesn't care about party lines. Is there really much difference between a fundie Christian letting his kid die because it's against his religion to visit a doctor, or a Newager letting her kid die because Deepak Chopra said don't take chemo? Fundies shooting abortion doctors or animal-rights terrorists blowing up labs - same difference, all crazy.
If someone claims to be "reality-based", you can't automatically assume their party affiliation. I have a particular bias against the Libertarian party, for instance. I tend to think that the *party* is based on an extremely high degree of naivete. However, I know some people who identify as libertarians who are incredibly grounded in reality, who base their decisions and opinions on the evidence available, and who change their minds when the evidence is there to support the other side. I tend to be socially liberal but economically conservative. I manage to piss off feminists and "traditionalists", often at the same time.
If someone claims to be "reality-based", but doesn't actually follow the evidence, the conclusion is not that "reality-based" isn't based in reality, it's that the individual is using the wrong label. Just like a Catholic who is pro-abortion, birth control, divorce and re-marriage isn't actually a Catholic according to the definition, regardless of personal use of the label. Just like a monogamist who has extra-marital sexual relationships isn't actually a monogamist, even if they can manage some complicated definition-altering that concludes that sex with prostitutes doesn't count.
By definition, the "reality-based" community is a community who is based in reality. Period. If the evidence shows something, then that's what the community goes with. If new, robust, conclusive evidence shows something different, then the community changes its collective mind. But if the evidence is preliminary, ambiguous, sketchy, or dubious, then the community may reserve judgement temporarily.
And disagreeing with you does not automatically make the reality-based community "all in the framing". It may just mean that you're wrong.
no subject
Date: 2/5/10 07:26 am (UTC)From:As for HS, when they say "no benefits", it's actually very complicated. They tested kids who entered the program at age 3 and continued to age 4, kids who entered only at age 4, and compared them to a control group who had *access* to HS and to other programs as well as no preschool program, so consisted of a mix of kids in each age group.
When compared to the control groups, they found that certain criteria for each of the 2 age groups did not show significantly higher scores than the control groups. Mostly, it showed about the same, with a select few criteria showing negative impact, and some of those benefits decreased by the time the kids reached the end of first grade. They were not comparing test scores, they were comparing things like, how well behaved the kids were, how socialized they were, what kind of relationship they had with their parents, how often they got spanked at home, how often the parents read to them, and how good their healthcare was, stuff like that.
When compared to the national average, which included children NOT from low-income families, the HS kids compared pretty equally almost across the board.
So, yeah, I agree with you, that counts as a win in my book, since I'm of the impression that the point of the program is to level the playing field and give low-income kids an equal opportunity.
They did not compare them to a control group consisting entirely of similar-background kids who had no preschool program at all.
They found that, overall, kids who started the program at 3, whether they had one or two years total, had more lasting benefits than kids who started at age 4. They found that the 3 year olds were better behaved in school when they got there, had better relationships with their parents, and had better healthcare and better health, than either the 4 year olds, or the control group. They also had a better vocabulary, but did not have better math scores.
They found that black kids and kids with parents with mild depression had the most dramatic benefits, and kids with parents with moderate depression actually had negative benefits. They found that 3 year olds were better behaved, but also more shy when they got into kindergarten.
So the review was really very mixed, and looked at a large range of criteria. It also referenced a follow-up study of these same kids up through 3rd grade, so I'd be interested to see that summary too. But the bottom line is that the official summary itself flat-out stated that there were some benefits that lasted through first grade.
As usual, the non-reality-based community takes the results of a study, changes the wording to match their preference, and over-simplifies and over-generalizes the study with complete disregard to nuance and complexity. They seem to like black-and-white, all-or-nothing dichotomies, much like Mike Adams, aka HealthRanger, who wrote that absurd piece on "what Atheists believe". Last week's episode on The Skeptics' Guide To The Universe discussed his piece quite eloquently, pointing out this non-nuanced way of looking at things in order to maintain an incorrect point of view built on strawmen.