#structured literacy

[spookiedmango]

The second installment of the dyslexic friendly book series that I am working on with the ever talented Sue Marasciulo is out now! Can Ten Pigs Fit in a Tub? is available on Amazon!

Here is the link if anyone wants to check it out and get it for any beginning readers or children with dyslexia in your life that you know!

#cvc #consonant vowel consonant #decodable readers #decodable books #self publisher #self published author #independent author #independent children's author #dyslexia #dyslexic #children with dyslexia #early readers #fundations #wilson reading #orton gillingham #beginner readers #LETRS #structured literacy #science of reading #barton reading #sue marasciulo #trent beretta #originals

[readingteachers]

Dyslexia, a learning disorder that is neurobiological in origin, is characterized by difficulties with spelling, word recognition, and decoding in reading. Students with dyslexia typically struggle when attempting to learn the phonological component of language and may also experience problems with reading comprehension. Learn how classrooms can better support students with dyslexia and other language-based reading disorders with Reading Teacher.

#Structured Literacy

[trans-cuchulainn]

two questions to ask yourself when you start looking for pre-christian material in medieval literature:

1. when are these texts from

2. when did christianity come to this area

i can guarantee you in the vast majority of celtic-language sources (and others) the answer to 2. is several centuries before 1. and at that point you gotta ask yourself... how likely is it that these people would be writing about something that has not been a thing for them or anyone they know for, like, four hundred years (or, in many cases, eight or nine hundred years), especially given that most of the people doing that writing are not merely passively existing in a christian society but are, yunno, monks

there are exceptions! but there are way fewer exceptions than you think there are gonna be! and the exceptions are almost always extremely nebulous sub layers that can't be disentangled from the other layers (which are christian) with any certainty so are always somewhat speculative!

and most importantly those other layers are interesting too, but if you only ever treat them like dirt to dig through to get to something "real" underneath you're sure gonna be disappointed a lot of the time (and you're gonna miss a lot of cool shit that would be really exciting if this was an actual archaeological dig and not a metaphor)!!

#this feels a bit like lobbing a grenade into a crowded theatre #but tbh everyone who is mad at me for saying this has probably already blocked me #given that I've been saying it for several years at this point #i think these days people are so used to religion being a personal thing #they don't really comprehend what it meant to Live In A Christian Society As A Medieval Person #like. we're not talking primarily about faith or what someone personally believed #but how society is structured and ordered and the paradigms its literature lives within #AND WHO PRODUCES THE LITERATURE #education is ecclesiastical. book production is ecclesiastical. literacy itself is in many cases ecclesiastical #the christianity is coming from inside the house #anyway whatever why am i trying #i had two (2) entire sips of wine this evening (i don't drink and don't like wine) #so maybe that's why i'm posting this lol

[ladyluscinia]

😶 -> 😑 -> 😡

#spite rising at every snide post about how it was a beautiful season and izzy stans are just mad their blorbo died #and the insistence that people just lack the media literacy to understand a good three act structure when they see it #you want to talk about three act structure? #let's TALK about three act structure aka the thing i'm so mad about it's distracting me from my favorite character dying #*pulls up a tumblr draft* #our flag means death #ofmd s2 #ofmd s2 spoilers #ladyluscinia

[redr1vers]

i should be allowed to get restraining orders on people who genuinely passionately dislike a) skyler or b) jane

#skyler is irritating as a function of the narrative (she structurally serves as the antagonist for the first few seasons) but i am begging #for everyone to get an ounce of media literacy and understand that irritating role in the narrative =\= bad person?????? #also most of u are just misogynist rhays all #also next person to say janes death was warranted i will personally be the one who fucking knocks . #on ur head. #people dehumanize jane sm just bc she was an addict like stay away from me fr #brba #breaking bad #jesse pinkman #walter white #skyler white #jane

[gameofthronedd]

Daemyra: Archaic Vs Contemporary, Bias and Double-Standards

One thing that really ruffles my feathers in regards to support of Daemyra... is being all "Well, in medieval times..." but not applying that same logic to other aspects of the show and characters.

In the Daemyra situation, it's the logic of "no, he isn't a gr***er because at the time Rhaenyra is eligible for marriage and is a 'woman grown'". But there's a completely different attitude involved when it comes to the situation with Rhaenyra's bastards and premarital sex.

Warnings for: mentions of gr**ming minus the asterisks for brevity/accessibility/readability etc., long post, cursing/strong language

If we're using period/universe accurate logic, then, yes, perhaps Daemon's relationship with Rhaenyra isn't strange and it certainly isn't uncommon (see: Viserys and Aemma, Rhaenys and Corlys). However, I think that if you're using in-universe logic then you can't really maintain integrity whilst losing your shit when someone points out that Rhaenyra's actions are politically problematic and, daresay, inappropriate (using in-universe logic, of course!).

Based on contemporary morals, we know that premarital sex isn't inherently bad (except in the eyes of some religions, for example) and that having bastards is not a bad thing (obviously may be an issue for the aforementioned). We know that women can be sexual beings and find pleasure in that, that agency and autonomy are important for women just as it is for men. So on, so forth.

But with contemporary morals, we also know that Daemon's relationship with Rhaenyra when she is young is inappropriate. In the first episode, she is 14/15 and is involved in what may amount to grooming (such as gift-giving as seen via the necklace which is specifically crafted for her). We also see that Daemon provides and fulfills her desires for freedom and adventure, and he does pose as this "untouchable bad boy" figure.

When she's about 18 in Episode 4, Daemon takes her to the brothel and allows her to explore sexuality... before abandoning her and leaving her exposed, and consequently compromising her integrity. Whilst she is the "acceptable" age here, by contemporary morals I'd assume that we can all agree that it is inappropriate for Daemon to take Rhaenyra to a brothel and put her in a physically dangerous situation, away from the safety of the Kingsguard and her sworn protection, and to then leave her there in that situation.

It just appears strange to specifically rely on in-universe/period appropriate logic solely for the Daemyra situation yet other issues being addressed through this perspective are met with anger. Personally, I think both should be used and interrogated. But most Daemyra supporters I've seen tend to have a more contemporary stance on other issues yet only apply this in-universe logic to the Daemyra situation, and dislike it when such a perspective is applied to Rhaenyra's situation.

In regards to that, and as an example...

Based on archaic logic (I'm just going to call ASOIAF/in-universe/period-accurate logic "archaic logic" from now on lmao), Rhaenyra engaging in premarital sex, whether with Daemon or Criston, would be considered inappropriate. Women would be expected to remain a "maiden" until marriage and it would be highly dishonourable to engage in sexual activities before marriage. Rhaenyra's adventure to the brothel (and subsequent engagement with Criston - though the former is the extent of what the important figures become aware of, excepting Alicent) places her in a precarious decision in terms of her integrity as a woman & as heir.

From a contemporary perspective, we know that's bullshit. Men, Viserys and Daemon both included, frolick often in brothels and their sex lives are not as highly criticised as women. I can't name a male heir or ruler in the ASOIAF universe whose legitimacy and position was/would be called into question because he had sex. Yet Rhaenyra, being a woman, inherently faces prejudice if her engagement in premarital sex becomes widely known. We know, as a modern audience, that Rhaenyra's sex life shouldn't be everyone's business.

But why is it unacceptable to consider an archaic perspective when considering this... yet we can only use an archaic perspective to discuss Daemyra?

The obvious answer is bias, of course. I'm not into shitting on people's enjoyment. Like what you like, I won't stop you. But I'm going to critique because, uh, I can. And my personal bias is not for Daemyra, if you couldn't tell. So, anyway...

The HOTD fandom is a situation where lines are drawn and there is very transparent bias. I'm biased, you're biased, we're all biased. That's life. The situation with Daemyra definitely shows that.

Fans of Team Black, especially diehard Rhaenyra stans, tend to rely more heavily on contemporary/modern values and morals... except for Daemyra fans, whereby there's a noticeable shift towards archaic logic. This is noteworthy because it evidences that the subconscious bias recognises that sticking to contemporary values would result in having to make excuses for behaviours that are noticeably inappropriate aka grooming. So it's easier to rely on archaic logic to explain it away as being appropriate for the time. Ta da, no moral quandary!

The issue here isn't that they're using archaic logic because then I'd be a hypocrite. The issue is that those in this locus are transparently making an exception for themselves to avoid addressing the behaviours that are inappropriate based on contemporary values, whilst being critical of archaic logic being applied elsewhere. Obviously, the same can be said about other groups and situations.

My point is this:

Analysis of HOTD is interesting and media literacy of any entertainment content allows us to perceive the world in different ways and address a variety of issues in society, as well as understand the characters, ourselves, others and the world.

I think it's good to consider both archaic and contemporary attitudes towards different situations presented in HOTD. I also think it's good to be aware of and reflect upon personal biases, and perhaps scrutinise more closely why we instinctively shift towards one form of analysis, archaic or contemporary, over another.

Personally, I think that the show's narrative somewhat purposefully portrays Rhaenyra and Alicent's interactions with "romance" as both highlighting the damage patriarchy can inflict upon young girls, and the different ways it can manifest. Alicent is married off to an old man against her will and has his children whilst still being a child herself. Meanwhile, Rhaenyra is being drawn into sexuality and romance by Daemon, more or less being "lured" into what is expected of women as well as being lured into a precarious situation that places her wellbeing and position as heir at risk.

Both are women being manipulated as pawns of the patriarchy. Alicent evidently has no choice, devoid of her agency as a girl, whilst Rhaenyra has the illusion of choice, believing she is in control whilst being pulled left and right by Viserys, Otto, Daemon etc.

I could definitely go into more detail. But, anyway, those are just my thoughts on the double-standards of the Daemyra situation. Just a personal pet peeve. I feel like if you're supporting Daemyra then there's a necessity to acknowledge the contemporary/modern perspectives of it, especially if being critical of instances where archaic logic is applied elsewhere. Hope that makes sense 🙏🏻

#house of the dragon #hotd #hotd meta #hotd thoughts #rhaenyra targaryen #daemon targaryen #alicent hightower #daemyra #anti daemyra #tw: sa mention #just spitballing here #pro media literacy (lol) #basically: if ur using archaic logic to explain ur ship don't be coming for others using archaic logic to analyse other situations #also: pls don't convince yourselves u have moral high ground when ur using archaic logic to get around having to explain real sus behaviour #sksksksks i just hate in general the fandom playing morality olympics but that's a post for another time #is this... my longest post yet?? #and it's a DAEMYRA post? oh god help me #in my defence I've had this one pent up for a while now #if there are mistakes... uh no there isn't #i will gaslight u into believing this is well structured and well written 🥰😘

[bttf-dork]

Andy is interesting to me as a character that is integral to the story he is in, yet is almost always seen through someone else’s eyes. He becomes something of an unintentionally idealized version of himself, and you end up having to hunt through the novella and the movie for the “real” Andy (which of course is still filtered through someone else’s perspective)

Just interesting to think about those characters that are important to the story that they aren’t telling.

#the shawshank redemption #andy dufresne #roysart #minimalism #to be clear this is not a criticism of the narrative structure #i actually really like frame stories #see gatsby see ethan frome etc #roy discovers basic media literacy

[booksandabeer]

I'm putting something together for work on the flaws and limitations of ChatGPT and for funsies I asked it to write me a little something about Steve Rogers and disability. Well, if you already had doubts about the factual accuracy and/or thematic depth of this "marvelous" tool, enjoy:

WTF???

It can't even get basic plot and character details right. I also asked it to provide some sources on the topic and it did—a whole list of references, perfectly formatted! It's just a shame that none of them actually exist.

Also, the language here?

Yeah. Not great, Bob!

#hey kids don't use chatgpt to write your papers for you #use it to help you with structure/to summarize/translate/give you ideas but for the love of god check everything & trust nothing! #yesterday i also spent 30 minutes arguing with it about whether nella larsen's 'passing' can be read as a sentimental novel #(a topic that i have actually written a paper about) by the end i was ready to punch it in its non-existent face. #oh the joys of academia! #chatgpt #information literacy #steve rogers #kind of

[murcielagatito]

introduction from las mas bellas poesías de puerto rico

trans:

The cultural literary movement developed in Puerto Rico, much later than in most Hispanic American colonies or republics. The lack of a university, isolation, illiteracy, literary censorship and the lack of freedom of thought that the regime allowed; were the main causes of the literary delay in Puerto Rico.

end trans

#just started reading this book and IMMEDIATELY hit me with an oh yeah moment #one of the biggest things we are made fun of for which ties with literacy is the way we pronounce our Rs #our dialect of spanis has some structural similarities with aave #artists reference this in their music but one youll probably recognize is P fuckin R by bad bunny #literally got made fun of for how i speak spanish this past week at work LOL #it pissed me off so fucking bad #like yes we can pronounce our Rs its called a fucking dialect hunny #puerto rico #puerto rican history

[therukurals]

propaganda movie the kerala story is insult to educated state

It's an insult to Muslims in India. let's be honest, "education" is not a reflection of people's morality. The film is a propaganda tool and meant to stir up Islamophobia in India and priming its citizens to enact violence on Muslims. And Kerala is not immune to brahminism and hindutva.

edit: my bad, i was under the impression this was a mollywood film. did not realize this was vadakkan hanky panky. im not going to sit here and pretend the southern states are free from criticisms and aren't also complicit, but i am begging bollywood to leave us the fuck alone. (and also us to stop seeking validation from them too)

#the southern states can boast high literacy rates but the power structures still remain the same with caste hegemony #more and more everyday the label of indian becomes less and less relevant and important to me not that i was super attached in the first pl #*place but goddamn lol

[system-of-a-feather]

Hello, I’m curious about what this post means?

https://www.tumblr.com/system-of-a-feather/718445430628859904/ok-people-equating-the-theory-of-structural

If you don’t mind explaining, that is! Aren’t they both scientific theories? /gen

(I got to sleep in today weekends are great ;w; *is in a better mood and has energy to explain some to someone genuinely asking since this is a thing that hurts me about the internet and how they talk about science*)

"Aren’t they both scientific theories?"

Yes, but only in the way that you can say that apples and tomatos are both fruit (true) and should be put in a fruit salad (debatable by which study you go to and the context in which you discuss it) - or that fish and Chordata are both existing things (for those that don't know either through school or memes, "fish" don't exist claudistically / in taxonomy, they are a polyphylic group)

.... while I'm doing comparisons, I think its actually fair to say that its more inaccurate than comparing apples to oranges - its comparing apples and tomatos - but I digress that's just a distracting "heh" I thought of XD

Putting the analogies aside and explaining it properly - they are both "scientific" in the sense that they are both following and part of the very very very very broad term of "science". With that being said, science in practice and when understanding research - when talked about in such a general way - is much more an ideal and a concept like Bushido Code than it is an actual like.... Facts TM and Truths TM about the world.

When we talk about stuff like the theory of evolution, gravity, the scientific theories we easily and frequently label as "basically as close as you can get to fact" we are almost always talking about hard sciences such as biology, chemistry, physics - sciences that have a relatively simple / easy time (relatively) in terms of research design, validity, and verifying data. Hard sciences (again, relatively speaking) tend to collect and base their theories on unchangable, (relatively) simple functions of systems that they are investigating, and their data (relatively) are hard and firm as they are directly measuring an aspect of the system they are investigating and (comparatively) the concern on concept, criterion, face, predictive, external, internal, (etc) validity is not really as significant. The things that hard sciences are investigating are far more "unchanging rules of the world base in hard to accidentally or intentionally spoof measurements" than soft sciences.

Psychology - a soft science - doesn't (often) work on measuring hard and (relatively) unchangeable measures and is often measuring really large scale topics that aren't even really properly sure even 1) exists 2) if it is genuinely even a single thing or an emergent property (as in it comes out through the means of many other things interacting but on its own is not really a 'thing').

Because the measures are not (often) hard measures, they are often subject to ambiguity, bias, interpretation, and questions of how valid of a measure it even is (which isn't a "yes or no" thing, because you very very rarely have a perfectly valid measure in psychology - it is a lot more of how much you are willing to accept it as a decent enough of a measure).

Because measures are measuring things we don't even have a firm concept of ("things falling" for gravity VS consciousness??? what??? is??? it???), the very relation of the measure to whatever the researcher is trying to study and how they understand it has to be taken into account as well. (In the research community of DEDICATED researchers on memory (also often considered one of the more harder sciences in the soft science psychology) while starting to get to an agreement on it - can't even agree on what "memory" and "forgetting" is despite it being the heart of their main dedicated study. Read the discussion on decay vs retrieval)

Because of BOTH of those, psychology is almost ALWAYS up for debate within research, professional, and academic environments. There is always something wrong with someone's research design, variable measurement, analysis method, concept validity, or what the hell they are approaching shit with. (for example, some people in the field of memory don't believe you can retrieve repressed memories because there have been numerous studies that shows that in a research lab they could not get any adult and-not-stressed individuals to intentionally forget an elephant and show evidence of recalling it later within implicit, explicit, long term, or short term memory; I'm sure I don't need to explain why while this is "good evidence" and "science", that its fucking STUPID.) Even the best and most backed ideas in psychology - even in the ones that border closer to neuropsychology - are always genuinely up to debate within the research community.

Additionally, when we talk about biology, chemistry, physics, etc we are talking about fields of science that have existed for millennia (arguably biology has been around since humans have had society with people trying to understand the human body and animals around through what can be considered early scientific means) and at worst centuries (modern chemistry which is around the 1700s or 1800s). Psychology (which is also a large group and not a monolith) has only really been making significant scientific advancements in the tail end of the 1800s and mainly in the early 1900s which, when combined with the issue above makes for an entirely different way you have to approach how you talk about "theories". This is just a sheer numbers game in terms of how long some of these theories have been genuinely considered and challenged by more individuals and also by letting the research fields grow properly.

That is all generally speaking in regards to PSYCHOLOGY. If we are talking about developmental psychopathology and clinical psychology (which would probably be the best specific fields to label the claims the ToSD makes) we have to keep in mind that we are operating in a field that has soft measurements, complex and possibly non-existent concepts they are measuring, and - if we are being real - people who actually are interested in helping and caring for mentally ill people rather than putting them in a hell asylum for debatably give or take a century. A good number of the people who started genuinely giving an interest in actually treating and understanding (with good intent) the mind of mentally ill people could still be alive today. Additionally, its a field that compared to other fields is relatively small in the workforce of people interested in exploring it. Then you have to pull it down to the specifications of dissociation and trauma disorders in those areas and you have that even more so + that the concept of "what is DID" is a WHOLE other thing and that one I won't explain on cause I am in the dunning kruger pit of despair of how that works and I refuse to act like I know what the fuck is going on there and am ok staying in my lane until I resume my education and talk to more experienced people in the field with my 5000 questions.

I had something more to say on this but I lost my train of thought and flow of this specific one cause my bird distracted me and I've been sitting here for 5 minutes trying to remember it and I'm just gonna give up on picking up that train of thought because even if I do I think itll be incoherent with what I wrote above - but they are really non-comparable.

They both use the word "theory" in a similar manner, but it's like grabbing an American and a British person and saying "chips" or "football". You will get a "snack probably made potatoes" but you will very likely not get the same thing because you have to take into consideration what subset of english / the culture around the english word "chips". You will get a game where multiple people play against eachother using a ball to get points on a board - but you will absolutely not be able to get an American team of football players and British football players on a field to play a cohesive game against each other because you have to take into consideration what subset of english / the culture around the english word "chips".

You can talk about apples and tomatos like they are fruits, but when you breakdown what a "fruit" is for each of those. Apples are fruits in almost every field afaik. Tomatos - while fruits - are not fruits in more softer / artistic fields like culinary, and that is where you have to understand the context of the field you are specifically talking about to understand that on a professional level you REALLY should not put a tomato into a fruit salad.

You can talk about fish as a concept as something that obviously exists and that there is research obviously there proving that fish are physically there and an existing phenomenon - but you would be laughed at to state that there is hard scientific proof that fish exist JUST as much as there is hard scientific proof that the Class Chordata exists because 1) what the fuck is a "fish" defined as is up to debate 2) there is a lot of evidence that would suggest that trying to group something as a "fish" is hard to do and absurd.

It's an issue of understanding the context of the term "theory" in respect to the field it is in. It's about understanding that while "theories" are both the "same" thing, the practical application and specific interpretations of the term in their respective fields are drastically different even by the people who are studying it for a living. It's an issue of understanding that even within the same field, the subfields have different context and approaches and guidelines for research that has them coming to different conclusion. It's an issue of understanding that one field is trying to understand often intangible and blurry concepts BY DESIGN (as it is impractical to try to understand shit like DID to the atomic level) and another is operating in investigating a harder and more concrete concept.

You can go into physics, chemistry, and biology and there are concepts you will find that no researcher would really question (unless they are in the really innovative end where they go so deep that the specifics of those are questioned). You can't do that for psychology - and for a lot of the things you think you can for psychology - I would probably be willing to bet you that there is a valid research opposition. You can do that even less for developmental psychopathology and clinical psychology, and even less for dissociation and trauma and that is solely because dissociation and trauma research is dependent on other sub fields like memory, consciousness, identity, etc that are SUPER not established. If researchers can't agree what MEMORY and FORGETTING is; if researchers can't agree if CONSCIOUSNESS even EXISTS; if researchers are clueless as to what the fuck identity is and how the brain generates it - then who the fuck are we to say we know fuck all about DID (which requires all three for those combined) to the same level we understand gravity or evolution.

The theory of structural dissociation is far more a practice-orientated theory to help in the practical immediate because currently the field is too young and confused to have a genuine "this is KNOWN scientifically" consensus - and the ToSD works pretty well for practical uses but you have to acknowledge that it only does so by ignoring five bajillion holes and assumptions it has to make to work. It's laughable to compare something that is a practice-focused theory to something that is a hard dedicated 'universal truth' seeking theory like gravity.

(Which is not to say it is invalid or wrong or anything, see the above conversation on validity in psychology, but that you have to take it with a grain of salt understanding that it is assuming things about memory, consciousness, identity, etc that we REALLY don't even know exists; and this is a GOOD and FAIR trade off because the intent is for practicality and treatment for people that are clearly dealing with SOMETHING rather than a genuine question of what does and does not exist because in clinical psychology there is very very little point in trying to prove something exists because the goal is to TREAT and find ways to help people with whatever it is they are dealing with. You are expected to do some handwaves and generalize concepts for the sake of practicality and application, its just that you have to understand that you are choosing to lower its reliability and validity in name of practicality and application)

-Riku

-----

Post cut comments and thoughts / points that came into my head that I wanted to put in but never got the opportunity.

Another thing worth considering, if I told you that for five billion dollars, I needed you to get me a list of every scientist who helped develop and found evidence supporting gravity OR every scientist who helped develop and found evidence supporting ToSD - which would you do? It'd be a fucking pain in the ass because ToSD is decently supported by a number of individuals, but god hell no would I waste my time even trying with gravity. The list would be larger by an order of multitudes.

I always tell my friends that the field of psychological research is literally just professional discourse / syscourse. Everyone is chronically bitching at each other under their breaths and calling each other stupid and nitpicking the other people's small words and arguments in favor of their theory - and the thing is? They ALL are scientifically valid arguments because in psychology we don't know SHIT. In actual psychological research discourse it's a whole bunch of people slamming papers on the table and going "SEE. I'm right" and then someone picking up their paper and going "Actually your [insert type of validity and research design and concept] is stupid lol" and then slamming another study that accounts for it and supports their argument and then the first guy doing it BACK at him. Thats how the field of psychology works and its so fucking funny and amazing and thats what I LOVE about it. Its PROFESSIONAL discourse and some of the people in the field are the most fucking SNARKY and STUBBORN bitches in how they talk about other researcher's opinions in private but do their best to respect them in public and professionally because they DO respect their role and that their approach is still not only scientifically sound, but also invaluable to the accurate development and understanding of the concept at hand. They WANT to be right and to hold onto their opinion because they feel they are right so there is always this stubborn snark - but there is an agreed and shared mutual understanding that we all are just trying to get to the truth of an absurdly complex and possibly not even real topic and that back and forth is VITAL lifeblood to it.

In regards to #2, its one of the reasons I try to avoid any serious syscourse cause every time I see people saying things are "science" they are usually jsut throwing one psychological research paper or literature review down (maybe 5 if they are actually better at discussing it) and saying "these are FACTS" when - in the field of psychology and research - that is honestly only slightly better than just linking someone else's blog post as evidence. Yeah its more professional and actually based on data and research so its better than someone just saying "its real" but its hardly "facts" like people like to act like they are

This isn't a black and white issue where it either "is facts" or it is "invalid and non scientific" which is the main thing I really want to make sure is clear. We are NOT anti-ToSD but we are anti-"calling things facts when they arent". ToSD is the best that we know currently and it is incredibly helpful in reflecting generalized understandings of a vague concept and we can talk about things in "mosts" and "currently" but we absolutely can't be sitting here stating anything in absolutes because when people say "it just a theory" in THIS case, they are honestly probably more right than wrong because unlike gravity and evolution, ToSD does not have nearly enough support to live up to the standards and comparison of Gravity and Evolution - which is not bad or wrong - it's by design and serves its purpose, it just isn't made to be used Like That.

#alter: riku #research posting #nerd posting #scientific literacy #ask #asks #syscourse #discourse #syscourse tw #discourse tw #riku rambles #tosd #theory of structural dissociation #long post #research

[senadimell]

You know what?

I abhor commercial shampoo and conditioner websites. I should be able to find out what ingredients are included in your body product without clicking through five loops that direct me away from my question to pictures of all your miracle woo-woo magic special ingredients before I finally locate the tiny box that tells me what’s mandated to be on the bottle. (Spoiler! There’s no such thing as magic ingredients)

But you know what I love? Sites like CosDNA that let you look up ingredients and common irritants. Absolutely fabulous.

Look at this:

https://www.cosdna.com/eng/cosmetic_3f50521256.html

[ID: an example chart from the CosDNA website with five columnts labelled ingredient, function, acne, irritant, and safety. The ingredient column lists various chemicals and hyperlinks to information pages on each one. The function column lists what each ingredient does; for example, coconut acid is listed as a surfactant, emollient, and, and emulsifier. The safety column assigns each ingredient a number rating and color codes them based on how high the risk is, with green being safe and red being more unsafe. If an ingredient is a known irritant, it is assigned a rating for its intensity; the same process is used for acne, though this particular product has the equivalent of an asterisk and links to an explanation of the circumstances under which sodium chloride is an acne risk. End ID]

It tells you what you need to know: what the ingredient is, what it does, and what’s known about its reactive properties.

You can look up products or ingredients or paste a whole ingredient list to analyze it. So. More stuff like CosDNA, more transparency, less handwaving and hiding behind curtains.

#haircare #away with advertising that promises miracles and away with sneakery #and in with transparency and education #away with chemicals are evil #and in with scientific literacy #you should have a rough idea of how your daily products work #even if it's not a perfect or university-level understanding #same thing goes with natural products or alternative choices! #because people are out there talking about how baking soda is a great clarifying product! or how lemon juice is safe and natural #(meaning gentle) #and guess what? baking soda is horribly horribly caustic #and lemon juice works as a meat tenderizer for a reason: it breaks down protein structure. guess what your hair's made of #am i saying don't use those things? no. but knowledge is power #and i don't like seeing the same kind of evasive hand wavery happening in alternative and commercial places alike #if you know what you're doing then go for it. #(personally i would only use baking soda to get out helmet-levels of hairspray and product after a performance) #because it's not really suited for long term use in most cases #but as always ymmv

[readingteachers]

Over 25 million children in the US cannot read proficiently. Reading difficulties are most common in children with ADHD and dyslexia. Learning to read is a complex process, and structured literacy is a comprehensive approach to literacy instruction that is effective for all students but essential for students with dyslexia. Structured literacy is based on the science of reading. Learn what teachers should know about the science of reading.

#Structured Literacy vs Balanced Literacy

[starlightshadowsworld]

To this day people will cry over the knowledge and works destroyed when the library of Alexandria was burned down.

And yet no tears are shed as Palestinian archives and libraries are bombed.

Saint Porphyrius Church, a structure built in the 5th century and the 3rd oldest church in the world has been bombed.

It's not an accident.

Israel aren't simply killing Palestinians, they are trying to erase that there ever were Palestinians in the first place.

Destroying their livelihoods, trying to to destroy their culture and history and pretend this land was never there's.

It's easy to deny someone's existence when there's no record of them.

Which is why it's so important to look at the atrocities and bear witness to what's happening.

But to also recognise that Palestine is more than it's suffering.

There is a living breathing culture, of art, history, literacy which all come from the Palestinians.

Traditions they've carried for centuries.

So while we mourn the dead, we shall fight for the living. Fight for the preservation of their crafts, amplify their voices as they speak on their culture.

Palestinian history and culture is alive. And no matter how much the world wants to erase that, they cannot and will not.

#free palestine #free gaza #anti israel #anti zionisim #archivisim #Libraries #anthropology #palestine

[kc22invesmentsblog]

Understanding REITs: Unlocking the Potential of Real Estate Investment Trusts

Written by Delvin Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) have gained popularity as a way for investors to access the real estate market without directly owning properties. REITs offer a unique investment opportunity by combining the benefits of real estate ownership with the liquidity and diversification of publicly traded securities. In this blog post, we will delve into what REITs are, how they…

View On WordPress

#dailyprompt #Definition and Structure of a REIT #Financial #Financial Freedom #Financial Literacy #Generational Wealth #knowledge #money #Passive Income #REITS #Risks and Considerations #Types of REITS #Understanding REITs: Unlocking the Potential of Real Estate Investment Trusts #Wealth

[theneuroaffirmingparentpodcast]

Episode 4: Structured Literacy | Reading Specialist: Elisabeth Forde M.Ed. | @dearreadingteacher Structured literacy is an evidence-based approach to teaching reading and writing that breaks down language into its smallest components. This method focuses on phonology, phonics, syntax, semantics, and morphology – all essential elements for strong reading and writing skills. For this special episode we are not alone! I was a guest on her podcast and now she's doing me a huge favor by joining me on episode 4! Who is she? I'm proud to call her my instagram friend, Elizabeth Forde M.Ed. She's a strong, inspiring, and wonderful single Mom, currently flexi-schooling her daughter, a teacher, a tutor, podcaster, and a passionate advocate for Science of Reading and Structured Literacy for Parents! You can follow her on Facebook on Instagram @readinggardenclub where she currently has a simple 5 minute a day reading challenge. You can also subscribe and listen to her podcast at the #DearReadingTeacher, where she had a great line up of other passionate people to talk about all things literacy! Reading Garden Club website: http://www.readinggardenclub.com/ #Dear Reading Teacher podcast: https://open.spotify.com/show/2xYPzyCxcY61OVWBCC6p8N ----- Music source: https://freemusicarchive.org/music/holiznacc0/ Intro Music: Sense Of Purpose by HoliznaCC0 Outro Music: Kids by HoliznaCC0 From the Free Music Archive, CC BY-NC 3.0 ---- Remember, every child is unique, and the strategies that work best for one child may differ for another. Be willing to adapt and evolve your approach as you learn more about your child's needs and strengths. Being a neuroaffirming parent is an ongoing journey of learning, empathy, and growth. If you enjoyed this episode, tell a friend, but als don't forget to subscribe, share, and leave us a review. If you're not already... follow along @theneuroaffirmingparent on Instagram and Facebook. NEW EPISODES - BI WEEKLY - ON WEDNESDAYS!

#balanced #children #dad #dyslexia #education #intervention #literacy #mom #neuroaffirming #neurodivergent #neurodiversity #parenting #reading #scienceofreading #structured #teaching #tutor