My DMs tell me that I look like I'm not ok from this thread. ⤵️

I am not ok.

This is not ok.

But it isn't just this series of events...it's that this series of events comes from years of escalation and lack of enforcement, and by all appearances will be followed by the same.

@RyanKemper10 @ScottAdamsSays @TherealzCRS Meaning to do this anyway. Strap in.

My main concern with masks is their ability to force filter droplet (with a predictable 6 foot arc) into aerosol, which has an 18-20 foot trajectory, remains aloft for gravity. It remains aloft for hours, and doesn’t respond predictably 1/🧵

Survivorship Bias 101

History is written by the victors. But if we exclusively focus on these successes, we allow survivorship bias to distort our understanding of the world.

But what is "survivorship bias" and how does it work?

Here's Survivorship Bias 101!

👇👇👇

1/ First, a few definitions.

Survivorship bias is the logical error of concentrating on survivors (successes) and ignoring casualties (failures).

When we do so, we miss the true "base rates" of survival (the actual probability of success) and arrive at flawed conclusions.

2/ When we completely ignore failures, we lose our ability to correctly identify the differences between successes and failures.

Put simply, exclusively focusing on successes may actually inhibit our ability to identify (and replicate) the actions that led to such success.

3/ Cicero wrote on the topic over 2,000 years ago.

An atheist named Diagoras is shown portraits of people who prayed and were saved from death at sea as proof of God's existence.

Diagoras replies, "I see those who were saved, but where are those painted who were shipwrecked?"

4/ Cicero cuts right to the point - we cannot conclude that prayer led to being saved from the sea if we ignore those who prayed and then drowned.

Survivorship bias can lead to a deeply-flawed understanding of cause-and-effect relationships.

Let's look at some examples.

1) Dreaded thread on why I think the response to postcritique is so vitriolic. Short version: Because literary studies is a discipline in search of an application.

2) Before I go on, I'll say from the outset that many in lit studies explicitly reject the idea that the field *should* have an application. My opinion is that's fine if you want to do book clubs, but if you want an institution you can't ignore that difficult issue. But anyway...

3) The evidence by this point is overwhelming that when lit scholars talk about 'method' we're actually just talking about ourselves: 'ways of reading,' 'how we argue,' 'phenomenology of reading,' etc. etc.

4) David Kurnick nicely illustrates this phenomenon:

5) But none of this is method discussion. Talking about ourselves, how we approach our objects of study, our motives and objectives, our commitments, etc. would be the *beginning* of a method convo in every other discipline. In lit studies it's the *end*, or the whole convo!

Lot of chat about instructional coaching. To get it right, don't underestimate the time it takes!

- There has to be a shared vision for effective T&L from the coaches. Keep revisiting this and keep unpicking all the elements so they are able to break them down and explain them.

We used the Evidence Review by @ProfCoe to create some effective teaching habits, using a lot of TLAC techniques and work from @every_lesson. Knowledge and expertise and ability to break this down is vital.

Lots of time then required with coaches to look at lessons and look at highest leverage point. In one training session our coaching team picked out over 30 tweaks in a 5 minute video. Where do you start? Why there? Consistency key. Leads to great debate.

Time needs to be built in. Time for visits, time for coaching sessions, time to practice. SLT need to all understand the process and buy-in and all live it. Putting staff development first is truly exciting and hugely powerful if actioned in the way it is desired.

Teachers/coaches need to have the process modelled for them. Staff need to understand the why behind IC, not just what it is. Worth talking through research on teacher's habitual practice from @mikehobbiss and @DrSamSims.