I have personal knowledge that many lawyers and academics are in severe denial about how much AI is turning their professions upside down and inside out. Soon, everyone will be constantly using AI. It's going to quickly get quantum leaps better than it already is and, frankly, a lot of us don't add much value above and beyond the things AI can already do. This is exciting and terrifying.
I've been listening to outstanding podcast titled "Sold a Story,” an eight-part investigative series hosted by journalist Emily Hanford. Launched in October 2022, “Sold a Story.” This podcast examines the widespread use of an ineffective (and often counter-productive) reading instruction method used in many U.S. schools. This method, heavily promoted by Lucy Calkins, author of the “Units of Study”, was one of the most widely used reading curricula in U.S. elementary schools after its introduction in 1987. This method, which intentionally discourages the use of phonics, has been so firmly embedded in grade school curricula that it continues to be used in many schools despite decades of cognitive science showing that kids learn far better when they are taught significant amounts of phonics. “Sold a Story” exposes how millions of children struggle to read (even now as adults) because schools relied on Calkins' thoroughly debunked theories, often referred to as "balanced literacy" and "whole language."
The focus of the “Sold a Story” is this: Why do so many American schools continue to use reading curricula rooted in such a flawed idea that children can learn to read primarily by guessing words using context clues or pictures, rather than systematically decoding words through phonics? Calkins' approach, influenced by figures like Marie Clay and perpetuated by popular authors and publishers somehow ignored the "science of reading," research showing that explicit phonics instruction is a critical component for most children to become proficient readers. The series also highlights the horrific consequences of excluding phonics—65% of current U.S. fourth graders are not proficient readers.
[Note and Spoiler Alert: Lucy Calkins began incorporating phonics into the Units of Study for Teaching Reading curriculum with the release of her newest method, called the Units of Study in Phonics in 2021. This was in response to growing criticism, including the criticism levied by the "Sold a Story" podcast. Calkins' updated method includes phonics primarily in K-2 classrooms to supplement the core reading curriculum, aiming to address foundational skills like decoding. In her current method, phonics is still deemphasized for grades 3 and beyond.]
Lucy Calkins agreed to be interviewed by Emily Hansford in 2021 after previously rebuffing Hansford. For me, this interview was gripping--I've transcribed it below. What would Calkins say after causing such widespread damage to millions of children? Well, this interview revealed Calkins' lack of integrity and an unwillingness to fall squarely on her sword. She just couldn't bear to admit that she refused to look at the science of reading while creating and promulgating her flawed method. This willful ignorance occurred while Calkins was the nation's de facto rock star of reading education. For years, the science of reading demonstrated that her method was harming children by teaching them to pretend to read. Many kids are wired such that they learned to read despite the fundamental flaws of Calkins' original method but, as indicated above, many other students were left behind, some of them for life. The following is from Episode 6:
Brett Weinstein explains:
So if you have something dangerous and it's in the shots to do some job like activate your immune system so that it reacts to the the core ingredient of the shot, if it's dangerous but it's in the control and the shot that's being tested, let's say it kills one in 100 people. This is an extreme case, but let's just say that the adjuvant were to kill one in 100 people. Well, if the adjuvant is in both the control and the treatment group, then what the experiment will show is that there was no increased tendency towards death if you got the shot, because it was also the harm was also done to the control group. That is one way of hiding harm.The second way to hide harm is for pharma always tries to hit this target where something that it is testing against a quote, unquote placebo, which isn't one, is so good that it becomes immoral not to give it to the control group. And so what they do is they rush to vaccinate the control group, thereby stopping the capacity to see what the long term effect of the thing that you were testing is on that population, because you have no one to compare it to because everybody's now had it.
"There has never been a system that allows "us" to know who has deep and genuine knowledge. Darwin wrote origin of the species without a PhD. Ramanujan went around showing his notebooks full of theorems to anyone who could appreciate them. Expertise is proven by output alone."
"Beware the barrenness of a busy life." Socrates
As a gift to myself this year, I've been doubling-down on my need to spent my waning hours my intentionally. Waning? I'm 68, so I've already lived most of my life. That said, I'm in good physical shape and I'm passionate about my work as a civil rights attorney (especially First Amendment). Every day I treasure opportunities to engage with friends and family, especially the love of my life, Beverly, who I met one year ago today. I am a serious musician and an exhibiting artist. I'm lucky in more ways than I can count.
But numbers don't lie. Last year I made an intrepid assumption that I'll live about 20 more years. Simple math reveals that this is only 240 more months. Last month went quickly. In fact, the better I am at living a mindful, principled and socially engaged life, the more quickly the months flash by. My endgame: If I'm really fortunate, I'll be able to look back at my 20 year Plan and consider that it was a life well-lived, which will make it much easier to deal with my inevitable decay and death. But how do I keep on track, giving my cravings to attend to more things than I can possibly absorb?
This year I committed to unsubscribing from emails lists that seemed like good ideas at the time. There are also many commercial emails that keep popping in, unsolicited. In the past few weeks, I have unsubscribed from about 200 email lists, which makes my inbox much more inviting. Now, most of my inbox consists of emails that I will either read or at least scan. This has also addressed my concern that I might overlook important emails because they are hidden among low (or no) priority emails. I recommend this to everyone. If an email list seems interesting, but not interesting enough to subscribe to, I follow the organization or person on X (Twitter), which circumvents my inbox.
I also decided to commit (for the umpteenth time) to do a better job of making and adhering to a daily to-do list that I create either that morning or the night before. I use a combination of paper and pen at my desk and the Reminders app on my iPhone. This simple tactic works extremely well.
I also make better use of my iPhone DND feature when trying to focus, sometimes for hours. This is heaven. How did we ever get to this point where so many people assume that you will immediately respond to texts and phone calls?
These three simple things have made a noticeable difference to help me spend quality time on the things that I have personally identified as my priorities. The alternative is the lose time chasing squirrels all day, which is admittedly sometimes valuable for generating unexpected but important insights, ideas and projects, but this daydreaming and brainstorming time needs to be consciously kept in check or else it destroys one's ability to deeply concentrate one's own priorities.
Today I received a mass emailing from Cal Newport announcing a new online course called Life of Focus. I won't be signing up, but I do appreciate his three goals for his course, which closely align with my own resolutions:
Month 1: Establishing deep work hours. You'll restructure your work life to feature less distraction and more depth.v Along these same lines I recommend Newport's book: "Deep Work: Rules for Focused Success in a Distracted World.Month 2: Conducting a digital declutter. You'll implement a digital declutter to help you break screen additions and cultivate a more deliberate relationship with the digital tools in your personal life.
Month 3: Taking on a deep project. In the final month, we’ll reinvest the time we’ve created at work and at home in a project that engages your mind and your soul in something meaningful.