Miya's netball season finished last week. A couple of months ago I wrote here about how she had joined the (HASCA) homeschool team.
So, the homeschool team won two out of seven of their grading games, and were put into competition Grade 7 (out of 10).
After the grading games, they had another seven competition games. They won two, drew one, and lost four. Consequently, they came sixth (out of eight teams) in their grade.
In the final game of the competition they played a team that they had also played in the grading round. In the grading round the homeschoolers won; in the competition round the teams drew.
I give these statistics not because winning matters (it doesn't), but because it gives context.
There are about 80 teams in the overall competition for that age group (school Year 6). We can assume that the teams in a grade start the competition round at a mostly similar playing level. Any team might win their grade.
Consequently, the way I see it is that the position a team comes in their grade competition reflects the amount of effort the team put into playing. The top-ranked team genuinely deserves their placing because they worked hard to improve themselves more than the other teams. Similarly, the lower ranked teams deserve their placings because they didn't put as much time and effort into improving themselves.
As I see it, the homeschoolers deserved their sixth placing (out of eight). To be honest, they didn't put a lot of effort into their netball this season. Practices were fairly minimal, with a team get-together for about 30 minutes to an hour before each game. And these practices were fairly general in structure, with no apparent learning objectives or systematic skills development.
In contrast, we might look at Mulan's first season of netball, which was in 2015. That year there wasn't a homeschool team, so Mulan played for Bayswater School. In addition to the game, the team met twice a week (at school lunchtimes) for practices. The two team coaches were also teachers, and they were very organised in their coaching. Activities during practices were varied and explicitly chosen to develop skills that had been identified as weaknesses during the previous game. Consequently, the team significantly improved their netball skills, and they came second in their grade competition.
I realise that improving ball skills and netball playing skills are not the only reasons why someone might join a netball team. The social aspect is hugely important too. As is enjoyment and the positivity of participating in team sports.
But in my opinion we can have these social and enjoyment aspects but also have a bit more emphasis on skills development. Without taking anything away from the awesome job that the team coach and manager did this season, I really wish the focus had been slightly more on the game skills side of things.
Wednesday 28 August 2019
Sunday 18 August 2019
Book review: Utopia for realists
I've just finished reading Rutger Bregman's book Utopia for Realists.
You may have heard of Bregman. He was the guy who in January got worldwide attention by mentioning the word "taxes" at the World Economic Forum in Davos. The mega-rich attendees were talking philanthropy -- patting each other on the back for their supposed generosity. Bregman pointed out that many mega-rich got that way through tax avoidance and unfair tax systems -- they weren't paying their fair share to begin with.
Bregman made a plausible point, but I thought I'd better get his book to learn the details. It turned out lots of other people had the same idea. After requesting the book from our local library I had to wait several months before it was my turn.
I've now passed the book on to Yeye to read, so I don't have it with me as I write this. I hope my memory holds and I get the essential facts right.
Bregman has a master's degree in history and works as a writer and journalist. Utopia for Realists brilliantly combines these two skills to make an enjoyable, easy-to-read book filled with masses of historical references and evidence. The English version, which I read, was translated from the original Dutch by Elizabeth Manton.
Bregman attempts to show that there is ample real-life solid historical evidence for why his "Utopian" economic and political ideas are indeed realistic. Repeatedly he makes the case that opponents of these ideas rely on armchair intuitions that actually are factually wrong in reality. Often, objections to Bregman's ideas are versions of "but it just won't work in reality." Bregman, as a historian, gives real world historical situations where it did work in reality.
Those of us who are not historians and don't know the historical facts have to choose whether or not to believe Bregman's account of what went on in the situations he describes. But at least for me I felt that Bregman argued well and plausibly. With several points he made me reconsider my previous views, and I have to accept that my previous armchair intuitions may not match reality.
Bregman's Utopia is about making things better for everyone, overall. He is entering into the ages-old discussion of what is the best way to improve everyone's lives. He doesn't have all the answers (no one does), but he is aiming for an evidence-based approach to creating a better world for us all.
The way I read Bregman is that his vision of Utopia is essentially egalitarian. That is, he thinks a better world is one in which there is fairness and some sense of equality for all. This, of course, is not equality in every sense -- he is not saying everyone should be or have exactly the same. But it is saying that there are some specific things that everyone should have universally.
Those who don't accept this egalitarian presupposition are likely going to disagree with Bregman from the outset. Those who currently have a bigger slice of the pie may well oppose Bregman merely because they want to hold on to their luxuries (Bregman's interview with Tucker Carlson would seem to be an example of this). But also, those who sincerely believe a better world is one in which some people count for more or get preferential treatment won't find Bregman's Utopia desirable. (In one of his historical stories Bregman mentions an Ayn Rand follower who used misinformation to stop the implementation of one of Bregman's Utopian policies.)
To put it another way, Bregman is writing for people who, when they encounter unfairness because of power differences, are more inclined to feel for the little guy rather than get turned on by the power of the big guy. In this sense, I see Bregman as one of the Good Guys.
So, what are the economic/political policies that Bregman argues for?
Universal Basic Income
The first main policy is that of Universal Basic Income. This is the idea that everyone receives an income, no questions asked. There is no means testing, and no work requirement. Everyone universally gets it for free. A suggested figure is something like $12,000 or $15,000 per year.
This is the policy that gets the armchair intuitionist objectors out in force. There are scoffs galore at the thought of free money for everyone.
In his book, Bregman informs us that there have been a lot of studies for a long period of time on Universal Basic Income, and the overwhelming evidence is that it works. On the relevant measures (both social and economic) there are significant improvements when compared against similar groups that didn't receive a Universal Basic Income.
This might surprise some people, but the facts are the facts, and it seems the scoffers are letting their emotional prejudices get in the way of evidence.
The most common objection to Universal Basic Income is that it will encourage laziness. But it turns out, according to Bregman, that this armchair intuition is simply false. Repeatedly the studies show that people who receive a Universal Basic Income don't reduce their work hours significantly. Many will still keep working as much, while many others reduce their paid work a little and replace it with further education or unpaid voluntary work.
There was even a study on homeless people who received a Basic Income. A negative stereotype might suggest that homeless people are more likely than anyone else to waste money given to them. But it turned out that most made good use of the money they received and improved themselves significantly.
According to Bregman, the evidence shows that giving homeless people money directly is more effective than education and counseling for them. It turns out that for many their main problem is a lack of cash, not a lack of education or social services.
My armchair intuitions were most shocked by Bregman's suggestion that more good would be done by reducing the numbers of social workers and simply giving their salaries directly to homeless people.
15-hour paid work week
The second main policy is that of reducing the paid working week. The thought is that it could gradually be reduced over a period of time, with a 15-hour paid work week achievable by 2030.
Working long hours for a wage/salary is a choice that society has made; we could choose to change this. We don't need people working the long hours that they currently do:
With fewer hours needed for paid work, this frees up people to do more unpaid voluntary work, engage in ongoing education or pursue leisure activities. In other words, people could have more enjoyable, fulfilling lives.
Again, this policy suggestion shocks the armchair intuitionists. But again, Bregman informs us that studies show that this is practically and economically realistic.
Open borders
The third and final main policy is that of open borders between countries.
Bregman points out that borders are the biggest source of inequality worldwide -- 60% of your income is dependent simply on where you were born.
Bregman admits that this is the most "Utopian" part of his book. But if countries gradually increase their immigration limit then open borders could be a realistic end goal.
Summary
The main message I got from reading Bregman's book was that there are plenty of studies that show that change for the better is solidly realistic.
Too often we hear and read "experts" informing us that making people's lives better in this way is idealistic and impractical. That we have to get our heads out of the clouds and be realistic. The world is a tough place and we just have to accept it.
These "experts" are wrong. (And many are well-paid liars.)
Working to make the world a better place and being realistic need not be opposed to each other. The evidence is out there about how it can be done. Bregman's book is an awesomely inspiring demonstration of ways in which we might achieve it. We just need the political willpower to make it happen.
You may have heard of Bregman. He was the guy who in January got worldwide attention by mentioning the word "taxes" at the World Economic Forum in Davos. The mega-rich attendees were talking philanthropy -- patting each other on the back for their supposed generosity. Bregman pointed out that many mega-rich got that way through tax avoidance and unfair tax systems -- they weren't paying their fair share to begin with.
Bregman made a plausible point, but I thought I'd better get his book to learn the details. It turned out lots of other people had the same idea. After requesting the book from our local library I had to wait several months before it was my turn.
I've now passed the book on to Yeye to read, so I don't have it with me as I write this. I hope my memory holds and I get the essential facts right.
Bregman has a master's degree in history and works as a writer and journalist. Utopia for Realists brilliantly combines these two skills to make an enjoyable, easy-to-read book filled with masses of historical references and evidence. The English version, which I read, was translated from the original Dutch by Elizabeth Manton.
Bregman attempts to show that there is ample real-life solid historical evidence for why his "Utopian" economic and political ideas are indeed realistic. Repeatedly he makes the case that opponents of these ideas rely on armchair intuitions that actually are factually wrong in reality. Often, objections to Bregman's ideas are versions of "but it just won't work in reality." Bregman, as a historian, gives real world historical situations where it did work in reality.
Those of us who are not historians and don't know the historical facts have to choose whether or not to believe Bregman's account of what went on in the situations he describes. But at least for me I felt that Bregman argued well and plausibly. With several points he made me reconsider my previous views, and I have to accept that my previous armchair intuitions may not match reality.
Bregman's Utopia is about making things better for everyone, overall. He is entering into the ages-old discussion of what is the best way to improve everyone's lives. He doesn't have all the answers (no one does), but he is aiming for an evidence-based approach to creating a better world for us all.
The way I read Bregman is that his vision of Utopia is essentially egalitarian. That is, he thinks a better world is one in which there is fairness and some sense of equality for all. This, of course, is not equality in every sense -- he is not saying everyone should be or have exactly the same. But it is saying that there are some specific things that everyone should have universally.
Those who don't accept this egalitarian presupposition are likely going to disagree with Bregman from the outset. Those who currently have a bigger slice of the pie may well oppose Bregman merely because they want to hold on to their luxuries (Bregman's interview with Tucker Carlson would seem to be an example of this). But also, those who sincerely believe a better world is one in which some people count for more or get preferential treatment won't find Bregman's Utopia desirable. (In one of his historical stories Bregman mentions an Ayn Rand follower who used misinformation to stop the implementation of one of Bregman's Utopian policies.)
To put it another way, Bregman is writing for people who, when they encounter unfairness because of power differences, are more inclined to feel for the little guy rather than get turned on by the power of the big guy. In this sense, I see Bregman as one of the Good Guys.
So, what are the economic/political policies that Bregman argues for?
Universal Basic Income
The first main policy is that of Universal Basic Income. This is the idea that everyone receives an income, no questions asked. There is no means testing, and no work requirement. Everyone universally gets it for free. A suggested figure is something like $12,000 or $15,000 per year.
This is the policy that gets the armchair intuitionist objectors out in force. There are scoffs galore at the thought of free money for everyone.
In his book, Bregman informs us that there have been a lot of studies for a long period of time on Universal Basic Income, and the overwhelming evidence is that it works. On the relevant measures (both social and economic) there are significant improvements when compared against similar groups that didn't receive a Universal Basic Income.
This might surprise some people, but the facts are the facts, and it seems the scoffers are letting their emotional prejudices get in the way of evidence.
The most common objection to Universal Basic Income is that it will encourage laziness. But it turns out, according to Bregman, that this armchair intuition is simply false. Repeatedly the studies show that people who receive a Universal Basic Income don't reduce their work hours significantly. Many will still keep working as much, while many others reduce their paid work a little and replace it with further education or unpaid voluntary work.
There was even a study on homeless people who received a Basic Income. A negative stereotype might suggest that homeless people are more likely than anyone else to waste money given to them. But it turned out that most made good use of the money they received and improved themselves significantly.
According to Bregman, the evidence shows that giving homeless people money directly is more effective than education and counseling for them. It turns out that for many their main problem is a lack of cash, not a lack of education or social services.
My armchair intuitions were most shocked by Bregman's suggestion that more good would be done by reducing the numbers of social workers and simply giving their salaries directly to homeless people.
15-hour paid work week
The second main policy is that of reducing the paid working week. The thought is that it could gradually be reduced over a period of time, with a 15-hour paid work week achievable by 2030.
Working long hours for a wage/salary is a choice that society has made; we could choose to change this. We don't need people working the long hours that they currently do:
- The ongoing trend in increased automation and efficiency means that we need fewer people to produce the same amount of stuff.
- Increasing sexual and racial equality has increased the number of potential workers.
- Many jobs are "bullshit jobs" -- jobs in which the work really serves no purpose.
With fewer hours needed for paid work, this frees up people to do more unpaid voluntary work, engage in ongoing education or pursue leisure activities. In other words, people could have more enjoyable, fulfilling lives.
Again, this policy suggestion shocks the armchair intuitionists. But again, Bregman informs us that studies show that this is practically and economically realistic.
Open borders
The third and final main policy is that of open borders between countries.
Bregman points out that borders are the biggest source of inequality worldwide -- 60% of your income is dependent simply on where you were born.
Bregman admits that this is the most "Utopian" part of his book. But if countries gradually increase their immigration limit then open borders could be a realistic end goal.
Summary
The main message I got from reading Bregman's book was that there are plenty of studies that show that change for the better is solidly realistic.
Too often we hear and read "experts" informing us that making people's lives better in this way is idealistic and impractical. That we have to get our heads out of the clouds and be realistic. The world is a tough place and we just have to accept it.
These "experts" are wrong. (And many are well-paid liars.)
Working to make the world a better place and being realistic need not be opposed to each other. The evidence is out there about how it can be done. Bregman's book is an awesomely inspiring demonstration of ways in which we might achieve it. We just need the political willpower to make it happen.
Thursday 1 August 2019
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)