Op. I finished reading the book.

She made some excellent points, but she ruined it by taking them too far.

For example, she described how wealthy kids can do poorly if they're given too much support. But she generalized from that that poor kids should be told to "get over it!".

I think it's a very good book for DCUM readers but not something I want to see as part of public policy.

Go to the Tweens and Teens forum and see how many times someone will post an issue they’re having with their kid and how many of the replies are essentially, “therapy - asap!”

Anonymous wrote:All this

While I agree with part of the statement I do think its misrepresenting the tweet and the information that the Sec is actually talking about. Its not just mental health. Its social workers and counselors and all types of services and retention incentives to KEEP the few that are in schools from leaving since it is usually understaffed and underpaid. The need in most schools is greater than the services we can provide. Its also referring to social workers getting services for families and students. Schools are one of the primary ways that students and families receive services.

I do absolutely agree with 0 individualized tech in Elementary. I would prefer that recess be 20 minutes per every 100min of instructional time. Meaning multiple recesses per day and gym daily. Emphasis on outside learning and utilizing community resources but if you have actually been in schools, thats a pipe dream right now. There are a LOT of kids with high needs in schools.

Reading it now, after listening to Shrier on several podcasts (FWIW, I'm slightly left of center politically) and I think she brings up very good points for thought and consideration.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She’s a RWNJ hack pushing propaganda.

Hard pass.

When you label everyone who doesn't agree with you a RWNJ...

It becomes a meaningless floating signifier.

Good work.

NP. I think it’s fair to consider one’s credentials and history. She writes for Bari Weiss, for example. She has a history of writing inflammatory stuff about transgender issues. She does this disingenuous “I am a liberal, but…” thing.

When it gets to the point where you can anticipate exactly what someone is going to say and that it will follow a set of well-trodden ideological talking points and lack any genuine insights, it’s fine to dismiss it out of hand. And that’s not labeling someone you disagree with — if anything she’s the one contorting herself into all sorts of labels in some attempt to be validated.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Similar to her last book, this book is using hyperbolic, anecdotal stories to push a political narrative.

She starts discussing therapy but then, given that so few kids are actually in therapy, she soon digs into SEL in schools, again sharing anecdotal stories to reinforce the current conservative narrative around SEL. Her extremist take in this book is that all SEL is horrible and has no place in schools.

The big issue with her latest book, much like the last, is that it isn't based on data. She is pushing cherry-picked stories as truth.

In reality, hundreds of studies involving hundreds of thousands of students have shown that SEL DOES produce better outcomes for students.
https://medicine.yale.edu/news-article/new-research-published-in-child-development-confirms-social-and-emotional-learning-significantly-improves-student-academic-performance-well-being-and-perceptions-of-school-safety/

When you look at the data and compare to her extreme anecdotes, you realize that this author is not looking at this topic objectively and is just trying to push a political narrative.

Her “last book” is called Irreversible Damage” and it’s excellent.

It was equally full of crap. Neither book is based on data, just extreme anecdotes pushing extreme opinions. She is unqualified and overly biased to write objectively about either topic.

genetic fallacy

This fallacy occurs when a claim is accepted or rejected based on the origin of the claim rather than its merits. Your argument against the books and the author's qualification to write on the topics dismisses the content based on the perceived bias and qualifications of the author, rather than engaging with the actual arguments or evidence presented in the books.

Guess you missed the part where I wrote: “Neither book is based on data, just extreme anecdotes pushing extreme opinions.”

Here is where I expanded on it:
Similar to her last book, this book is using hyperbolic, anecdotal stories to push a political narrative.

She starts discussing therapy but then, given that so few kids are actually in therapy, she soon digs into SEL in schools, again sharing anecdotal stories to reinforce the current conservative narrative around SEL. Her extremist take in this book is that all SEL is horrible and has no place in schools.

The big issue with her latest book, much like the last, is that it isn't based on data. She is pushing cherry-picked stories as truth.

In reality, hundreds of studies involving hundreds of thousands of students have shown that SEL DOES produce better outcomes for students.
https://medicine.yale.edu/news-article/new-research-published-in-child-development-confirms-social-and-emotional-learning-significantly-improves-student-academic-performance-well-being-and-perceptions-of-school-safety/

When you look at the data and compare to her extreme anecdotes, you realize that this author is not looking at this topic objectively and is just trying to push a political narrative.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Similar to her last book, this book is using hyperbolic, anecdotal stories to push a political narrative.

She starts discussing therapy but then, given that so few kids are actually in therapy, she soon digs into SEL in schools, again sharing anecdotal stories to reinforce the current conservative narrative around SEL. Her extremist take in this book is that all SEL is horrible and has no place in schools.

The big issue with her latest book, much like the last, is that it isn't based on data. She is pushing cherry-picked stories as truth.

In reality, hundreds of studies involving hundreds of thousands of students have shown that SEL DOES produce better outcomes for students.
https://medicine.yale.edu/news-article/new-research-published-in-child-development-confirms-social-and-emotional-learning-significantly-improves-student-academic-performance-well-being-and-perceptions-of-school-safety/

When you look at the data and compare to her extreme anecdotes, you realize that this author is not looking at this topic objectively and is just trying to push a political narrative.

Her “last book” is called Irreversible Damage” and it’s excellent.

It was equally full of crap. Neither book is based on data, just extreme anecdotes pushing extreme opinions. She is unqualified and overly biased to write objectively about either topic.

genetic fallacy

This fallacy occurs when a claim is accepted or rejected based on the origin of the claim rather than its merits. Your argument against the books and the author's qualification to write on the topics dismisses the content based on the perceived bias and qualifications of the author, rather than engaging with the actual arguments or evidence presented in the books.

Anonymous wrote:She’s a RWNJ hack pushing propaganda.

Hard pass.

ad hominem logical fallacy

This type of fallacy occurs when someone attacks the person making the argument rather than the argument itself. In this case, you dismiss the content being discussed not by addressing the content's merits or flaws but by attacking the character or motive of the person presenting the information.