Web site logical path: [www.psy.gla.ac.uk] [~steve] [best] [this page]

Dale's cone, spontaneous misconceptions, fraud

The bogus "Dale's cone"

The issue or phenomenon

• one

The issue or pheno
The false cone
The real cone exists
The false Confucius

Model 1: random mutation. Scholarship's reasoned rebuttal of the attribution

Archiv ref: model of random meme.
Thalheimer etc. doing the scholarship => the attribution (authority) is wrong.

Model 2: Analogy to other pyramids. Theory and experiment's reasoned rebuttal of the assertion

Bloom, xref my neoBloom.
Evidence against the presupposition behind the assertions:
DrFox (even if medium, then motivation X delivery skill)
NGray: more interesting points about medium use in teaching

Ls don't know how/where they learned (so feeling of recog on seeing the cone
may be a delusion even about the reader's own experience).
(DrFox showed) it all depends on whether trying to learn, or just to be
interested/entertained.

Model 3: Spontaneous misconceptions. The educational theory of the unreasonable endurance of this error

Other cases: I hear, I see, I do.  I have to create this: doesn't seem to be
on my joke/quotes page after all.

Huge false attribs.

Viennot, SponCons as the theory of why these recur (not random bad
scholarship, but an educational reason.)
They occur in every disc.  E.g. plants feeding through their roots.

Conclusion

Why is it attractive?
The truths it falsely seems to express?

Cone / see, hear, do
Putnam
Falling asleep when forcing ourselves to read
Falling asleep over TV but not blaming ourselves
Falling asleep in conversation but not blaming ourselves

BUT cone has no "thinking" as a mode of learning