I think you are confusing ulterior with bad or non righteous. Science is perverted whenever the goal is something other than science, regardless of the its righteousness. In this case, the goal isn't to understand why some students are smart and some are not. It isn't even to understand what smart even means. It is to make yet another argument that we can teach children to be smart.
You give these articles and papers a pass on any real scrutiny because of what they promise not because of the quality of the science (which like most education research is extremely poor). As I pointed out, smart kids are going to do things better, faster and sooner regardless. A much better conclusion at this point, especially with the virtual infinite amount of data we have, is that these kids do these primitive tasks better because they are smarter. If this paper had a shred of scientific purpose, that detail would have been pointed out in bold print.
> On Oct 24, 2013, at 5:23 PM, Joe Niederberger <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > Now that obviously true, but doesn't bear on the current thread topic at all, unless you can first prove what you think you have already proved, which is that the research referenced has both ulterior motives and is scientifically compromised.