Mother, is Maxwell House really the only coffee in the world? Well, your father says so, and your father knows best. Yes, it's Father Knows Best transcribed in Hollywood starring Robert Young's father. A half-hour visit with your neighbors, the Andersons. Brought to you by America's favorite coffee, Maxwell House. The coffee that's always good to the last drop. The first of April, some do say, is set apart for all fool's day. But why the people call it so, nor I nor they themselves do know? It's Sunday in Springfield, but that isn't all. It's the first day of April. In the White Frame House on Maple Street, the Andersons are gathering for breakfast. And while they aren't concerned at the moment about the date, they will be, and soon. Like this. May I have my coffee, please? It'll be ready in a minute, dear. Jim, you didn't persuade them to stay over, did you? Of course not. I merely... Look, Margaret, it isn't every day we have a chance to entertain the district supervisor and the general manager of the whole division. I thought we entertained them quite well last night. Dinner at the townhouse, the dance at the club. Jim, you did ask them to stay over, didn't you? Honey, this is the first time Walter Craig has ever paid a visit to the Springfield office. And if I can show him a good time while he's here... Yes. Oh, when he gets back to the home office, he's bound to say a good word for me. That's logical, isn't it? What is? Oh, good morning, dear. Breakfast will be ready in two seconds. Wasn't that ever a dance last night? You know, Margaret, that's a much more effective greeting than a plain old good morning mother or even good morning father. Good morning mother. Good morning, dear. Good morning father. Good morning, Betty. Everybody happy? Just bubbling over. Good. Wasn't that ever a dance last night? Yes, it was ever a dance last night. Does that make you feel better? No coffee yet, her. Not yet, dear.  There's one thing you don't seem to understand. Me?  What don't I seem to understand, dear? In the business world, it isn't so much what you know as who you know. And if I make an extra good impression on Mr. Craig, well, there's no telling how far I can go with the company. Here's your coffee, dear. Thank you. That's why I want the children to be especially thoughtful and considerate this afternoon. All right, dear. Why don't you... this afternoon? Mr. Craig's a very important man, and I promised him a day of complete rest. If I hear one peep out of any of the kids... Jim, did you invite them here for dinner? Naturally, if we give them a good home-cooked meal. But why didn't you tell me? I am telling you. I've been telling you for the last five minutes. But I'm not prepared. We have to go to church, and all the stores are closed, and... Jim, what am I going to do with you? What did I do now? If you'd only told me last night... I didn't know last night. It was just sort of... honey, there's always enough for two more. Oh, Jim. And that's another thing. While Craig and Buckley are here, I want Bud to stay on one floor. I don't care which floor it is, but he's not going to go up and down stairs. Good morning, everybody. Good morning, dear. Hi, Bud. This is one day we're not going to have his imitation of a buffalo stampede. Boy, something smells good. What are we having for breakfast? Pancakes. And I was here ahead of you, so get in line. Okay. Bud. Hey, look at the mouth. Hey! Oh! Oh! Oh! Look at the mouth. Where is it? April Fool. Boy, I sure scared her, didn't I? Bud. Yes, Dad? Get the mop and clean up this mess. Oh, gosh. I didn't know she was going to jump on the table. Scaring people have to death.  Bud, you can pick the worst time. Okay, I'll go ahead, genius. Start cleaning up. Holy cow. Jim, this is going to be one of those days. I can just feel it. This is not going to be one of those days.  Daddy! Daddy! Oh, dear. Good grief. What's the matter, Kathy? Oh, Daddy, you ought to see what's in the bathroom. A green dragon with purple spots and fire coming out of his nose. Fine. Go upstairs and ask him if he'd like some pancakes. Is this the right mop, Mom? Don't bother, dear. Let him clean it up, Margaret. It was his fault. Go ahead, Bud. Lift your feet up, Betty. Doesn't anybody care about the dragon? April Fool. Aw, Bud told you. Jim, we've got to do something about dinner. I just can't stretch a chicken to cover two more people. Well, we'll all have to eat a little less, that's all. Probably do us good. If you need another chicken, there's one in the backyard. There is? What's a chicken doing in the... Kathy, are you sure? Oh, yes, Daddy. I saw it fly over the fence. Bud, put your coat on to see if you can find... April Fool! Okay, Betty. You can put your feet back down. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Isn't this fun? Kathleen, I think we'll all be a lot happier if you'll just forget that today is the first of April. I'll get it. But everybody else sounds April Fool and they don't have to stop. How does that look, Mom? It looks fine, dear.  What'll I do with the mop? Put a little sugar on it. You can have it instead of cereal. Jim... Well, if he's going to ask those idiotic questions, what do you expect me to say? What'll I do with the mop? Father, it's for you. I'll be right there. I only wanted to know. Never mind, dear. Your father was only joking. 15 years old and he doesn't know what to do with a mop. Who is it, Betty? I don't know, Father. They just asked if you were home. Well, thank you very much.  Okay. My pancakes are probably ice cold. Hello? Mr. Anderson? Yes? This is Joe Hogan of the Springfield Herald. Who? Joe Hogan of the Springfield Fair. Oh, yes. What can I do for you? Well, I wonder if you're going to be home this afternoon. I'd like to come out with a photographer. What for? There isn't any... Oh. Well, sure, Mr. Hogan. You come right ahead. Two o'clock will be all right. Sure, any time at all. Why don't you bring two or three photographers just to be on the safe side? I think one will do fine. Well, see you later, Mr. Anderson. All right, Mr. Hogan. And a happy first of April to you, too. I don't know.  That's what's wrong with this world. Everybody wants to play games. Who was it, dear? Oh, some character with a weird sense of humor. I'm supposed to get all excited about an interview so people can say April Fool. Daddy! What is it, Kathleen? Mommy says I can't say April Fool anymore. Well, tell you what we'll do, Kitten. Suppose this once we don't pay any attention to your mother. June! After all, I'm the boss around here. What I say goes and nobody else amounts to a row of pins. And let's have that understood. Father! April Fool! Well, how do you like it? It sounds pretty silly when somebody does it to you, doesn't it? I wasn't going to do it to you. I'll get it. Jim, you haven't eaten a bit of your breakfast. How can I have to keep answering the phone so my friends can have fun? This is probably Harry Truman inviting me to have dinner at the White House. Hello, Harry. Mr. Anderson? Oh, let's not be formal, Harry. Old kid just called me Jim. Mr. Anderson, this is Fred Benson of International Newsreel. I see. Would you like to come out here and take some pictures of me, you know, in a bathing suit or going over Niagara Falls in a barrel? There's a matter of fact. Well, come right ahead and be sure to bring enough cameras. We want to do this thing right. That'll be fine. You won't have any trouble recognizing me. I'm the one with the three heads, win, place, and show. Characters, now it's International Newsreel. Jim, are you still on the phone? No, I'm good. Now, look. Hello, Jim. Who is this, anyway? Jim Hathaway. Oh, I thought it would be General Eisenhower at the very least. Who? Uh, never mind, Jim. What's up? Don't you tell me. Huh? Love a boy? Look, Jim, I've had just about all I can take. And if this is your idea of a joke... A joke? Would I make jokes about the tender emotions of a lonely heart? What? Haven't you seen the morning paper? No, what about it? Jim, what's all this... Hello, Jim. Jim! Oh, fine.  Not until I've seen the paper. Where is it? It's right in here. Oh, well, if you're going to hide it like that. Jim Anderson, I don't know what's gotten into you this morning. I've cooked five batches of pancakes. Where is it, honey? The paper's right there on the stool.  It'll only take a second, Margaret. Jim Hathaway said there was... Holy chump! Margaret, look at this. Look at it. What was? What is it, Father? All over the front page, Springfield Man wins great love letter award. Holy cow, Dad. What do you want to do a thing like that for? Isn't it... Just a minute. Kathy, what do you mean we did it? Well, didn't we? I don't know anything about it. I never entered any contest, and I never wrote any love letters. Let me see it, dear. Mr. James Anderson of 607 Maple Street. It's a lie. The whole thing is a monstrous lie. Maybe it's April Fool. That's what it is. It's April Fool. This is somebody's idea of a big joke, and when I get my hands on him... Jim, this isn't a joke. Listen. Last night I sat beneath a star-swept sky, and the breeze kept sighing your name, Margaret. It picked its way through the rustling boughs, and a million leaves took up the chant, Margaret. Why, Jim, this is one of the letters you wrote to me when we were engaged. Father! Holy cow! Kathy, how did they get that letter? Letter? The one your mother was just reading. Oh, that letter! Well? I said it to him. Oh, you did. Kathy... Oh, it was just sitting around up in the attic, and I didn't think... Kathleen, suppose you and I retired to the den for a few moments.  That's right. And this time no one is going to say April Fool. All right, Kathy. Mommy, please. I'm sorry, Angel, but you had no right to do it. But I only did it because I wanted Daddy to win the $500. Well, next time you'll think twice before... What? I thought you'd be glad to win $500. Let me see that paper. If I won $500, I wouldn't get mad and spank people. Margaret, she's right. Look at it. I won $500! Jim! Boy! Creepers! Are you still mad? Kathy? Yes, Daddy? Have another pancake. Who would ever have thought a father is a great lover? It just goes to show, ladies, never underestimate the man you marry. He's so much more than just your husband. For example, he's also the world's greatest coffee expert. Well, that's a fact. The ranking authority on truly good coffee is that man of yours. Now, it's true. We're called experts, too. More people buy our Maxwell House coffee than any other brand. But when you brew the coffee and pass the cups, the only expert who counts is your husband. And tomorrow, if you'll pour him a cup of Maxwell House, we're sure he'll salute you with a smile and say, Darling, that's coffee at its best. Yes, sir. That's what he'll say. In fact, we'll return your money if he doesn't. We're that sure he'll enjoy our coffee.  There's only one recipe for that famous good to the last drop flavor, a recipe demanding certain choice coffees blended just so, and only Maxwell House has this recipe. So tomorrow, serve Maxwell House to that man of yours. If he doesn't say best coffee ever, just send us the can and unused portion, and we'll gladly refund the price you paid. Our address is right on every familiar blue tin. Yes, let your coffee expert be the judge. Tomorrow, fill your husband's cup with Maxwell House, the one coffee that's always good to the last drop. Sunday afternoon. That's dinner time in Springfield, which makes it chicken and dumpling time for the Anderson's. Jim, Margaret, Betty, Bud, and Kathleen. Two guests, the Messers, Buckley and Craig, and one puny little chicken. It's pretty rugged going. Yes, indeed. I've eaten chicken and dumplings before, Mrs. Anderson, but never like this. Thank you, Mr. Craig. I haven't had a Sunday dinner like this since, well, it's so far back I can't even remember. How about another helping, Mr. Craig? There's quite a bit left. Well, if you're sure there's plenty of... No, no, I'd better not.  Phil? Thank you, Margaret. Don't mind if I do.  I mean, try some of the biscuits, Phil, while they're still hot. Thank you. What's the matter with you, Bud? You've got an appetite like a bird. Oh, Daddy says... Excuse me, I... something went down the wrong way. What were you saying, dear? Daddy says that insurance is the best policy. Well, that's very good. Did you hear that, Buckley? Insurance is the best policy. Oh, yes, yes. Very good indeed. May I have the butter, please? Here you are, Mr. Buckley. Thank you, Betty. You know WC. I was saying to RL just the other day... I'm worried about your son, Jim, growing boy like that. I'll eat more. Oh, he's all right, Mr. Craig. Don't you like chicken, Bud? Oh, sure. I'm just not hungry, that's all. Well, I had a big dinner yesterday. Betty? Oh, no, thank you, Mr. Craig. I'm on a diet, sort of. That's very strange.  Well, this is a different kind of a diet you eat every other day. I see. Makes it very handy on the budget. Doesn't it, Margaret? Yes, it's very handy. Would you care for another cup of coffee, Mr. Craig? That's a wonderful idea. There you are. Thank you. Phil? Don't mind if I do. All right. Thank you, Margaret. Of course, I don't have to ask Jim. There you are, dear. Thank you, honey. You know WC, it's like I was telling RL the other day. Your people have the right idea about living, Anderson. Settle down in a small town, own your own home, raise a family. That's the way to live. We like it. Well, you should, shouldn't they, Buckley? What do you mean? Why, just the other day, I was saying to RL... Oh, take me, for example. Rushing around from one city to another, always on the go. Never a chance to take it easy and relax. Now, that's what I like about a small town. It's peaceful and quiet. Uh, I'm going to let you in on a little secret, Mr. Craig. With three children in the house, there's mighty little peace and practically no quiet, no matter how small the town is. Well, I wouldn't say that. Would you, Buckley? Why, no, WC. I was telling RL just the other day. I've seen a lot of views in my time, but I've never seen three that behaved any better than yours. All right, children, you may tip your halos. No, no, no, no, I mean it very sincerely. How about you, Buckley? I've met them before, Ed. I know exactly what Phil means, and I find it a little hard to believe myself. I have the strangest feeling that a gremlin is going to pop out of the middle of the table and shout April Fool. Jim, they aren't that bad. No, they aren't that good, either. Say, uh, is today the 1st of April? That's right, 1st of April. I wonder if you'd mind letting me take a look at the paper. The paper? The newspaper. I meant to get one at the hotel, but they were out of the New York papers, and I thought that... You want to see our paper. What's the matter with you, Jim? You said it three times. I know, but, uh, we don't get a Sunday paper.  You what?  Or, uh, or line the garbage can with it.  Jim... Well, they're right, honey.  I could have sworn all I said was me. I see the paper. Uh, but...  The drugstore? Yes, or the market, or the cigar store, or wherever you buy papers in Springfield. You buy them at the drugstore? Well, then why all the... Not the Sunday papers, Phil. They don't carry the Sunday papers. Why not? They sell them all on Saturday. What? She means the early edition. You know how it is, Phil. They get the early editions on Saturday. But they don't have anything in them. Except the comics. And you wouldn't want the comics, would you? Why, we've got them, and they aren't even comical. Cathy... Well, some of them aren't. Somehow I get the impression that I'm not supposed to see the newspaper. Oh, no! You see, we just thought, uh... How about another cup of coffee, Mr. Craig? Oh, I haven't touched this one. That's fine. You'll have one, too, won't you, Phil? Jim, you're not helping the situation at all. What situation? Oh, dear. Well, you see, Phil, we felt this with you and Mr. Craig being here. Don't bother about the doorbell button. Did I have to answer you? No, you don't. Just, uh, sit down. But it was the front door, and I always have to see...  Don't answer it. Maybe they'll, uh, go away. Holy cow. Uh, how about another cup of coffee, Mr. Craig? Anderson, don't they generally answer doorbells in Springfield? Oh, yes, but, uh... We're not expecting anyone, and, uh... They've probably got the wrong house. It happens all the time. Ah, I see. I'm glad somebody does. Jim, you're going to have to do something about that door. Anybody have any suggestions? Answering it might be an idea, unless that seems too simple. Want me to see who it is, Dad? No, I, uh, better go. Probably just somebody selling something, uh, or something. You know WC, I was telling RL just the other day. April Fool. They would have to pick a day like this to call up about interviews and newsreels, and... I'll be lucky if I don't get fired. Well, hello, Mr. Anderson. I'm Joe Hogan of the Springfield. Look, Mr. Hogan, I know I told you to come out here, but... Well, things have happened in the meantime, and, uh... Oh, uh, that's okay. Come on in, Erwin. Okay, Joe. Now, just a minute, Hogan. I just finished telling you... Go ahead, Erwin. Set up in the living room. We'll be right with you. Okay, Joe. Hogan, this is a great thing for you, Mr. Anderson, and for Springfield. I'm trying to talk to the editor of doing a whole series. The great romance of history has seemed to the eyes of Springfield's greatest lover. Oh, now wait a minute. I'll be right in, honey. Is everything all right? Oh, sure. Everything's fine. No, it can't be. It's a little place, isn't it? Isn't it?  Aren't you going to answer the door? Hogan, you're a public figure, Mr. Anderson. You can't hide your light under a bushel basket. Oh. Mr. Anderson, I'm Benson of the International Newsreel. Hiya, Fred. Oh, hello, Joe. Got here ahead of me, huh? Look, Mr. Benson. Okay, Lou, start bringing the stuff in. Pull all of it? Well, never mind the dolly. We'll shoot as plain. Mr. Benson. Fred, I'm supposed to get my copy in by four o'clock. I won't be in your way. Where are you set up? In the living room. Good background? Look, don't mind me. I just... Pardon me. I gotta get this stuff through. Hey, Joe, I'm all set up. Fred, I need a hand on those cables. I can't drag them all in by myself. Well, I've gotta talk to Mr. Anderson. Hey, Joe, how about your guy giving Lou a hand? Sure. Hey, Irwin. Jim, what? Me, Joe. What'd you say, Margaret? Come on here and give international a hand. How about my pictures? What pictures, honey? Everything's fine, Mrs. Anderson. Now, let's see.  How about the cables? Hurry up. Will you, Irwin? Okay, Joe. And maybe a doll. You got a dog? They're great for human interests. Fellas, please. My boss is in there, and his boss is in there. Well, okay. I think a dog would be better, but if you want to stick the boss in... See here, Anderson. You told Mr. Craig... Is this him? Phil, I'm sorry about this whole thing. I had the faintest idea. You must be pretty proud, huh? Having a great lover like Mr. Anderson working for you? A what? Winner of the National Love Letter Award. That's who he is. Phil, I had nothing to do with it. I didn't even send in the letter. Anderson? What's going on out there, Buckley? WC, this is the most outrageous thing I've ever heard of in my life. Well, what is? What are you getting all upset about? Well, which one is he? Mr. Craig, I've been trying to explain to Phil... Mr. Craig, my name is Hogan of the Springfield Herald, and I want you to know that we're all mighty proud. Buckley, what are they talking about? It's Anderson. He won that love letter award. He what? Mr. Craig, you've got to believe me. It wasn't my fault. Tim, what is it? What's wrong? Honey. Margaret, do you know what your husband has done? He's ruined the good name of the Cavalier Life and Casualty Company. That's what he's done. But, Phil, it was only... Now, just a minute, Buckley. WC, I want you to know that I had nothing to do with this. I'm sure you didn't. Mr. Craig. What's everybody so excited about? Excuse me. Watch the lamp or I'll win. Okay. I'll see that a full report of this goes into the home office, and unless I'm very much mistaken... Anderson, don't pay any attention to him. I'm going to send the report in myself. But, all I did... And I'm going to recommend you for a sizable bonus. I know. Mr. Craig, but... What? What do you see?  When you see what this means, we've spent millions advertising Cavalier as the insurance company with a heart. Well, of course we have. Now we can prove it. A Cavalier employee won out over thousands of lovers because of his great soul, his gentle humanity. Oh, no. Well... Well, naturally, that's what I was going to say in my report. Oh, Jim. As a matter of fact, to bind even closer the ties between this great lover and the great company he represents, I shall be glad to take my place beside him in front of the newsreel cameras. You will? Oh, that'll be great, Mr. Craig. I still say a dog would be better. Well, as long as we're all in this together... I believe. Yes, W.C.  Yes, W.C. Are you with me, Mr. Anderson? Absolutely, Mr. Craig. Ladies, isn't it so, when you buy coffee at your grocers this weekend, you'll be looking for the best value. And, of course, that means only one thing. The most in flavor for your money. So keep this in mind. There's one coffee famous above all others for flavor. It's our Maxwell House coffee. In the familiar blue tin with the big white cup and drop. Tomorrow, then, take home a pound of our coffee. Serve a cup of Maxwell House to the world's greatest coffee expert, your husband. When he smiles and says, best coffee ever, you'll be convinced it's Maxwell House for flavor. Then just count all the truly good cups of coffee you get from each pound. You'll agree it's Maxwell House for value, too. Yes, tomorrow, for your money's worth and more, take home Maxwell House coffee. Always good to the last drop. It's a short time later in the White Frame House on Maple Street. And for the first time all day, everything is calm and under control. Seems strange, but that's the way it is, like this. Mr. Craig, I don't know how to thank you for all you've done. I haven't done anything. My boy, nothing you haven't deserved at any rate. I'd like to apologize for all that fuss we made about the newspaper. I understand. You wouldn't have any objection to my seeing it now, would you? Oh, no. The whole story is on the front page. That's not the part I'm looking for. Here we are, page six. What's on page six? Well, that isn't bad, is it? What isn't? There were over 10,000 entries in the contest, and I came in 14th. Psychology at breakfast time. I've found a way to get the kids to eat a hot cereal in the morning. I just give them post-wheat meal and tell them it's Hopalong Cassidy's favorite hot cereal. My, how they gobble it up. Yes, ladies, tell your children that post-wheat meal is Hopalong Cassidy's favorite hot cereal, and they lead it, too.  It has a wonderful nut-like flavor, and it cooks in only three and a half minutes. You'll see, you'll all agree, it's the best hot cereal you ever ate. Join us again next week when we'll be back with Father Knows Best, starring Robert Young as Jim Anderson with Roy Bargy and the Maxwell House Orchestra. In our cast, we're Rhoda Williams as Betty, June Whitley, Ted Donaldson, Norma Jean-Nelson, and yours truly, Bill Foreman. So until next Thursday, good night and good luck from the makers of Maxwell House, America's favorite brand of coffee. Always good to the last drop. Father Knows Best was transcribed in Hollywood and written by Ed James. Now stay tuned in for Dragnet, which follows immediately over most of these stations.


Good morning traders, Patrick Manley here with another tip mill charting and a draw your attention today to a developing opportunity in the dollar Swiss and a nice reaction off the inverse head and shoulders pattern I'd identified in prior analysis. And we've now run into the 38.2% retracement of the last leg to the downside, which means that we should see a corrective pullback now to ultimately target a symmetry swing objective, which there's a 38.2 at 93, got that bearish outside reversal candle, so looking for a symmetry swing and predicted weekly range support test now back to 91.45, which should then set up the next leg of upside to target the descending trend line resistance at 93.86. So short through 92.30 stops just above the VWAP 92.60 targeting 91.50. As always, traders, hand the trade, trade the plan, most importantly manage your risk. Until next time, thanks very much.


Hello folks, hope you enjoyed the last talk and we have some unanswered questions for the next talk. So if I am going to be doing a resession in their booths, you can check out their sponsor booths in the expert area. And also make sure if you want to introduce the audience to any project you've been working on, you can submit it and I think that will be helpful for the second keynote. And now our next keynote we have Fernando Bensuri Ashikana here. He is a PSF fellow member and a professor at and he's sorry if I butcher this through. FATGC, Sao Jose Dos Campos University. And he also created the first Brazilian course for teaching Python programming, which is called Python for Zombies. And today he'll be telling us about the difficulties in teaching programming courses remotely during this time of year. So my name is Fernando Massanori from Brazil. As a bit earlier here, I am a computer science professor at FATGC in Portuguese FATGC, one of the public universities in São Paulo State. You see at the first slide my website with all my contacts and the URL of slides here. COVID-19 changed many things in the world. Two months ago, a UNICEF report says that at this moment more than one billion students are still out of school without face to face classes worldwide. Many universities in Brazil are now without any type of classes. My university decided to go online to keep education alive, to keep contact with the students, to keep in touch with the students during the isolation. More than 75% of my students are low income. So education is an opportunity they have. And the isolation maybe is an invitation to give it up for their students. A lot of people teach programming with Python. Maybe our first contact with the community is a class with Python as main language. So education is part of Python community. I will share my experiences in this talk. My experience is not my university experiences but Brazilian Python community experience. Work at home is very hard with kids, cats, dogs, whatever, in the same place all the time. Neighbors also make more noise than we expected. I have two dogs and five cats. And they are very social. Whenever they heard me talking with the computer in my classes, they wanted to participate. Teachers are very communicate in their nature. In the face-to-face meetings, I catch in the air difficulties of my students. So improve interactions is a key process in remote teaching, emergency remote teaching. My colleagues became very frustrated in virtual classrooms. A survey in Brazil shows that 8% of teachers feel unable to teach online in isolation. But it's okay to be human. For all students, see a teacher struggling with technical issues proves that education is special. It's important. Behind the screen, there are someone that thinks the education worth all these efforts. I have a static YouTube channel for flipped classrooms. There are synchronous interactions in the time of old face-to-face classes. So I'm a bridge between the content and the learning process of each of the students. Of course, there are so many materials on the web. So teachers send glimpses of what needs a special attention at each time. Teacher breaks new grounds, shares his experiences, inspires the students. So teacher is not only a kind of knowledge delivery content. It's much more. Some years ago, I made with the help of the Brazilian Python community, an online course. Now, in pandemic isolation, I recorded a new version of all videos. 200 new videos with new playlists, data structures, public data analysis. In the picture, we see a vegan zombie, Guido. And the caption says, kynights to say ni in Portuguese. Python for zombies, zombies equal beginners. Python for zombies is a Brazilian community initiative, not of my university. At this moment, we have 120,000 students with a 10% course complexion rate. That is very high. Python is the first Portuguese MOOC to teach programming. Because only 5% of Brazilian people are able to read in English. The website is a Python jungle open source project. There are a menu. Some students prefer a simple YouTube playlist. But many others choose a regular website with more order in the content. All videos are very short, four minutes long. A lot of students use cell phones to see the videos. My experience is important to use big phones. And I have a blue yet to record the audio. The most important thing in online classes is the audio.  And a lot of exercises. So the students have a way to practice the programming skills. Because learning programming is... You need a lot of exercises to learn well. My way of teaching is using flipid classrooms. With Microsoft things is my university choice. And discord for interactions. Sometimes I use other ways, like a phonical to a student without computer. Or WhatsApp audios to answer some particular questions. In my classes, I use... I decide to use other students' codes to teaching. That motivates more to learn. This is a 12 years old girl code. I also teach to kids in my city. Besides university lessons as a volunteer. This is a Chinese Cesar Cipher code. Another 12 years old girl code. This time using unicode in Python 3. It's cool to use unicode in Python to translate some messages to Chinese. And the answer is 42. The guide is a very popular book in Brazil. Or a student's fun is the best way to learn and play attention. For example, you see, I use rendering and sample from a random library. It's a library included library. But my sample always show 42. And rendering in the range of 1 to 100 always show 42. What's the trick? Python is a free software. You have access to all libraries' codes. It's possible to change these codes. It's a funny way to teach what is free software. Changing the code of random.py. It's very fun. Object-oriented complex is very hard to teach. Like inheritance or overloading. But with 42 is fun. You see an inch 42 class. And A is 13 and B is 7. But A plus B is 42. And print A is 42 and print B is 42. Because I changed the inch 42 class. It's a very fun to teach object-oriented concepts. And metaprogramming also. Factorial and Fibonacci produces very among those numbers. Not in my course. In my classes 42 is greater than apocalipsist 666. Abstract syntax 3 is a cool library. It's possible in the future to produce automatic testing with this library. Abstract syntax 3 is the soul of a language. I changed hello world response for 42, of course. So it's a kind of glimpses of interesting things to students' story in the future. Metaprogramming, overloading, inheritance. Metaprogramming also abstract syntax 3. Conclusion. These students have a lot of distraction at home. Like a message from a crush in a dating app. So short videos works very well. I record the synchronous interactions to late review. My exams have completely changed. I know a new way to fix concepts to learn more. Introduction to programming. 9% of my students concludes the course. It makes me very happy. The Python community are also using my MOOC with 70,000 new inscriptions. And 2 million views. The website has independent videos. And we have in the website 4,000 new inscriptions in the last 3 months. And this news makes me very happy. And thank you. Thank you for that great talk. Let me see if anyone has any questions. Any folks can put your questions in the chat. There's like a 30 second chance. Let's wait for the questions. Maybe offline the questions. Yes, we can offline the questions. So you can go to the 2020 slash stage slash address. The audience can also go there. Put their questions there. Thank you for your talk. Thanks for having me. Bye-bye from Brazil.


At the beginning of the lecture on correcting misinformation, I mentioned the problem that the Centers for Disease Control has, communicating to parents that they need to get their children vaccinated against measles, mumps, and rubella, and that the rumor of a connection between that shot and autism is completely bogus, is based on nothing. Now, the CDC could communicate that information, but they ran into a problem when they did. That problem was studied by psychologists and political scientists, Brendan Nyan and Jason Reifler. And they found that using four different means of communicating that information, some of those means of communicating information really had no effect, and some of them actually backfired. That led them to coin the phrase, the backfire effect. When you present someone with counter information, or you make them question beliefs about something that they have a very strong emotional attachment to, that can actually cause them to double down on the original assumption, or at least make them hostile toward the new information, cause them to go into disconfirmation bias. And so to go back to the original case study about the MMR vaccine and the misrepresentation that it had something to do with autism, the only thing approaching a scientific study that proved such a connection was a study of 13 different children by the researcher, Andrew Wakefield. The problem with that study was that it was retracted by the journal that published it. So the only peer reviewed evidence that supposedly showed a connection, or even implied a connection between autism and the MMR vaccine was retracted by the journal that published it, because it was later shown that Wakefield changed the data of those 13 children that he studied to make their symptoms fit the timeline that would at least create a correlation between the MMR vaccine and autism. So you'd think that since the only reliable source of information about this connection was debunked, that people would give up making that causal connection. But instead, when it was retracted, that created a backlash among communities of people who had already come to that conclusion on their own. Instead of losing trust in Wakefield, they actually gathered around him as if he was some persecuted martyr, that the conclusion for which there was no evidence was so true that it didn't matter what the evidence was. And so when the Lancet, the medical journal that had originally published that study retracted it, instead of blaming Wakefield for fabricating data, the parents who believed his conclusion actually attacked the journal and the people who had done the research. The most conclusive critical examination of Wakefield's study was begun by the journalist Brian Deer. When interviewed the parents of the children that Wakefield had used as his test subjects and he compared the data they gave him about their children to the data that Wakefield recorded in his report. And he found that every single one of the children had had their information changed by Wakefield in order to fit this correlational sequence of getting the MMR vaccine and then within two weeks showing the first signs of autism. But when he compared what the parents told him to what Wakefield recorded, he found that only one child even seemed to have what Wakefield was describing as regressive autism. In other words, a child that did not already have signs of autism before the MMR vaccine. And even that child didn't start to show signs of autism until long after the MMR vaccine. So to be very precise, Brian Deer interviewed the mother of that child. He wanted to see if the child's onset of symptoms actually matched what Wakefield said it did. And the mother told him that her concerns about the MMR had been noted by her general practitioner when her son was six years old. So there was no documentation of this child's symptoms until more than four years after supposedly the symptoms began. In her memory, she said that the boy's troubles began after his vaccination, which he received at 15 months. Then she describes the symptoms that the boy showed, which are indicative of autism. He started screaming all night, started head banging, things that he'd never done before. And Brian Deer wants to make sure that he has as precise a timeline as possible. So he asked her, when did that begin, do you think? She says that began after a couple of months, a few months, but it was still, it was concerning me enough. I remember going back and there Brian Deer cuts her off and says, sorry, I don't mean to be like massively pernickety, but was it a few months or a couple of months? Obviously this is very important because if the MMR vaccine is the cause, then something that happens several months afterwards is not so likely, not so closely correlated that it could really be an explanation for a causation. And she says it was more like a few months because he had this slide down. He wasn't right, he wasn't right before he started. So again, Brian Deer wants to clarify, not quicker than two months, but not longer than how many months? What are we talking about here? And she says, for memory about six months, I think. So the significance here is, Brian Deer's trying to check data, just check Wakefield's study for accuracy. But after that interview with that mother, the next day the mother complained to Wakefield's editors saying that his method seemed more akin to the gutter press. We don't use the word gutter press so much in the US, but things like gotcha journalism or even just fake news when someone wants to dismiss something that's in the news that they don't like. But clearly what Deer was doing was the exact opposite. He was trying to be as precise as possible, trying to record the facts as precisely as he could. His goal was accuracy, but the mother's goal was not. The mother's goal was something different. She wanted to tell a narrative. And the difference is that the narrative simplifies the complexities of reality. It imposes a cause and effect explanation that might not be justified by a cold, rational look at the facts. And this confusion of correlation with causation is exactly what seems to be at the heart of every anecdote about vaccines and autism. One thing happened and then another thing happened. So the first thing must have caused the second thing. But what Brian Deer was trying to see was whether even this much was true. Were these incidents even correlated closely in time? If these symptoms didn't show up until months after vaccination, that the two events aren't even closely correlated. And because Wakefield wrote that the boy's symptoms showed up after two weeks, not two months, it means that there is an unavoidable disagreement between Wakefield and the mother. But the mother disregards all of this and focuses her emotional reaction at Brian Deer. By calling him gutter press, she's demonstrating the hostile media effect rather than noticing that it was Wakefield who misrepresented her. She attacks the guy whose only offense was to ask her questions and record her response. That's not gutter press or gotcha journalism. That's what journalists are supposed to do. And the hostile media effect is just one example of disconfirmation bias. When someone confronts us with information that undermines our explanations, even our vaguely held explanations, they undermine our feeling of closure, our ability to explain the complexities of reality with simple stories. And we don't like that. We wanna disconfirm that. When we want to select evidence that backs up our foregone conclusions, that's confirmation bias. When we wanna look for just the evidence that disconfirms this new information, then that's called disconfirmation bias. And one of the tactics of disconfirmation bias is the hostile media effect. Rather than dealing with the truth of what the person is saying, or in this case, just what they're asking, you just attack the person. The hostile media effect can invoke an ad hominem fallacy. It's no doubt bolstered by identity protective cognition. And when those beliefs from which we draw our identity are challenged, we respond, even at the neural level, the same way as we would respond to a threat against our physical health. A bear attacks us in the woods. That same sort of fight or flight response. So we can understand some of the hostility toward Brian Deere is based not on his research. It's not arguments focused on his data.  And in the prior case study, we read a Virginia McCarthy's blog post titled, In the Vaccine Autism Debate, What Can Parents Believe? And in this blog post, McCarthy gives her core argument when she says that I know children regress after vaccination because it happened to my own son. One thing happened first, then the other thing happened, therefore the first thing must have caused the second thing. Even if it happened in that sequence, that's still correlation. It doesn't prove causation. But most of the rest of that blog post has nothing to do with making an argument to show evidence much less to refute Brian Deere's evidence. And we know that this op-ed that she wrote in the Huffington Post was written just four days after Deere's extensive report about Wakefield was published in the British Medical Journal. So that is clearly a reply of a sort. But as I showed in the last video on this case study, she clearly hadn't even read Deere's report. She doesn't counter any of the argument that he presents. She doesn't dispute any of the specific information he lays out. And she even raises questions that he clearly already answered. She has no facts on her side that refutes Deere's data and she has no logical counter argument. But all of this presumes that she is interested in figuring out the truth. And it's pretty clear that she's not the least been interested with learning anything new. Her goal isn't to learn anything. It isn't even to change anyone's mind. At least not anyone who's read Deere's article. Her goal is to communicate with people who already believe what she believes. And her strategy is to pretend that there is a debate, even though there is no debate among people with a professional level of medical or other scientific expertise. And we can see that because she continues to use the correlation argument as if it wasn't an obvious fallacy. So instead of a debate between medical experts, she makes it a debate with medical experts on one side and anti-vaccination parents on the other. That's why she keeps referring to quote actual parents as if medical experts were pretending to be parents. And it should be immediately obvious to any reader that a parent without medical training would not be able to precisely diagnose the onset of the symptoms of autism. Autism isn't like coming down with a cold of breaking your arm. You can't say here's the moment at which it happens. Here's the day at which the first symptom showed up. And the symptoms could mean a lot of different things. You have the same symptoms when you get the flu as you do when you get strep throat, even though the flu is caused by a virus and strep throat is caused by bacteria. It's also the same symptoms you get when you have an allergic reaction to pollen in the air.  But observing those symptoms does make a parent perfectly capable of generating a causal narrative and then anchoring to that narrative. And narratives give us that feeling of closure, especially when we can blame ambiguous phenomenon like this on a bad guy. So instead of weighing evidence, McCarthy generates a narrative about heroes and villains. The medical experts are in league with the drug companies to give children autism so they can make more money. And Wakefield is the saintly truth teller who's being persecuted for his selflessness. Deer's report proved that Wakefield committed fraud in order to receive a payment from a lawyer suing the makers of the MMR vaccine. If the debate was between the entire community of medical experts and proven fraud who was taking bribes, it would be pretty obvious who to trust and who not to trust. But McCarthy has reframed this debate as one between parents and the medical quote establishment. And that word establishment lumps the experts together with the profiteers of the drug companies into one imagined conspiracy. This instantly evokes a good versus evil narrative so that even though all the science is on one side, accepting that evidence is framed as an attack on the victims, the mothers of children with autism. And of course, McCarthy is framing herself as the champion of these victimized parents. Her whole public identity is tied to that role. If Wakefield is a fraud, that would implicate her in the fraud so she can't let the evidence speak for itself. Instead of dealing with Deer's evidence at all, she adopts a new war chant argument. We talked about this in the introduction to the Rosierian argument. This is a first person argument where you're not trying to learn anything or weigh evidence or come to any new discovery and you're not even trying to communicate with the person you're addressing, the person whom you're debating. All you're doing is showing your team that I'm the good guy, I believe our truth and I'm going to fight. Look how brave I am in this fight. But that first person argument isn't even attempting to change someone's mind. It's just an emotionalistic way to rally us and try to intimidate them. So McCarthy enters the debate in this article as well as on television appearances and other op-eds. Not because she has any chance of changing the minds of people who know about Wakefield's fraud, but so that she can rally the community of people who already believe in this conspiracy.  Now this is not to say that she doesn't believe what she's saying. Believing is easy when you're emotionally invested in a foregone conclusion. Hating the facts and the fact finders is equally natural. But the argument she makes has no chance because she never even bothers to understand the argument that she's trying to attack. She credits Wakefield with reporting what parents told him even though he didn't do that. He changed what they told him and reported different data. So when McCarthy says that she's even more determined to fight for the truth, she's presuming she already has the truth. So no counter information needs to even be looked at. And this is disconfirmation bias taken to an extreme. In reply to McCarthy's op-ed, the science writer, Jonah Laird, published an article called cognitive dissonance. He says the demonstration of the Wakefield fraud has made McCarthy even more convinced that vaccines cause autism. And he attributes this to the cognitive phenomenon called cognitive dissonance. This term cognitive dissonance goes back to the 1950s when the psychologist Leon Festinger wrote a book about a UFO cult that was organized by a woman who believed that the apocalypse was coming, that anyone who followed her would be saved from this apocalypse by these UFOs that would land and take them to another planet. And after the predicted date of this apocalypse, when obviously nothing happened, there was no apocalypse that happened, no spaceship showed up, Festinger wanted to see how people would explain the thing that they had once believed. And what he found was they didn't stop believing it. They thought that her explanation that the reason the apocalypse never happened was because they believed in it. It might seem like an obvious after the fact attempt to deceive someone, but people that had believed the apocalypse was coming after it didn't show up were firmly convinced that they had never been wrong, that something was going to happen, but then didn't. And so you can't disprove that the apocalypse was coming, but was canceled. That would be the null hypothesis. You can't disprove any of it. All you can do is say there was no evidence to believe it was ever likely in the first place. The thing, according to Lehrer, that connects Ginny McCarthy and the anti-vaccination movement with this UFO apocalypse cult is the fact that their predictions had been falsified, but the group, instead of giving up those predictions, had become even more confident, more convinced. They reacted to this feeling of dissonance, the dissonance of being wrong, by becoming even more certain that they were right. Now as an explanation of what's going on, aimed at an audience of people who already understand that there's no connection between the MMR and autism, this makes perfect sense. But just imagine how McCarthy herself or one of these parents would respond not to the substance of Lehrer's argument, but just to the comparison. You're comparing a group of concerned parents to a UFO apocalypse cult from 60, 70 years ago. It might be a logical comparison, but emotionally it's a very aggravating comparison. It's likely to evoke a hostile reaction. And as we've seen McCarthy and many of these parents are already on a war footing. They're not interested in listening to logic. All they're concerned about is who's in our group and who's them. And if you're not in our group, you're attacking it, you're persecuting us. And that leads us to this article by Susan Dominus, which was written just a few months after the exchange between Brian Deere, Jeanne McCarthy and Jonah Lehrer. New York Times author Susan Dominus comes here to Texas to see Wakefield as he presents his case to a group of parents in the city of Tombow, which is near Houston. It's a group of about 250 people and they're chanting things like, we stand by you. Thank you for the many sacrifices you have made for the cause. To be clear, this is after multiple publications of Brian Deere's research, showing that Wakefield had produced a fraudulent study. Deere's initial investigation published in the British Sunday Times was then confirmed by the General Medical Council in Great Britain. It was then investigated again by the British Medical Journal on its own and then the British Medical Journal asked Brian Deere to publish a summary of his results. All of that had happened four months before this meeting and yet instead of looking at this analysis, these parents were coming to war. They were coming to this pep rally to praise their savior. So clearly something is going on here other than a rational analysis of evidence. And we can see this in the way that Dominus describes Wakefield's interaction with his audience. He does things like assuming a certain amount of scientific fluency on their parts. So he doesn't talk down to them by using words like a taxic in histopathological review and vaccine excipients. He's presuming that these parents know a lot and this might have two effects. It might make them feel like he thinks they're intelligent but it also allows him to make claims that they would not be able to dispute if they didn't know what those words specifically meant. And he also says things like, what happens to me doesn't matter. What happens to these children does matter. This again presumes that everything he said was right that the MMR vaccine causes autism because if it doesn't, he's actually putting these children in greater danger than they would be otherwise. He's exposing them to the measles, the mumps and rubella diseases which can cause death but can also cause brain damage far worse than an autism. But it clearly works. One of the parents says to our community, Andrew Wakefield is Nelson Mandela and Jesus Christ rolled up into one. Now keep in mind, the only thing that happened here is Wakefield lost his medical license and had his paper retracted. He wasn't imprisoned for decades and he certainly wasn't crucified. But that's literally the emotional valence that his persona has for these parents. Another reason for this might be, as Dominus says, he is a rare voice of certainty in the face of a disease that is at its core mysterious. Remember that when people feel a loss of control or they're reminded of a time, they couldn't solve a problem. They're much more likely to see patterns that aren't there than they are when they feel confident and when they feel in control. And of course, a false causal pattern looking for something that caused a really ambiguous and mysterious phenomenon is much more likely when you're feeling anxiety. So if Wakefield offers these parents a sense of closure, a sense of, well at least I know what caused this, then they're much more likely to believe the pattern he's offering them as an explanation. But that leaves the parents with another difficulty to deal with which is what about this evidence that Wakefield gave them fraudulent information? What about this evidence that disproves that explanation that they want so desperately to give them that feeling of closure and potentially of control? Well first, they have to find a way to get rid of it. Their disconfirmation bias kicks in and the easiest way to disconfirm information you don't like is again with the hostile media effect. In this case, attack the person who found the information and publicized the information. And so that is primarily targeted at Brian Deere. But of course, the problem isn't just Brian Deere, it's also the fact that because Wakefield has told parents this false causal explanation that vaccines are to blame for autism and because parents have stopped vaccinating their children because of it, we have increasing numbers of measles, mumps and rubella and even other diseases that are preventable through vaccines like the flu have increased. So rather than accept the blame for that, Wakefield is invested in protecting his own identity from any kind of scrutiny. The easiest way to do that is with global conspiracy theory, a witch hunt in which all medical researchers and journalists who present counter evidence are part of this vast global conspiracy. And in that frame, counter evidence can be recharacterized as evidence of an attack, not as evidence of wrongdoing. And any lack of evidence for his own claim that there's a causal connection between the NMR vaccine and autism, that too can be contributed to this conspiracy. Well, they've been hiding the evidence. This is an individual level backfire effect. The more evidence is presented of his fraud, the more pseudo evidence he has of a global conspiracy against him. He even dismisses deaths from the measles as part of the conspiracy. A false flag event generated to justify global domination by Merck pharmaceuticals in the conspiracy narrative. And again, that narrative is intuitive. It makes sense. Nevermind that there's no evidence for it. It feels true. And if you accept the facts as they are, well, you might be part of the conspiracy. But conspiracy theories are tied to social groups. As we've seen in past readings, we don't usually pick our identity groups based on our beliefs. We pick our beliefs based on our identity groups, even when those beliefs are pretty far-fetched. So what is this drawing people to this identity group where they're more likely to take on this conspiracy theory? Dominus suspects that he's adored by parents because he validated some of their most agonizing concerns when they felt few others would. And as we've seen in the past, that is something that does make us feel connected to a group. We're looking for validation, and so we're looking for people who will validate us, and we wanna reject people who don't validate what we believe. Wakefield's pseudo-evidence empowers parents as medical experts. Michelle Guppy, the woman who organized this event in Tombal, Texas with Wakefield speaking, said, I mean, I remember Dr. Wakefield was there, her voice starting to quaver. And you know, it was just the validation. I don't care if my son was overtreated or cured, just the validation that we as parents who knew something was wrong got an answer. Just the fact that someone listened and tried to do something. Someone said, yeah, this is not just autism. Your son has a real medical issue that we can treat. I think that validation is all that parents want. Just that someone is taking the symptoms we report and looking at them to see what we can do about it. Her emphasis is on the validation and the promise that there's something that they can do about it, even though that promise is not supported by any evidence. When she says, I think that validation is all that parents want, that should seem strange. If my child had autism, I would wanna know the truth. I would wanna know what can we do for the symptoms? What can we do to make his life better? Validation would not be high on the list, at least not on the list that I would be consciously aware of. But that seems to be Wakefield's secret. If he validates the false beliefs of parents, he validates their identity. He validates their sense of themselves as good parents who are trying to do something. He's feeding their need for closure rather than their need for truth. So it might not be quite surprising when Dominus tells us that there were armed guards present at this church where these parents were coming to listen to Wakefield, a place where you would not expect violence to break out. But Michelle Guppy says that she hired the armed guards in order to, quote, make a statement that this is neutral ground and it's going to be civil. Well, armed guards don't tell you that it's gonna be civil. Armed guards tell you that this is dangerous. This is a hostile territory that you're in danger. And they definitely increase the war mentality of us versus them. So the people like the medical experts who know that what we believe is wrong, they're now a physical danger. They are the bear. Guppy even tells the writer, Dominus, be nice to him or we will hurt you. Now it's hard to imagine she said this in any kind of serious tone. But even if she was joking, even if she said it in a sarcastic tone, when she's flanked by armed guards, even a joke doesn't really come across as that funny. It comes across as a threat with plausible deniability. So what's really clear from this explanation is that this meeting has nothing to do with finding answers, finding the truth, testing hypotheses, verifying information. It has everything to do with emotion, with rallying the us group around a false belief and attacking anyone who's one of them as if they were literally a physical danger. As if a pediatrician with a syringe in hand was going to physically attack and harm the children of these mothers. And if we just look at that social side, Wakefield provides this social validation and at the same time provides an enemy to blame for all the bad things that have happened in their lives. And we compare that to the way doctors typically address the situation. We can start to see them falling into that narrative of the evil, cold-hearted machine-like medical establishment that's just there to vaccinate, vaccinate, vaccinate and sell their products, even if it's harming these children. Two of the medical experts that Damos interviews in this article say that for years, parents' concerns about their autistic children's gastrointestinal problems were too often dismissed, partly because doctors associated these concerns with quackery and vaccine fears and the false hope that diet could cure autism itself. So this is one thing Wakefield said all along was that the MMR vaccine causes this gastrointestinal disease and this gastrointestinal disease causes autism. And when parents would report gastrointestinal problems to doctors, the doctors would then say, oh, that's part of that conspiracy theory and they would dismiss whatever the parents said. Whether or not those symptoms were dismissible isn't as important to the parents as being listened to. And being associated with this sort of conspiracy theory is likely to not cause the parents to question their own belief, but to be insulted, the same as if they read Jonah Laird's article and saw nothing other than, are you saying that I'm part of this quack cult that believes in UFOs and the apocalypse? They're not going to listen to the argument at that point, they're just gonna see that they are being attacked, they're being insulted, their identities are being threatened. So now that we've read about the Rosierian argument and Carl Rogers' strategies for delivering advice, especially correcting misperceptions that people have that they're very attached to, we start to understand why Wakefield is so effective and why the doctors are so much less effective than the truth of their arguments should lead them to be. Rogers said that when parties to a dispute realize that they're being understood, that someone sees how the situation seems to them. The statements grow less exaggerated and less defensive and it's no longer necessary to maintain the attitude that I am 100% right and you are 100% wrong. The influence of such an understanding catalyst in the group permits the members to come closer and closer to the objective truth involved in that relationship. In this way, mutual communication is established and some type of agreement becomes much more possible. It's Wakefield in this example that's following the advice that people are looking for information that is directly relevant to the maintenance of or enhancement of the structure of the self. In other words, this increases my feeling that I am a good person and the doctors are inadvertently triggering that defensiveness. Rogers says the structure and organization of the self appears to become much more rigid under threats and to relax as boundaries when completely free from threat and the educational situation which most effectively promotes significant learning is one in which A, the threat to the self of the learner is reduced to a minimum and B, differentiated perception of the field is facilitated. In other words, if I don't think my identity, my sense of myself as a good person is under threat, then I'm more likely to disconnect myself from this false belief. But if I'm under threat, then I'm going to cling to that false belief, try to use confirmation bias to back it up and use disconfirmation bias against anyone who challenges it because I'm still acting as if they were attacking me rather than my belief. So the strategy that the doctors had been using had been to just throw information at the parents and knock their beliefs out of the way. But parents then adopted the exact same posture. They would throw at the doctors any random claims that they found on internet sites that had no medical expertise but sounded like they did or they would throw Andrew Wakefield's talking points at the doctors and not listen to the doctor. And of course, the doctor wouldn't listen to them. The alternative to that would be to treat the parent of a child with autism as part of a conversation, an interlocutor, someone to whom you listen and then correct but also validate at the same time. So if the parent has concerns about children's gastrointestinal issues, those are probably real issues. They were probably not caused by the MMR vaccine but listened to the parents' complaints and then see how you can address those. And if we look back at Dominus' article, we can find some points to validate, even some of the points that Wakefield raises as well as some of the points that the parents raised that aren't false, points that we can say, yes, what you said is right, this part is wrong but this part is right. So the belief that parents had gotten that changes in diet could cure autism as if autism was like type two diabetes or something. The research did not support the use of casein or gluten-free diets in the general autistic population. The diets adapted in extreme measures could cause health complications of their own. But the press ignored other key implications of the findings that there might be a subsection of autistic patients who would benefit from dietary interventions and that the role of the immune system in gastrointestinal dysfunction in children with autism warrants additional investigation according to this gastroenterologist. The neuroscientist Pat Libet does not believe that a faulty gut is the cause of autism as Wakefield theorized, but the two problems might develop in some subset of people on the autism spectrum in tandem that is together. He does not believe a sum of Wakefield's followers hoped that by treating intestinal maladies he will cure the underlying autism. But, and this is a quote, but is it the case that if you have gastrointestinal problems that can exacerbate your child's behavioral issues, the answer is absolutely yes. You could even go so far as to call Wakefield a kind of pioneer. He's a pioneer who got a lot of things wrong and who did a lot of things wrong, but if you think about the geographic pioneers that settled the areas that we live in, well, they had a lot of really inaccurate beliefs and they did a lot of things that were unconscionable by modern standards, but they also did good things that benefit the rest of us now. So you could compare Wakefield to a kind of pioneer. He did have one not so controversial conviction and that is the symptoms of gastrointestinal distress in an autistic population unable to verbalize that discomfort could be a problem. If a child who because of autism is not able to communicate, if that child is suffering and needs a parent's help but doesn't know how to ask for help, then behaviors like banging their heads against crib walls and hitting their stomachs up against hard surfaces, those make perfect sense because they don't know how to say to their mothers, my stomach hurts. They're trying to alleviate that pain themselves and by ignoring those symptoms, doctors have been ignoring real distress that the children were having and that vicariously the parents were having as well. So if our goal is to just deliver the truth, just the data and the most logically valid argument that would interpret that data, then we could do that in a toolman argument. We could just say, here's the data, here's the warrant that leads to the conclusion, here's the conclusion, back up the data, use the rebuttal to qualify the conclusion. That's all that's necessary for an audience who is very rationally minded, very scientific and very committed to finding a truth and very willing to admit that they don't already have the truth. That's not most people and that's not most of us on most things. So how do we reach out to people who have these other psychological characteristics that we all have that feed into our emotions and those emotions interfere with our ability to think self-critically? Well, throwing those answers, throwing that toolman argument at that audience is not likely to have the effect we would like. But if we take an extra step, if we add some premises, or at least if we mention some parts of this opposing argument that aren't wrong, even if those parts don't actually help our argument, aren't logically necessary to a toolman argument, they might help connect our audience, make our audience into interlocutors. Let them see that they are being heard, that we are listening to them, we are taking into account their questions, answering their questions where we can, pointing out that the questions are unanswerable if we have to. But including part of their argument in our own argument, and not just dismissing it, not immediately refuting it, but finding something to validate, finding someplace to say, yes, this element you've contributed to this conversation helps the conversation. Because an interlocutor helps develop the conversation whereas an audience member may not. An audience member just receives information. The interlocutor gets to contribute. And one thing that the parents of children with autism can contribute or have contributed to this ongoing conversation is the connection of intestinal issues, gastrointestinal issues that doctors seem to have overlooked or dismissed or were not thought were relevant. Even if those issues aren't causally connected to autism, even if the MMR vaccine doesn't cause these intestinal issues and these intestinal issues don't cause autism, their relevance to an autistic population is significant because the autistic population has to deal with those cramps, those pains, and they can't communicate it. So this is something doctors definitely want to address. Even if they're only correlated, they're still relevant to, say, a doctor visit or to figuring out how to help a child across the board, not just with one issue, but with all issues that child might have. So let's look back at the Rosierian argument as it's laid out in Young, Becker and Pike's book, The Rhetoric Discovery and Change. You want to introduce the problem and demonstrate that the opponent's position is understood. You're not using a strawman argument. Then you want to give a statement of the context in which the opponent's position might be valid. So general warrants that might be valid sometimes, data that might be accurate, but it might be just partial. I at least point that out, point out that this data is accurate before you get to saying, well, there's other data that we have to factor in. Then give a statement of your position, including the context in which your position is valid, and then give a statement of how the opponent's position would benefit if he were to adopt elements of the writer's position. If the writer, you can show that the positions compliment each other, that each supply is what the other lacks so much the better. So in this case, to introduce the problem, the problem is anti-vaccination campaigns lead to measles outbreaks, that they expose children to preventable diseases. At this point, I want to lay out the opponent's arguments, like parents observe symptoms congruent with autism sometime after vaccination. Gastrointestinal problems are correlated with autism. People are skeptical of the profit motive in medicine like the MMR vaccine is a patented drug that does make money for some companies. Parents have anxiety at the number of vaccinations though children are receiving, children receive a lot more vaccinations than the children did 10, 20, 30 years ago. And there are increasing numbers of children diagnosed with autism and that has gone up since the introduction of the MMR vaccine. All of these elements of the opponent's position are true. Now there are other explanations than the ones the parents are giving them but I want to first validate, say yes, these observations are true. I want to validate a mother's memory that yes, I'm not disputing that your child had these issues. I'm not disputing that these issues occurred sometime after the MMR vaccine.  So this isn't the medical expert versus the mother. Gastrointestinal problems do seem to be correlated with autism and these issues could exacerbate symptoms and alter behavior in children who are unable to express their discomfort. Being skeptical of a profit motive is obviously very good. If your goal in buying a product is to remain healthy, you have to remember that the person from whom you're buying this product has the goal of making money. They might have an additional goal of keeping you healthy but that is secondary to making a profit. A company that doesn't make a profit is going to go out of business or at least the CEO is gonna be replaced by the shareholders. A company that doesn't do anybody any good but makes a profit is gonna stay in business. I can understand why people are anxious that the number of vaccinations has gone up. There are more vaccinations now than there were in the past and there are increasing numbers of diagnoses of autism since the 1980s, which is when the MMR vaccine was developed. All of these things are true. I'm gonna affirm that they are true first but there are alternative explanations for all of these. So I'm gonna get to those second. Obviously, if parents observe symptoms congruent with autism, the fact that they happened after vaccination are no more relevant than the fact that they happened after all sorts of other things that happened in the child's life. In fact, because the MMR vaccine is usually given at 18 months and it's only after 18 months that the noticeable symptoms of autism tend to show up, that would indicate that it's just the time in the child's life when both of those things tend to occur. Gastrointestinal problems are very likely correlated with autism. So do what you can to see if you can alleviate those gastrointestinal issues. I would again validate that skepticism of the profit motive but then remind parents that Andrew Wakefield himself was paid before he began his study, the retracted study that was published in the Lancet, he was paid by a lawyer, nearly a million dollars to come to a conclusion before he even went out searching for data. So if that's not a conflict of interest, I don't know what is. The data they're holding onto was the result of a conflict of interest similar to the ones that they're worried about with the drug companies. The number of vaccinations has gone up but that's because there are more cures for more diseases than there were before. More vaccinations is a good thing. That's fewer diseases that your children are susceptible to. And the increase in the number of children with autism coinciding with the introduction of the MMR vaccine, again this is correlated data and again we have separate causes for both of these. In the 1980s, the designation of autism was very vague. Psychologists lumped autism in with under the umbrella term of mental retardation. So children with Down syndrome and children with autism were sort of thrown in the same category even though they had vastly different underlying issues. Superficially they may have had some similarities such as the children weren't able to communicate with the same level of say social intelligence at the same ages. Other than that these things are very different but people didn't realize that until around the 1980s. That's when the diagnosis of autism became much more specific. And also autism is a spectrum as we now realize. So people that used to be described as having Asperger's syndrome are now included in the autism spectrum whereas before they were thought to have something different. And so it's not this one category of things either you have autism or you don't but it's this spectrum of severity where some people are highly functional and can get through society without even being noticed as being in any way different. Whereas other people can't function in society and many that are sort of in between can function under certain circumstances. Those, the subtlety of that distinction is only within the last 10 years that the psychologists have made the distinction that precise. So that's why there's many, many, many more people with autism diagnosed over the last 20 or 30 years. So all of these premises to the opposing argument for a connection between the MMR vaccine and autism do not logically lead to that conclusion. They are mostly based on true data that is not validated by the particular warrant. And this is not just for my benefit especially if I'm a nurse or a doctor. I wanna let the parents know that this isn't just so I can sell you another drug.  So I wanna emphasize to this parent that repeated studies have turned over no evidence. People have tried to retest and replicate Andrew Wakefield's study and none of them got the same result. So it's not from a lack of testing. And while no rigorous scientist is gonna say there's 100% certainty that there's no connection between anything, we can at least say that there is no evidence and no reason to believe that there is any causal connection between any vaccine and autism. And also the MMR vaccine prevents contracting and spreading measles, mumps, and rubella diseases that can cause sickness, death, and disability including mental disabilities that are worse than autism and cephalitis that can be caused by some of these diseases where a child's brain starts to swell and that swelling pushes the brain tissue up against the inner walls of the skull and actually destroys brain matter. So for the parents who say that I'd rather my child get measles than autism, well first of all that's not a choice that you're actually having to make.  Now you will probably notice that a lot of these things, especially the part about the Rosierian argument validating some of the concerns that are used in the oppositional argument, might run against some of the advice that we got in say the debunking handbook by Cook and Lewandowski where they say don't repeat the myth because every time you repeat the myth you make it seem more likely. So we will definitely want to try to counter that in some way but we also see here that validation is very important for breaking through into showing our interlocutors that they are being heard, that they are being valued as part of the conversation, that they are good people. And if that's the case then there might be a trade-off between validating our interlocutor and reinforcing the myth through repetition. That's probably a trade-off that in an emotional argument like this is going to pay off. But we also want to take into account that we don't want to repeat the myth or every time we repeat one of the validations, repeat the condition, the qualification that yes gastrointestinal issues might be correlated but that doesn't mean they're causally connected. We might affirm that yes the rates of diagnosed autism have gone up since the introduction of the MMR vaccine that's correlations and each of them has separate explanations. The same thing with the onset of symptoms around 18 months which is also when the MMR vaccine is usually given. We want to validate those observations then debunk the causal explanation so that it doesn't continue to influence that parent's thinking. But do it in that order so that the parents feel that they're being heard. That we have listened to their argument enough to understand all of the premises involved. Now what I have done in this video has been a rhetorical proposal. Just like a rhetorical analysis looks at someone else's argument and says here's how it works, here are the components, here's how they fit together, here's where they maybe could be improved. This rhetorical proposal says we should make this argument this way. It's not focused on approving that there's no connection between the MMR vaccine and autism. I am presuming that you, my audience, already know that. The thing that I am arguing here is that we change the way we administer that argument instead of just throwing data at people instead of pointing out logical connections like correlation is not causation. I'm assuming you already know all of this, but I am arguing that we do something more than just include that. I'm arguing that we include these other elements that validate people's observations while at the same time we debunk the inferences that they're making from them. And we do that as a means to open people's minds so that their identities, their feelings, that they are good people, are not anchored to this false belief. So a rhetorical analysis can do a lot of things, but I would suggest you at least do these six things that is introduce the rhetorical situation. Remember how Lloyd-Bitzer defined the rhetorical situation? Then I'm going to cite a specific counter-argument. I'm not gonna depend on a strawman argument where I sort of generalize, well, people like this, the anti-vaxxers think this way. That opens me up to really not getting that argument right. I really wanna understand what the opposition's argument is. So cite at least one specific example, a specific article like in this case, Ginny McCarthy's op-ed piece. Then identify a rhetorical problem, not the problem that vaccination rates are going down and the measles outbreaks are happening, but the problem that raw data and cold logic are not changing people's minds. That's the rhetorical problem. More specifically in this video, I've talked about disconfirmation bias, talked about the backfire effects. Cook and Lewandowski introduced other issues like the continued influence effect and overkill backfire effect and that sort of thing. Choose one, maybe a few of those, explain what that rhetorical problem is, cite a source that validates that you're not just making up this rhetorical problem on your own that somebody like Carl Rogers or in this case, the article by Brennan Nye and Jason Rifler, Effective Messages in Vaccine Promotion where they use terms like backfire effect and explain how that interferes with parents' acceptance of the Centers for Disease Controls information. Use that source to show that there is a developing body of research around this concept, this rhetorical problem and then propose a new strategy that can be added to the basic argument like the toolman argument. In addition to the toolman arguments, warrants and data, what else can we add that will help get around this rhetorical problem? So in this case, I'm arguing for the Rosierian argument and I'm using specifically the Rosierian argument as it's defined by Young, Becker and Pike in the book, Rhetoric Discovery and Change. That's the next assignment for a rhetorical proposal not for a Rosierian argument just yet.  You're gonna follow this advice. But first, write a proposal. Write a proposal with your audience being people who already agree with you on your toolman argument. But your argument for this proposal is here's how we change that argument into something a little bit more effective.


Imagine a world in which every single human being on the planet has equal access to the sum of human knowledge. Together we are creating the most comprehensive encyclopedia that has ever existed, Wikipedia. Since early 2012, the non-profit that supports Wikipedia started a program called Wikipedia Zero, which creates partnerships with cellular carriers to waive the data charges to access Wikipedia on cell phones. You might think that such data charges are trivial. We want to show you that they aren't. Take a moment to watch this film. We would like to invite you to raise your voice with us to sign a petition to ask for free access to Wikipedia. Wikipedia belongs to all of us and together we can make things happen. This is our story. Here in Choslovo a lot of people here have talents which are not recognized. As Nelson Mandela said, we are free and we are quite free but I wouldn't say that we are free because living in Islam is not quite free. No, we are not free. I take education as a key. I want to work hard for my future so that I can become something big. These learners were born just before 94 or they were born just after. So they have not grown up under the laws of apartheid. But they still feel the effects of it. Because current is directly proportional to power, it is correct. Sometimes we don't have enough resources like books to study, to go to the libraries in one hour walk. So you can get there at 5 o'clock, they are already closing. The only reading material that these learners have is their textbooks. In homes here you won't find reading material. So then how to learn is access information. I would like you all to look on Wikipedia. One of the interesting things you can search for is click land region. At first I personally didn't know anything about Wikipedia. It was like finding this great solution that has always been there but we just didn't know that it was. Wikipedia is like a teacher to me. You search for it but you will be getting more than what you expected. This is geography when I revise, I write some of the stuff on the wall so that I don't forget them. Every day when I wake up I can see them. As much as it's hard for us to access information here, it's quite amazing. We all have cell phones. Everyone could get the information that you need but now that we need airtime to access Wikipedia it's like if you don't have money, you don't have information. If you have money you have the information. Sometimes you need to take the money you have for your lunch and then you must buy a time. In my school we decided to write up an open letter to our local cell phone providers. We asked them to offer their customers free access to Wikipedia on their cell phones. With Wikipedia you have some backup, you have somewhere where you can read about the things you need to know. The cell phone today has penetrated the very bottom on the socio-economic ladder. Six billion people have cell phones. If people understand that cell phones are ubiquitous and Wikipedia is free and all you have to do is to connect those two things together then you have free access to information right there. In the pockets every day all the time it's a game changer. There's a lot of talent in just love and real talent.  I'm Lukanya, came here to study at the University of Pakistan. I've never valued education as I value it right now where I'm at. Once you do doctoral science you notice that it's not about what you have but it's about how you use what you have and how it comes from being educated. We have a lot of resources but the population is not really educated so we don't know how to use our resources effectively. I want to go into politics because I want to change places like just love to bring on places like where I'm at right now in this university. I don't think I would have gotten where I am right now without the help of Wikipedia. I don't. Once you're educated you can think originally and if you have a heart and you're educated there's nothing that's impossible to you. I want to become a medical practitioner because I want to give back to the society I want to change people's lives. Wikipedia I can say it happens a lot because I named there and I found my career there in electrical engineering. That's my future career now. There are very few female geologists and I want to change that and show that we are also capable of something best in life. Then this other day Pete told us guys do you know that you could write up your own articles on Wikipedia and we were like really? Our class went out together to take pictures of Joe Slavo and then we could take them and we can put them on Wikipedia. I myself am proud I just want the world to see the places that we are coming from. There was so much that was not there on Wikipedia that we could add especially in the course of Wikipedia Wikipedia on our own language. I'm trying to write an article about omnosha. It's going to be a new article. I will travel the more females in my deal. There's something wrong. It's supposed to be Dalibu. Wikipedia it's like a portal to share our own ideas share our own information. It's amazingly empowering for them to be part of that whole movement because it's like a movement. It's like a revolution. Wikipedia is a solution that's making our dreams a possibility. We felt that there's a need for free access to Wikipedia so that everyone can be able to gain knowledge. It's not about us or about me anymore now it's about other children who need all of the information that's available on Wikipedia for free. Six billion people have access to cell phones. Wikipedia is free but data charges stop billions of people from even using it. Please sign our petition and encourage cellular carriers to provide free access to Wikipedia on cell phones.


What's going on guys it's your boy DPJ here today with another Destiny video and today I have been in a location where I believe to be the third secret exotic chest with a wrap of the machine blade and before we get into the video I couldn't leave a like I would appreciate the support let's try and reach 4000 likes that'd be absolutely epic. Now just after you defeat Volsac the Archpriest you want to continue on to your come to the waypoint I show you from this video simply follow the direction I go in and you will find this secret third chest massive shout out to Seaberg State Champ for finding these chests but guys hope you enjoyed the video stay tuned for any more secrets to come out of the wrap of the machine raid and I'll catch you on that next one