Really? I would like to ask Georg Rasch what the real world is what? Why? Because, it is obvious he does not understand what it is. The real world is only that which can be called the 'paramount reality'. Alfred Schutz put that phrase forward long before Rasch. What does that mean? The paramount reality is the first social reality we encounter - society as the world of work as in 'doing and being' in a place.
every society as in culture, this is perceived differently due to
religion and geography and the socio-history that is the 'story' of the
people in a place and what successes and failures they have experienced
in a place and how they see themselves moving forward in that place
which again has everything to do with their idea of who they are in the
place and also that place within the greater cosmos. Why is any of that
important or how does it influence what people do in 'their or a
particular' place as pertaining to their moving forward in that place...
what we might call 'new' developments in education and technology in a
place (not considering yet a 'global' type citizen whose place is the
It is important to talk about place because it
has a direct impact on who we are and what we do. It causes certain
meaning to be given to things and to people. When I talk about place, I
do not mean just geography. I mean all social events, cognitive'
collective consciousnesses driving such events, that takes place in a
certain location that we can notice not taking place anywhere else. As a
sociologist, I talk about meaning in a place. This is truly
fascinating, it cannot be measured as we like to think it can. Of
course, we can come up with probability statistical that will show a
tendency but it lacks the depth of meaning. Which of course can be
argued by mathematicians that like to reduce society to numbers. In
doing so, they reduce meaning, they reduce social imagination to
They think that they are seeing
something as naturally occurring data. But, they are not. They are
seeing what they want to see. What they want to see is part of 'their
social imagination'. All things lie in our social imagination. We can
imagine a wonderfully creative and meaningful place or a dry cold
numbered place that tracks and calculates.
Georg Rasch was of the later. He promoted psychometrics which is a field
of study concerned with the theory and technique of psychological
measurement. One part of the field is concerned with the objective
measurement of skills and knowledge, abilities, attitudes,personality traits, and educational achievement.
He was interested thus in the calculation of social imagination. That
sounds witty but it is not wise. Numbers produce results no doubt about
that. But, they do not reflect the true nature of the social
Some psychometric researchers have
themselves with the construction and validation of assessment
instruments such as questionnaires, tests, raters' judgments, and
personality tests to understand the human mind, the human social
imagination. Oh, how they deny themselves the true intimate nature and
understanding of the workings of the social imagination.
would I say that? It is because the key requirement of the Rasch model
is embodied within the formal structure. Consequently, the Rasch model
method of assessment that looks at how the assessment should be changed
to meet the requirement of what is being studied. This sets up a false
idea of what the naturally occurring data is. It presumes that the data
is like 'that' or 'this'. We have to only set up proper assessment in
order to see the data we presume to be there or want to achieve.
model of assessment should be changed so that this requirement is met,
same way that a weighing scale should be rectified if it gives different
comparisons between objects upon separate measurements of the objects.
This does not provide true measurement. It supposes what we think we see
or want to see. The scale example is a good illustration for this. As I
might measure the same and rectify the scale in order to obtain what I
want or think it should produce. It is a dangerous kind of social
imagination in my opinion.
Because the intention is to make everyone the same, supposing a high level can be met if we assess it properly.
real world is more like web of intricate patters, some have smaller
detail, some have larger spaces and no one pattern is exactly the same.
Each 'fractal' though repeating is not the same fractal in everything
and in everyone. It may have the same components but the arrangement is
different. Ask ...What is the purpose of making them the same? Because,
we suppose that it would be better, it would reflect a greater
intelligence? or greater social imagination. Can we measure the real world, if we could, how would we ever be able to understand it.... its quantum applications in every situation, every being and in every mind?