Really educaional, though a lot of stuff is evident through general observation. But I suppose this is a built-in conundrum of social research
The course itself is great and have a lot of awesome points, such as:
- interesting subject and I couldn't wait to finish it.
- it helped me to understand what exactly is my problem with peers and romantic relationship. Now I have clear goals to work with: no hostile attribution bias, not to be excessive reassurance seeker.
Though, for my point of view it needs some polish.
- Entire course is possible to complete in 1 day, due to NO homework, NO lectures, NO extra resources for study.
- The topic is not disclosed and leaves more questions than answers. Lecture "Does popularity change when moving to a new context?". Why they didn't make experiment with selecting only popular kinds from all schools and putting them together? Most probably, roles would change. There was similar experiment on rats https://steemit.com/psychology/@natord/social-roles-exploiter-worker-whipping-boy-and-independent
- No links to resources. I would like to see more details on experiments. I would like to know more data of experiments such as how many children were participating?
- Data is not structured. Charts with one axis, one curve with two names. The idea is clear, but not mathematically expressed correctly.
- Strange analyze of data. Difference of 6% considers as a huge one, difference of 30% not important.
- Contradictive course. First he said it's almost impossible to change group, later he provides fact that in 2 year 58% of not aggressive - rejected (50% of all rejected) kids becomes not rejected.
- Some terms are not explained and used as everybody should know it. For example I find internalizing/externalizing symptoms not very common.
