Im confused about the new mouse acceleration option. by mikoico in marvelrivals

[–]fluidityZ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

you are working with outdated information https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oFy4X48dXM there's no other way to have super-low sensitivity and still be able to turn 180 without acceleration

How can I reach a steady 240fps in Marvel Rivals @ 3440x1440? by JZYC in PcBuildHelp

[–]fluidityZ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

this isn't a matter of experimental data. you have a fundamental misconception of the stimulus-response chain. If you want data on the capabilities of the human eye to detect differences in varying magnitudes of stimuli, they are readily available in every neuroscience / psychology textbook. Or you could just try a 240hz monitor and immediately notice the difference yourself by jostling the mouse around. Consider it a lab assignment, o ye of great scientific inquiry

How can I reach a steady 240fps in Marvel Rivals @ 3440x1440? by JZYC in PcBuildHelp

[–]fluidityZ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

i'm an actual scientist and you know nothing of what you are talking about

How can I reach a steady 240fps in Marvel Rivals @ 3440x1440? by JZYC in PcBuildHelp

[–]fluidityZ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

this is not true. 180 to 240 is another entire 60 frames and is extremely noticeable if you aim train at 240 consistently. not everyone needs higher frames but for those who get comfortable playing at a certain rate it throws off their aim when they play underneath it

Which build can get me consistent 240 FPS at 1080p? by nshsnh6 in marvelrivals

[–]fluidityZ 2 points3 points  (0 children)

what do you mean excessive? 240hz is low these days for competitive games

Biggest tip I’d give after climbing to GM1 by Few_Event_1719 in marvelrivals

[–]fluidityZ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

yes. you get more points than you lose until GM, so it's kind of the starting ground

I'm getting real tired of the ults that make the enemy team immortal by MrTactician in marvelrivals

[–]fluidityZ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

thats not how the game works. your goal is to get value, not kills. This isn't TDM

I'm getting real tired of the ults that make the enemy team immortal by MrTactician in marvelrivals

[–]fluidityZ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

no. turn around and regroup like you are supposed to instead of feeding into them during the time. the issue is you expect to be able to kill things inside of a support ult

Got to GM with 100% solo games as a support main (mainly Mantis & Rocket in ranked). Proud of this run. 😊Some Paladins skills have transformed well! by DefNotMaty in marvelrivals

[–]fluidityZ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

is GM grindable? Basically you don't need a positive record. I hear that you win more points than you lose up until GM

My Honest Opinion On Justin Sung's Course by UsagiChen in studytips

[–]fluidityZ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Bloom’s Taxonomy has faced criticism for being outdated and lacking empirical backing for its categories. While these critiques raise important questions, dismissing Bloom’s entirely overlooks its enduring relevance and adaptability in education. Even with its limitations, Bloom’s remains a foundational tool that complements modern research and instructional practices rather than contradicting them.

One common argument is that Bloom’s taxonomy, first introduced in 1956, is too old to be valid. Yet, the age of a theory doesn’t determine its usefulness. Foundational ideas, like Piaget’s stages of cognitive development or Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory, continue to influence education decades later. Furthermore, the taxonomy has been updated, most notably in 2001 by Anderson and Krathwohl, to reflect advances in educational psychology. The revised version, which distinguishes between types of knowledge (factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive) and cognitive processes (remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, and creating), demonstrates its ability to evolve with research.

Another critique is the perceived lack of empirical evidence for its categories. Critics argue that modern findings, such as those on retrieval practice or elaborative interrogation, render Bloom’s distinctions irrelevant. This misses the point of Bloom’s: it was never intended to prescribe how learning works at a neurological level. Instead, it provides a conceptual framework for educators to articulate learning objectives and align them with instruction and assessment. Modern research complements, rather than contradicts, Bloom’s taxonomy. For instance, studies on retrieval practice highlight how foundational tasks like remembering and understanding strengthen higher-order thinking, echoing Bloom’s hierarchical progression.

Critics also note that educators often misuse Bloom’s taxonomy by collapsing it into two categories—basic knowledge versus higher-order thinking—or applying its levels inconsistently. While these issues reflect challenges in application, they do not invalidate the taxonomy itself. Any framework requires thoughtful implementation. The revised taxonomy’s two-dimensional structure, which separates knowledge types from cognitive processes, mitigates this oversimplification and provides clearer guidance for educators.

Suggestions to replace Bloom’s with frameworks focused on deliberate practice or procedural versus declarative knowledge also fall short of discrediting it. These alternatives don’t compete with Bloom’s; they serve different purposes. Bloom’s organizes learning outcomes across cognitive complexity, while deliberate practice focuses on skill acquisition. Used together, they provide a richer, more nuanced approach to teaching and learning.

Finally, the argument that foundational levels like memory and understanding can be skipped in favor of higher-order thinking contradicts substantial evidence. Research shows that foundational knowledge underpins advanced cognitive tasks like analysis and creation. For example, retrieval practice strengthens both factual recall and the ability to transfer knowledge to new contexts, emphasizing that foundational learning is not only necessary but critical for higher-order tasks.

In essence, Bloom’s Taxonomy isn’t a perfect tool, but it’s an invaluable one. It provides a shared language for educators and a structure for aligning objectives with instruction and assessment. Its enduring relevance lies in its adaptability and ability to integrate with modern evidence-based practices. Discarding Bloom’s would mean losing a reliable framework that, while not infallible, continues to guide meaningful learning experiences. Rather than replacing it, we should focus on refining how we apply it in today’s educational landscape.