4 ms·

> And paper co-author Paul Kirschner, an education researcher at the Open University of the Netherlands in Heerlen, happily describes himself in his academic wo

> And paper co-author Paul Kirschner, an education researcher at the Open University of the Netherlands in Heerlen, happily describes himself in his academic work as a “windmill-fighter”. But whereas Don Quixote aimed against solid walls, the digital-native assumption, on closer inspection, does seem illusory. It is certainly no giant. To fight windmills, as per the English idiom 'to tilt at windmills', means to attack non-existent enemies out of a delusional sense of righteousness (from the last bit is derived the word quixotic). In the stories Alonso Quijano read so many romantic novels about knights and chivalry he went insane, renamed himself Don Quixote, and set off to vanquish windmills he imagined were giants and swear fealty to an innkeeper he imagined as a lord (for the honor of his lady love who doesn't actually exist). This paper's authors being the Don Quixote figure doesn't make sense, as I doubt they were trying to insult themselves. A more apt analogy would be the companies trying to grapple with a new generation of digital natives are windmill fighters (fighting an enemy that doesn't exist), while the paper's authors are Sancho Panza desperately trying to get them to see reason.

hyperdimension 9y ago
I learned and always thought that the phrase "tilting at windmills" meant, aside from what you wrote about "to attack...out of a delusional sense of righteousness," more like a futile task or something that wouldn't succeed regardless of your efforts. Because of that, I interpreted the previous comment not as someone who is creating enemies out of nowhere against oneself, but rather someone who is doing something (telling others that "The Digital Native is a Myth") that is a more-or-less hopeless, or mostly impossible task. They're close, but to me there's a distinction between the two.
- j9461701 9y ago
  Don Quixote is a pathetic, vainglorious egotist with mental problems, whose attack on windmills is just one of his many feats of remarkably willful stupidity. He isn't fighting a good battle that is unlikely to be won, he's inventing battles out of nothing so he can feel special and important when really all he's doing is being irritating and getting beaten up by inanimate objects (the windmill sail). He's to be laughed at or pitied, not respected or admired. That was something of the point, take a classic knight in shining armor from romance stories, put him in real life, and watch how much of a loser he'd be. This might be a case of pop culture failing to capture the essence of a reference, and the misunderstanding gaining higher prevalence than the true meaning. Calling someone 'nimrod' is another example. Nimrod was, unironically, one of the greatest hunters in the bible - smart, swift, strong. But Bugs Bunny called Elmer Fudd that, and Fudd was an idiot. So anyone not familiar with the Bible character thought nimrod == idiot, rather than Bugs calling Fudd that sarcastically.

hyperdimension 9y ago

I learned and always thought that the phrase "tilting at windmills" meant, aside from what you wrote about "to attack...out of a delusional sense of righteousness," more like a futile task or something that wouldn't succeed regardless of your efforts. Because of that, I interpreted the previous comment not as someone who is creating enemies out of nowhere against oneself, but rather someone who is doing something (telling others that "The Digital Native is a Myth") that is a more-or-less hopeless, or mostly impossible task. They're close, but to me there's a distinction between the two.

j9461701 9y ago
Don Quixote is a pathetic, vainglorious egotist with mental problems, whose attack on windmills is just one of his many feats of remarkably willful stupidity. He isn't fighting a good battle that is unlikely to be won, he's inventing battles out of nothing so he can feel special and important when really all he's doing is being irritating and getting beaten up by inanimate objects (the windmill sail). He's to be laughed at or pitied, not respected or admired. That was something of the point, take a classic knight in shining armor from romance stories, put him in real life, and watch how much of a loser he'd be. This might be a case of pop culture failing to capture the essence of a reference, and the misunderstanding gaining higher prevalence than the true meaning. Calling someone 'nimrod' is another example. Nimrod was, unironically, one of the greatest hunters in the bible - smart, swift, strong. But Bugs Bunny called Elmer Fudd that, and Fudd was an idiot. So anyone not familiar with the Bible character thought nimrod == idiot, rather than Bugs calling Fudd that sarcastically.