5 ms·

Really interesting article! This quote was particularly insightful and thought-provoking: "Teens in America are in touch with their peers on average 65 hours a

Really interesting article! This quote was particularly insightful and thought-provoking: "Teens in America are in touch with their peers on average 65 hours a week, compared to about four hours a week in preindustrial cultures. In this country, teens learn virtually everything they know from other teens, who are in turn highly influenced by certain aggressive industries. This makes no sense. Teens should be learning from the people they are about to become."

Nition 7y ago
A lot of interesting bits. This bit made me think as well: > The factory system doesn't work in the modern world, because two years after graduation, whatever you learned is out of date. We need education spread over a lifetime, not jammed into the early years—except for such basics as reading, writing, and perhaps citizenship. Past puberty, education needs to be combined in interesting and creative ways with work. The factory school system no longer makes sense.
- p1esk 7y ago
  two years after graduation, whatever you learned is out of date This also does not make sense to me. I can't think about anything I learned in college (mechanical engineering) in mid 90s that is obsolete today. For example, we used to do engineering drawings by hand. It's an amazing skill - kind of like learning how to program in assembly. It's an enlightening experience - once you mastered it, learning tools like SolidWorks (or Python for programming) is a breeze. Similarly, nothing you learned in college as a CS major 30 years ago would be obsolete today. Most algorithms and data structures already existed and haven't changed much. Programming in C is still (arguably) the best way to learn how program a computer if you want to understand what's going on under the hood. If you learn about OSes, databases, networking, compilers, computer architecture etc by studying specific examples from 1989 you would learn 90% of what you need to succeed as a software engineer today.
  - tremon 7y ago
    So you learned tools, not facts. AIUI, the major criticism of the US "factory schooling" (I'm from the EU btw, so it's only hearsay) is that you're considered "done" once you leave school, and never have to acquire new facts again. Both your education and mine (electrical engineering) focused on the means of acquiring and communicating knowledge (reading comprehension, critical thinking, technical writing), not on rote memorization. That basis sets you up for a lifetime of adaptability through discovery and learning. If you're never learned how to assimilate new knowledge, you're going to have a hard time staying relevant in a rapidly-changing society.
    - C1sc0cat 7y ago
      So leaning about Ohms law hasn't changed in the last century has it
- Nasrudith 7y ago
  The work switching is nontrivial in costs and arrangement. There is some inherent in a "research what you need for your occupation" but it is specialized and divergent over time. So while plumbers may learn to work with sonar robodrones once they come out and become the norm or doctors with nanoprobes if things advance the foundation often atrophies to not in fact being smarter than a 5th Grader. I am not sure how well it can be combined with work given that it is extrinsic to its many varied purposes that are already an incentives and strategic mess. The "best" way to enforce learning when it is fundamentally misalligned would involve a bueracratic gatekeeping hell sure to spark rebellion both overt and covert. Good luck in China let alone a liberal democracy. A less foregone dystopian way would be to subsidize general learning but even that would have opportunity and systemic costs that would limit uptake without obvious payback.
p1esk 7y ago
four hours a week in preindustrial cultures This makes no sense to me. Are they saying 15th century kids only interacted with other kids 4 hours a week?
- Mirioron 7y ago
  Why is that weird? If you lived on a farm back then the only other kids your kids will meet are their siblings and maybe some close neighbors (that will be like family). Nowadays they basically have a mandatory 30 hours of meeting other kids that are not as close as family.
  - watwut 7y ago
    But they were definitely in touch with them more then 4 hours a week.
    - ajuc 7y ago
      How? When there's light you work, when it's dark you sleep. Only sunday's free.
      - baud147258 7y ago
        In preindustrial cultures, you'd get a lot more free than just the sundays, since most religious celebration were holidays.
    - simonh 7y ago
      If peers are kids your own age, then that makes sense. Your siblings aren't the same age, they're not your peers - you don't see them as equals and they don't influence you on the same terms. I'm guessing though, it's not very clear.
onion2k 7y ago
Teens should be learning from the people they are about to become. That's only true if the objective of learning is to maintain the status quo. Given the older generations prepensity for ignoring serious problems (climate, housing, etc) and their rampant materialism, I'm not sure teens should be learning from them. Also, figuring things out from first principles without all the received wisdom of experience has value. You might make a bunch of mistakes and get things very wrong sometimes, but that's OK. You can find things people missed the first time around. That can be useful.
- Mirioron 7y ago
  >and their rampant materialism Is this really that bad? How well do you think teens understand the issue from both sides? It's easy to be against materialism when you yourself don't have to worry about bills and food. It's a lot harder when you have to make choices in what you can and can't get because of your lack of resources. Perhaps if teens understood money better there wouldn't be such a huge problem with student loans. But there is, which indicates that they're not very good at managing money. Edit: this applies to teenagers of today. Perhaps if they are handed more responsibility as they grew up they would be better at managing money?
  - ben_w 7y ago
    I cannot reconcile your words with my understanding of the world. “Materialism” (as a social issue rather than a philosophical worldview) is bad because it focuses on endless consumption of unnecessary things. Not food and shelter, but designer sunglasses and pre-ripped jeans. As for the student debt problem in the US and the UK, that’s because education now costs as much as the deposit on a very nice house — never mind a starter home! — whereas in the UK a generation ago it was free and two generations ago the government paid you to attend. This education has been sold as “getting you a good job” but then it turned out to be necessary for even for jobs that, a generation ago, didn't need a degree. So we have young people starting the same jobs three years later and in massive debt despite having followed the advice of their elders which everyone concerned was expecting to give them a career boost. I got lucky. I picked software engineering because it seemed fun, but it turned out to be the quickest route to one of the highest income professions. If I’d been on a “normal” salary while burdened with the £36k of tuition fees my niece can expect to pay, there’s a very real chance I would reach retirement age without clearing that loan, and no amount of playing games with myself about spending £0.50 a day on food or looking for the lowest rent room and putting up with rats eating my bedsheets (real examples from university life) would fix that.
goodmachine 7y ago
Citation needed, I guess: only 4 hours a week of peer-peer contact in preindustrial cultures?

Nition 7y ago

A lot of interesting bits. This bit made me think as well: > The factory system doesn't work in the modern world, because two years after graduation, whatever you learned is out of date. We need education spread over a lifetime, not jammed into the early years—except for such basics as reading, writing, and perhaps citizenship. Past puberty, education needs to be combined in interesting and creative ways with work. The factory school system no longer makes sense.

p1esk 7y ago
two years after graduation, whatever you learned is out of date This also does not make sense to me. I can't think about anything I learned in college (mechanical engineering) in mid 90s that is obsolete today. For example, we used to do engineering drawings by hand. It's an amazing skill - kind of like learning how to program in assembly. It's an enlightening experience - once you mastered it, learning tools like SolidWorks (or Python for programming) is a breeze. Similarly, nothing you learned in college as a CS major 30 years ago would be obsolete today. Most algorithms and data structures already existed and haven't changed much. Programming in C is still (arguably) the best way to learn how program a computer if you want to understand what's going on under the hood. If you learn about OSes, databases, networking, compilers, computer architecture etc by studying specific examples from 1989 you would learn 90% of what you need to succeed as a software engineer today.
- tremon 7y ago
  So you learned tools, not facts. AIUI, the major criticism of the US "factory schooling" (I'm from the EU btw, so it's only hearsay) is that you're considered "done" once you leave school, and never have to acquire new facts again. Both your education and mine (electrical engineering) focused on the means of acquiring and communicating knowledge (reading comprehension, critical thinking, technical writing), not on rote memorization. That basis sets you up for a lifetime of adaptability through discovery and learning. If you're never learned how to assimilate new knowledge, you're going to have a hard time staying relevant in a rapidly-changing society.
  - C1sc0cat 7y ago
    So leaning about Ohms law hasn't changed in the last century has it
Nasrudith 7y ago
The work switching is nontrivial in costs and arrangement. There is some inherent in a "research what you need for your occupation" but it is specialized and divergent over time. So while plumbers may learn to work with sonar robodrones once they come out and become the norm or doctors with nanoprobes if things advance the foundation often atrophies to not in fact being smarter than a 5th Grader. I am not sure how well it can be combined with work given that it is extrinsic to its many varied purposes that are already an incentives and strategic mess. The "best" way to enforce learning when it is fundamentally misalligned would involve a bueracratic gatekeeping hell sure to spark rebellion both overt and covert. Good luck in China let alone a liberal democracy. A less foregone dystopian way would be to subsidize general learning but even that would have opportunity and systemic costs that would limit uptake without obvious payback.

p1esk 7y ago

four hours a week in preindustrial cultures This makes no sense to me. Are they saying 15th century kids only interacted with other kids 4 hours a week?

Mirioron 7y ago
Why is that weird? If you lived on a farm back then the only other kids your kids will meet are their siblings and maybe some close neighbors (that will be like family). Nowadays they basically have a mandatory 30 hours of meeting other kids that are not as close as family.
- watwut 7y ago
  But they were definitely in touch with them more then 4 hours a week.
  - ajuc 7y ago
    How? When there's light you work, when it's dark you sleep. Only sunday's free.
    - baud147258 7y ago
      In preindustrial cultures, you'd get a lot more free than just the sundays, since most religious celebration were holidays.
  - simonh 7y ago
    If peers are kids your own age, then that makes sense. Your siblings aren't the same age, they're not your peers - you don't see them as equals and they don't influence you on the same terms. I'm guessing though, it's not very clear.

onion2k 7y ago

Teens should be learning from the people they are about to become. That's only true if the objective of learning is to maintain the status quo. Given the older generations prepensity for ignoring serious problems (climate, housing, etc) and their rampant materialism, I'm not sure teens should be learning from them. Also, figuring things out from first principles without all the received wisdom of experience has value. You might make a bunch of mistakes and get things very wrong sometimes, but that's OK. You can find things people missed the first time around. That can be useful.

Mirioron 7y ago
>and their rampant materialism Is this really that bad? How well do you think teens understand the issue from both sides? It's easy to be against materialism when you yourself don't have to worry about bills and food. It's a lot harder when you have to make choices in what you can and can't get because of your lack of resources. Perhaps if teens understood money better there wouldn't be such a huge problem with student loans. But there is, which indicates that they're not very good at managing money. Edit: this applies to teenagers of today. Perhaps if they are handed more responsibility as they grew up they would be better at managing money?
- ben_w 7y ago
  I cannot reconcile your words with my understanding of the world. “Materialism” (as a social issue rather than a philosophical worldview) is bad because it focuses on endless consumption of unnecessary things. Not food and shelter, but designer sunglasses and pre-ripped jeans. As for the student debt problem in the US and the UK, that’s because education now costs as much as the deposit on a very nice house — never mind a starter home! — whereas in the UK a generation ago it was free and two generations ago the government paid you to attend. This education has been sold as “getting you a good job” but then it turned out to be necessary for even for jobs that, a generation ago, didn't need a degree. So we have young people starting the same jobs three years later and in massive debt despite having followed the advice of their elders which everyone concerned was expecting to give them a career boost. I got lucky. I picked software engineering because it seemed fun, but it turned out to be the quickest route to one of the highest income professions. If I’d been on a “normal” salary while burdened with the £36k of tuition fees my niece can expect to pay, there’s a very real chance I would reach retirement age without clearing that loan, and no amount of playing games with myself about spending £0.50 a day on food or looking for the lowest rent room and putting up with rats eating my bedsheets (real examples from university life) would fix that.

goodmachine 7y ago

Citation needed, I guess: only 4 hours a week of peer-peer contact in preindustrial cultures?