5 ms·

During the process of replacing old processes with new ones, it’s hard to know what aspects of the traditional process (in this case, books and writing) are mor

During the process of replacing old processes with new ones, it’s hard to know what aspects of the traditional process (in this case, books and writing) are more valuable than understood. It seems like we are making a step in the right direction, but I wonder how we will prevent ourselves from making this and similar mistakes in the future.

xormapmap 3y ago
> I wonder how we will prevent ourselves from making this and similar mistakes in the future Just listen to the teachers, parents, and students. In high school I was among the last year groups to be pen and paper. All the younger students had laptops and iPads. I distinctly remember during the change that very few people thought it was a good idea, except for those students who got a free laptop or iPad out of it. I imagine the change was mostly brought about by administrators and politicians.
- ibizaman 3y ago
  Please, just listen to the teachers. They probably know best how to teach.
- miguelazo 3y ago
  > I imagine the change was mostly brought about by administrators and politicians. They are a specific type of “influencer”. People who claim the crown of “innovation” simply by jumping on the hype train of whatever the new hot thing is. Many companies are falling into this trap with AI right now. They use FOMO to get leaders with weak wills and a lack of vision to jump on the hype train, forcing everyone else along for the ride.
  - Woodi 3y ago
    > They use FOMO to get leaders with weak wills and a lack of vision to jump on the hype train, forcing everyone else along for the ride. In the meantime psychology is... err... What actually are psychology peoples doing ?? Do not see anything good or useful. You know, popularizing BASIC knowledge helps many, including future thing in discussion practicioners... Or psycho peoples are limiting themselves to just making money ?
bmer 3y ago
It's not the tech itself that is the problem, and I think viewing it as the problem would lead one to miss a key trio of problems, that is equally applicable to books. The problem has three interrelated parts: a) we do not value developing the capacity to think, b) the ability to think is not valued (by whom? I'm not quite sure), and c) we do not value doing things slowly. a) Most have the mistaken notion that the capacity to think is fixed with respect to various biological factors. Putting aside whether the biology truly does fix this (I do not know enough here) the fact remains that this misses that there exist tools which can help us organize our thinking so that it appears to be "better". Examples of this are plenty in mathematics, where the symbolic "language" you use alone can make a massive difference to your "ability" to deal with a problem. Some tools are more like internal narratives: if one develops a narrative that isn't constantly judging whether they are "thinking fast enough" or are "being productive enough" they ironically end up thinking more effectively. (For examples of people interested in making such tools better known: https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691156668/the-5-elements-of-effective-thinking https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691156668/th... https://barbaraoakley.com/books/ https://barbaraoakley.com/books/) And some tools are simply more biological: a person in good physical health can think more clearly than a person for whom this is not true, for the simple reason of nutrient supply to the brain being more efficient in the former than the latter. Schools fail us on all these points. In particular, many current widely accepted textbooks are part of the problem here: https://bookstore.ams.org/view?ProductCode=SPEC/80 https://bookstore.ams.org/view?ProductCode=SPEC/80 There's also what our culture tends to portray in entertainment. Contrary to what other think, I think entertainment is not harmless enjoyment due to the nature of our brain: as far as I know, there is no good way to consciously choose the weights you are applying to various inputs, while receiving that input (unless, ironically, you have training). Advertisers realize this, which is why "product placement", or "paid" narrative tweaking (presenting a story that is "cleaned up") work. But more importantly, our entertainment industry does a terrible job of showing what is actually beautiful and exciting about problems in the real world. Instead, it defaults to shooting bullets, and adrenaline driven excitement. In a "biopic" about a scientist, it cares not about the immense beauty of their patient struggles, or what habits they purposefully cultivated in order to think more effectively, and instead prefers to view their achievements through a dramatic lens of romance and "lightning bolts of inspiration". It is just as easy to put such entertain in the form of a book (e.g. Sherlock Holmes). b) my contention that the ability to think is not valued, and perhaps actively devalued, is due to the fact that people are very willing to pollute information highways and entertainment feeds, in order to make profits. They are willing to distract people constantly from things they would prefer to be doing. They are willing to interrupt with needless reminders and notifications. They are willing to use Skinner Boxes to keep a person engaged regardless of what their conscious mind is interested in. Most importantly, they are willing to pay thoughtful people to figure out the best ways to do this: https://www.economist.com/1843/2016/10/20/the-scientists-who-make-apps-addictive https://www.economist.com/1843/2016/10/20/the-scientists-who... This is why technology is so disruptive. It is not usually designed to prioritize our ability to think, but is instead designed for other purposes. Which common place operating can you point to which has in-built tools to help a person manage over-use, or help a person track their time usage, or help someone stick to their goals around usage, or provides notifications in order to help a person get back on task? How many Skinner Boxes exist that around getting people to stick it out over the long term and engage with difficult material? (Most mathematics textbooks would be better as games.) None. The issue could equally exist with, and without books. Dilution of quality of information, misinformation, de-focusing information: none of those ideas are tied to a particular medium. c) To create something new that is truly valuable is time consuming. You cannot be overly prideful and expect to just "disrupt" things. You need to understand fairly well what the old process was, and work with people who use the old process. Perhaps even hire them as parts of the product-testing loop. You need to spend time thinking about the design, or employ people who are willing to do this. You need to spend time maintaining things, rather than just making the next new thing, yet you also need to be able to realize that "backwards compatibility" is not productive for humanity (who does backwards compatibility truly serve well? why are their wants prioritized). None of these are ideas that are common in tech. So, the products the tech industry produces are for $$$ are overall, pretty likely to be garbage. But again, there is nothing unique about this to technology as it stands today: mass production, thoughtless production...these can be problems in any industry, and are problems in other industries too (e.g. the building industry). I don't think the students will do better only because they are spending more time handwriting or reading books.

xormapmap 3y ago

> I wonder how we will prevent ourselves from making this and similar mistakes in the future Just listen to the teachers, parents, and students. In high school I was among the last year groups to be pen and paper. All the younger students had laptops and iPads. I distinctly remember during the change that very few people thought it was a good idea, except for those students who got a free laptop or iPad out of it. I imagine the change was mostly brought about by administrators and politicians.

ibizaman 3y ago
Please, just listen to the teachers. They probably know best how to teach.
miguelazo 3y ago
> I imagine the change was mostly brought about by administrators and politicians. They are a specific type of “influencer”. People who claim the crown of “innovation” simply by jumping on the hype train of whatever the new hot thing is. Many companies are falling into this trap with AI right now. They use FOMO to get leaders with weak wills and a lack of vision to jump on the hype train, forcing everyone else along for the ride.
- Woodi 3y ago
  > They use FOMO to get leaders with weak wills and a lack of vision to jump on the hype train, forcing everyone else along for the ride. In the meantime psychology is... err... What actually are psychology peoples doing ?? Do not see anything good or useful. You know, popularizing BASIC knowledge helps many, including future thing in discussion practicioners... Or psycho peoples are limiting themselves to just making money ?

bmer 3y ago

It's not the tech itself that is the problem, and I think viewing it as the problem would lead one to miss a key trio of problems, that is equally applicable to books. The problem has three interrelated parts: a) we do not value developing the capacity to think, b) the ability to think is not valued (by whom? I'm not quite sure), and c) we do not value doing things slowly. a) Most have the mistaken notion that the capacity to think is fixed with respect to various biological factors. Putting aside whether the biology truly does fix this (I do not know enough here) the fact remains that this misses that there exist tools which can help us organize our thinking so that it appears to be "better". Examples of this are plenty in mathematics, where the symbolic "language" you use alone can make a massive difference to your "ability" to deal with a problem. Some tools are more like internal narratives: if one develops a narrative that isn't constantly judging whether they are "thinking fast enough" or are "being productive enough" they ironically end up thinking more effectively. (For examples of people interested in making such tools better known: https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691156668/the-5-elements-of-effective-thinking https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691156668/th... https://barbaraoakley.com/books/ https://barbaraoakley.com/books/) And some tools are simply more biological: a person in good physical health can think more clearly than a person for whom this is not true, for the simple reason of nutrient supply to the brain being more efficient in the former than the latter. Schools fail us on all these points. In particular, many current widely accepted textbooks are part of the problem here: https://bookstore.ams.org/view?ProductCode=SPEC/80 https://bookstore.ams.org/view?ProductCode=SPEC/80 There's also what our culture tends to portray in entertainment. Contrary to what other think, I think entertainment is not harmless enjoyment due to the nature of our brain: as far as I know, there is no good way to consciously choose the weights you are applying to various inputs, while receiving that input (unless, ironically, you have training). Advertisers realize this, which is why "product placement", or "paid" narrative tweaking (presenting a story that is "cleaned up") work. But more importantly, our entertainment industry does a terrible job of showing what is actually beautiful and exciting about problems in the real world. Instead, it defaults to shooting bullets, and adrenaline driven excitement. In a "biopic" about a scientist, it cares not about the immense beauty of their patient struggles, or what habits they purposefully cultivated in order to think more effectively, and instead prefers to view their achievements through a dramatic lens of romance and "lightning bolts of inspiration". It is just as easy to put such entertain in the form of a book (e.g. Sherlock Holmes). b) my contention that the ability to think is not valued, and perhaps actively devalued, is due to the fact that people are very willing to pollute information highways and entertainment feeds, in order to make profits. They are willing to distract people constantly from things they would prefer to be doing. They are willing to interrupt with needless reminders and notifications. They are willing to use Skinner Boxes to keep a person engaged regardless of what their conscious mind is interested in. Most importantly, they are willing to pay thoughtful people to figure out the best ways to do this: https://www.economist.com/1843/2016/10/20/the-scientists-who-make-apps-addictive https://www.economist.com/1843/2016/10/20/the-scientists-who... This is why technology is so disruptive. It is not usually designed to prioritize our ability to think, but is instead designed for other purposes. Which common place operating can you point to which has in-built tools to help a person manage over-use, or help a person track their time usage, or help someone stick to their goals around usage, or provides notifications in order to help a person get back on task? How many Skinner Boxes exist that around getting people to stick it out over the long term and engage with difficult material? (Most mathematics textbooks would be better as games.) None. The issue could equally exist with, and without books. Dilution of quality of information, misinformation, de-focusing information: none of those ideas are tied to a particular medium. c) To create something new that is truly valuable is time consuming. You cannot be overly prideful and expect to just "disrupt" things. You need to understand fairly well what the old process was, and work with people who use the old process. Perhaps even hire them as parts of the product-testing loop. You need to spend time thinking about the design, or employ people who are willing to do this. You need to spend time maintaining things, rather than just making the next new thing, yet you also need to be able to realize that "backwards compatibility" is not productive for humanity (who does backwards compatibility truly serve well? why are their wants prioritized). None of these are ideas that are common in tech. So, the products the tech industry produces are for $$$ are overall, pretty likely to be garbage. But again, there is nothing unique about this to technology as it stands today: mass production, thoughtless production...these can be problems in any industry, and are problems in other industries too (e.g. the building industry). I don't think the students will do better only because they are spending more time handwriting or reading books.