The Grand Illusion
My previous post seemed to ignite a small controversy over whether smart phones were the principal cause of the growing problem of students who seem unable/unwilling to learn and/or think/work hard.
That controversy illustrates a longstanding problem with human beings, what I’d call the reliance on single-factor analysis – the attribution of the cause of something to a single factor. Over the years, I’ve observed that most outcomes – good or bad – are based on more than one factor.
In the case of students, there are more factors in play than smart phones, including the parental background, the genetic background, the educational system, the local environment, and social media, just for starters.
Admittedly, smart phones enable social media and create isolation while amplifying the impact of negative social pressures (bullying) and increasing distractibility.
Then there’s the impact of an educational system which increasingly focuses on teaching to the test (usually multiple choice) rather than on analytical thought. Also, the use of computers has lessened reliance on memory-based mathematical skills, which has weakened the ability of many students to accurately estimate quantities, make change, or mentally project future trends with any degree of overall accuracy.
There’s also ever-increasing parental pressure on teachers not to criticize students for bad behavior or poor educational performance.
The increasing reliance of some parents on technology as a babysitter also reinforces the idea that everything, including education, should be entertaining and easy.
This tendency to limit causal factors goes beyond education. As a naval aviator, I came to realize that aircraft disasters almost always involved multiple factors, and that was the reason behind standardizing procedures based on experience, i.e., to limit contributing factors and thus reduce multiple-cause incidents or accidents.
The ATR 72 crash in Brazil last week is a good example. The ATR has a good overall safety record, but the aircraft has some weaknesses, as do many aircraft. Its de-icing equipment can be overloaded in extreme icing conditions, and this has led to at least several fatal crashes. The aircraft was also close to its load limit, according to early reports, because a number of passengers were denied boarding, even though the aircraft was certified to carry more passengers than were aboard.
The Brazilian pilots knowingly flew into extreme icing conditions with a fully-loaded aircraft, then went into a flat spin, and crashed. While the exact causes haven’t been firmly established, what we do know suggests that the pilot(s) were either unaware of the danger of icing with that aircraft or chose to proceed anyway and could not recover from what appeared from the video to be a stall/flat spin. Prior to the crash, there was no evidence that the pilots attempted to descend or otherwise avoid the icing conditions.
Obviously, multiple factors led to the crash, and that’s usually the case with most disasters, including students who cannot or will not learn.
I agree with this post much more than the last. Most problems have many sources, but for policy makers, identifying one source of a problem makes it easier to suggest solutions.
To me this is like the old joke of the drunk person looking for his keys on the sidewalk at night. A friend helps him but finally says, “Are you sure you dropped your keys here?” The drunk fellow replies, “No, I dropped them in the alley over there.” The exasperated friend says, “Well then, why are we looking under the street light here?!?!” He replies, “The light is better here.”
I’m a bit confused. The previous post outlined a problem that’s getting worse. I didn’t suggest a single cause or offer a solution– just pointed out something that’s been reported to me by university professors from all across the United States.
Apologies, you are correct.
My response to your previous post was out of proportion. I was reacting not just o what you said, but to the many pundits that are blaming smart phones for all ills.
Making change is still easy the old way, as was used before cash registers that figured change. Start with the amount due, and count up by smallest coin or denomination to a multiple of the next larger, etc, until total tendered is reached. Let’s say I tender $20 for a $14 total: start at $14, and call out $15 (+$1), $20 (+$5). Done. And it implies that the customer got the value they paid for, and they can follow along to be sure the change is correct. It also gives the change that uses the least number of coins and bills.
The number of cashiers that struggle to count out the amount of change the cash register told them to give is truly astonishing. Not usually the older ones, either.
t
Me being a disruptor, I like to drop a $2 on them occasionally (they’re still printed if not every year, and one can request them from a friendly bank or credit union in multiples of 100 bills – not necessarily new bills); their drawers don’t have a slot for those, and half of them have never seen a $2 before. But I recall the story of someone that a store tried to have arrested for counterfeiting, since nobody there (I guess not even the manager) knew that a $2 bill existed. Older waitresses with kids like them as part of tips, because their kids probably won’t have seen $2 bills before.
What motivated my comments last time were a couple of things, only one of which I mentioned. The one I brought up was the way calculators had reduced many people’s ability to do mental arithmetic; I extrapolated a similar result from smartphones.
The one I didn’t mention was a remark I overheard years ago, when someone referencing the internet and the prospect of a lengthy power outage. He said he couldn’t imagine being cut off from the wisdom of the ages.
Given how much has never been digitized, then even more than now, and the amount of misinformation out there, his remark struck me as lacking in critical thinking. (Then again, maybe he was just exaggerating while talking off the cuff.)
In any case, ascribing any ill solely to smartphones is similarly showing a shortfall in critical thinking.
At the same time, every technology ever introduced brought harm along with help. Because anything can be misused, and sooner or later will be.
When writing was invented, some people complained about how writing was destroying people’s meories.
“memories”
(I made a “C” in typing.)
Writing preserves much that would otherwise be lost or dependent on (and variable by) particular chains of oral transmission.
But there’s a balance. It’s broadly better to know procedures and techniques than to memorize lists; but some amount of memorization is needed for quick responses or quick startup of applying techniques. (I say that despite being no great fan of memorization) And one still has to remember (and practice!) techniques; and had better remember what one might immediately need in case one is offline.
However, for those who over generations have of necessity become experts in their particular environment, oral transmission and immersion in details (like which plants are edible or medicinal), probably serves them very well, and contains information not known to more technological generalists; at least until their relatively stable environment is disrupted by natural conditions or by outsiders.
“[E]very technology ever introduced brought harm along with help.”
The Internet let me download a huge ebook for a relatively modest price, containing the Harvard classics library; it’s equally accessible on my laptop, tablet, and smartphone. I may well never read my way through that entire ebook despite reading much and fast, but it’s at the least a searchable reference for the context behind modern stories; and I’ve certainly read a bit of it, and likely will read more.
The Internet does well what it does, but purpose and focus are entirely on the user. Alas it shows all too well that many never learned those disciplines; and even many who did are more eager for escape than for potentially useful knowledge.
Most of the abuses on the Internet, whether crimes, scams, porn, bullying, propaganda, etc have longstanding non-technological precedents. Even the laws needed to deal with them shouldn’t have to be all that different, except for issues of jurisdiction, because for example fraud is fraud whether in person, in print, or online. The technology simply lets abusers get ahead of enforcement. Although given occasional successful stings, many aren’t nearly as smart as they think they are at hiding their tracks. Technological abuses simply remind me that many abusers are not lacking in intelligence or ability, but in the discipline and conscience to apply it constructively rather than in some harmful pursuit of short-term rewards.
A couple of points – the first is that technology tends to come in clusters. In the case of smartphones social media is able to flourish because everyone has constant access to their accounts.
The second is the technology is coupled with business. New technologies tend to create extreme wealth. That wealth warps the fabric of society. The richest people in the world rode the computer technology to the top. They then change the rules or at least tilt the odds in their favor to stay on top.
I’ve been reading Jonathan Haidt’s book Anxious Generation that makes the case that cell phone based childhoods vs play based childhoods are a cause of the rise in anxiety and depression in your children and youth. Yes, there are always other factors, but he makes a good case that this is a primary one. It’s worth a read or to listen to him make the case in a podcast.