Brain Games

 How Do Teens Do Homework Today? Fronline: Digital Nation

At last we hear from a real life 'Multi-Tasker!' There is much written about such people but not much in the way of research studies to support each side of the discourse. At least that's my understanding after reading through our course linked materials and trying to find out more on the Internet. Even at MIT there are opposing views around the positives and negatives regarding the skills, capabilities, and brain functioning of the multi-tasking 'Digital Native,' a term coined by Marc Prensky to the dismay of some and the approbation of others! For Prensky it seems that

"It is very likely that our students’ brains have physically changed – and are different from ours – as a result of how they grew up. But whether or not this is literally true, we can say with certainty that their thinking patterns have changed." 

 (Digital Natives Digital Immigrants, 2001, p. 1)

However, there are many criticisms regarding the concept of a division between a 'Digital Native and a Digital Immigrant' ,  and the suppositions that the brains of each subcultural group are different. There is even much questioning on how this division became an accepted reality in the first place! For example, Jamie McKenzie harshly criticizes the origins of such ideas.

In the following video clip Sherry Turkle and others attempt to define what multi-tasking is and what it looks like at MIT.

Multitasking at M.I.T.

Sherry Turkle explains further and comments on the affects and effects of total, continual immersion in a digital environment, in this interesting article from New Scientist Tech.
Clifford Nass at Stanford University expresses how scary the future is because we just don't know what effects and affects the digital world is having on humans.  In addition to the conjectured changes to the brain he talks about the level of attention we now pay to one another. He says,

"One of the biggest points here I think is, when I grew up, the greatest gift you could give someone was attention, and the best way to insult someone was to ignore them. ... The greatest gift was attention. Well, if we're in a society where the notion of attention as important is breaking apart, what now is the relationship glue between us? Because it's always been attention." (Interview with Clifford Nass, 2010)
 

Indeed the discourse concerning much of the pros and cons around digital media and current mobile and wireless technologies is becoming of greater concern: witness presentations to the House of Lords in England no less!


Without substantial research evidence perhaps all of the rhetoric is purely a strategy of our  Brain Games?

The Ups and Downs of Human-Tech Feedback

Clay Shirky: How Social Media Can Make History, TED Talk

Kim Vicente states on his University of Toronto faculty page, "If technology doesn't work for people, then it doesn't work."  However, as he himself details in his book, The Human Factor, there are inevitably forces at work that can use this Human-tech fit for positive or negative ends or, by its very nature, may lead to working for or against the 'common good.' In his words,

"If you can create a tight Human-tech fit between a technological system and human nature, then you have a much better chance of achieving your political objectives -- for good or ill "
(p. 232).

As Clay Shirky outlines in the above TED talk, we are "living through the largest increase in expressive capability in human history."  He illustrates how the new social media platforms offer sites of "communication and coordination" and the audience can be "consumers and producers' at one and the same time. This is all well and good, as necessary and productive feedback can then move both ways to ensure an appropriate Human-tech fit: serving needs from the top Political level of the Human-tech ladder on down to the individual Physical and Psychological levels and vice-versa. An added element is that these particular technological innovations can be "appropriated to serve a political end that it wasn't intended for" (Vicente, p. 231) or can be designed from the start to satisfy a deliberate political decision (Vicente, p. 245). In other words, a mixed bag of pros and cons can ensue. 

In different contexts, the technology can serve dichotomous ends: productive or destructive, controlling or liberating, honest or dishonest, ignorant or informed. Basically, the ultimate outcomes are contingent on the choices made by humans to use soft and hard technologies with forethought and deliberate wisdom. This, of course, cannot always be guaranteed.

 Walkerton, Ontario, Canada

As an example, the Walkerton tragedy demonstrates the failure of those multi-level feedback mechanisms that should have been planned for, adhered to, and monitored for latent effects. These can occur as consequences of changes at any level--and indeed that is what happened in this case.

"Many factors contributed to the Walkerton tragedy, highlighting the need for constant vigilance and multiple layers of protection to ensure safe community water supplies"

(Water Quality and Health Web site) 

As Vicente demonstrates, we cannot have an unwavering faith that all scientifically produced mechanistic processes are best left to their own devices. We cannot distance ourselves from the human responsibilities that come with utilizing technology. This means we have to maintain a healthy and critical relationship with technology at every level of the Human-tech ladder.

As C. P. Snow posited in reference to the rift between technical and Humanistic thinking,

"When those two senses have grown apart, then no society is going to be able to think with wisdom...This polarisation is sheer loss to us all. To us as people, and to our society."

(As quoted In Vicente, p.31)

I was reminded of this idea recently when reading the local newspaper. Our new Major, with the best of intentions, has embraced many of the innovative and increasingly pervasive social media technologies. Your Turn to Trim the City's Budget is an article that explains how Calgary's Major has asked for Calgarians to provide feedback on proposed amendments to the city's budget plans, and indeed then provides a survey tool for readers to fill out. As the paper quotes, the major asks Calgarians to use Twitter to "help me and (council) make tough decisions" (Herald, Nov. 21, 2010, p.A6)

Whilst it is admirable that such feedback is being solicited at the Political level, what struck me was the lack of background information provided for the reader, together with a lack of details outlining what may happen if certain choices for cutbacks were made without thought for consequences, or the domino effect it may have in other areas of Calgarians' lives--for good or ill! More details and links to the City of Calgary's Facebook, Twitter, and Blog platforms are available at  The City of Calgary. Whilst this is in no way a Walkerton-type situation in the making, it does illustrate how easy it might be to overlook those Human-tech factors at every level in our haste to, say, save money. How will citizens make an informed choice in the above scenario? As Vicente implores, 

"System design decisions made by governments must also reflect affinity with human nature at every level of the system--the organizational, team, psychological and physical levels" (Vicente, p. 266)

I offer the following video as a small example, I believe, of designing with Human-tech Revolutionary thinking! let me know what you think.

 

Emily Pilloton: Teaching design for change

Emily Pilloton is a Humanitarian Design Activist. Here is a little about her as written for TED

"As a young designer, Emily Pilloton was frustrated by the design world's scarcity of meaningful work. Even environmentally conscious design was not enough. "At graduate school, people were starting to talk more about sustainability, but I felt it lacked a human factor," she said. "Can we really call $5,000 bamboo coffee tables sustainable?" Convinced of the power of design to change the world, at age 26 Pilloton founded Project H to help develop effective design solutions for people who need it most."

So, these are the many variations of The Ups and Downs of Human-Tech Feedback

There's An App For That?

Okay, I couldn't resist this! 
Even Sesame Street is on the Mobile Technology bandwagon!

Sesame Street: Song: There's An App For That

Origins

 

A Vision of K-12 Students Today by bjnesbitt

I'm not so sure that there is an app for everything! An easy fix to every human problem is not  to conveniently access some technology or other and all will be well with the world! Life is way more complex than that due to the simple fact that human beings are involved! If the 'fix' does not consider the human factor at many interrelated and complex levels, and/or the multiple ways humans interact with objects in their world, then a positive outcome or solution cannot be a guaranteed thing! (Vicente, and  Norman)

Viewing the video A Vision of K-12 Students Today by bjnesbitt above, I was struck by the deliberate attempt to make sure no child cracked a smile, sending the message that current education is 'Boring' and 'Soul Destroying,' unless you could access the Web, use mobile technologies and the like. Since when in our history has a successful education only been as a result of using the current or newest technologies available? This, I fear, is advocating gadgetry, not sound educational practice, with or without technology. This is far too simplistic a solution to promote as the answer to all educational challenges. This video is one in a whole series of very similar productions that emphasize the separation of the 'mechanical' and the 'humanistic' approach to the world. In contrast, Vicente advocates "The Human-tech Revolution" where "people's needs will have to be put ahead of technology for its own sake" (pp. 290-292). Indeed, certain uses of technological innovations may have a very positive effect on particular teaching and learning contexts. However, I highly doubt that teaching and learning opportunities are of lesser quality, motivation, creativity, value, etc,. unless supported with some modern technological item. Have human beings changed that much? I have seen no proof, so far, that our youth are somehow designed differently due to the availability of modern technology.


Interestingly, in the same and similar videos, the participants hold up signs that are hand written on something. Is this meant to signify that the act of writing is also passé, or that we have silenced the voices of youth, or that, if given access to more current technology the writing of the message would be improved in some way? I would like to see or hear some explanation around these media choices.

But then I suspect, There's An App For That!

Do you Copy?

Dilbert: Copyright Infringement

Original Garfield Idea

Do you copy?

Education and Intellectual Property

by Julie Whitehead

The above video, made by Julie Whitehead includes an explanation of the meaning of the Creative Commons categories. In addition, she has tried to capture some of the central concerns of copyright law in relation to the digital world which is a context for much sharing, "mash-ups", and original creations. She begins by defining Intellectual property and the five different types held in Canada:

1. Patents, such as walkie-talkie
2. Trade-marks, such as Blackberry
3. Copyrights, such as recordings and book content
4. Industrial Designs, such as Bombadier Snowmobile
5. Integrated Circuit Topography, such as the Canadarm

Basically, an Intellectual Property Right is a valuable asset which prevents others from selling or using your work without authorization. The video proceeds to outline the challenges perceived by the move toward Digital Rights Management Systems (D. R. M.'s) which includes the increased use of digital locking systems.The Canadian Bill C-32, for example, although proposing  the inclusion of Education under the Fair Dealing provision already in place, seems to undermine its value by advocating stronger anti-circumvention rules.

My understanding of this, is that, for example, if you access an article for your research through an online library service, whilst this is allowed, the article should 'self-distruct' in, say, 30 days after the end of a course. So "what the right hand giveth, the left taketh away?"

CBC News, reviews C-32, the current Canadian Copyright bill.
This news item highlights the main elements of the legislation and the mixed reactions it has garnered. In particular, again, the concept that digital lock provisions basically undercut any for fair use. 


Below is a Michael Geist podcast/webinar on C-32. He divides the bill into three sections. Sections I, Sector Specific Reforms, and II, Compromise Reforms, which he deems fairly positive elements, whilst section III, No Compromise Reforms, again, seems to undermine those very same positives.  As Geist states, these are "a Monster Problem."
Michael Geist Opinions on C32


The linked film below was produced by Michael Geist and Daniel Albahary. They asked Canadians from across the country and from a wide range of sectors the question - "Why copyright?". This was after Bill C-61, a bill to address Canadian copyright law was introduced  in 2007/8 but ultimately died.
Why Copyright? Canadian Voices on Copyright Law

Our class goup grappled with several of the issues around digital media and copyright.
We asked,

• What sorts of "things" are we talking about? We pooled our thoughts around music (CD's, DVD's,iTunes, and the sharing with online friends), movies, (both commercial DVD's and iTunes, and the idea of Ripping to the computer), photos (mostly using photos and images that at least imply permission to use)

• Is it part of human nature to copy? We thought it really depended on the purpose for the copying. We, as humans, learn from each other; we learn from others' perspectives; share ideas and build on them; get good initial starting points; we share throughout the ages, from people who have gone before; that's how we often define progress, as standing on the shoulders of those who have gone before. Perhaps, human nature is such that if you can find a way to get something for free, you do? Or, you have friends that can easily pass things to you etc., so it becomes something you don't give much thought to?

• Why don't we always cite our sources?  Sometimes we just forget where, when , and how we learned or got things. So, we can't always retrace our steps to locate original materials. Often, we say or write things that is knowledge or opinions that have built up over much time, from many sources and experiences. Again, it would be difficult to constantly remind yourself of where each thought came from originally. Like an Artist really.

• What is legal? We are not always too sure about what pictures, images, clipart, jokes, videos, animations, music, etc. are actually legally available for copying and/or using in a new way. The current acceptance of Mash-ups makes it more confusing than ever! In Creative Commons, they have different levels of rights and responsibilities which some people don't actually understand anyway!

• Who's needs are being met by different aspects of the copyright laws? There seems to be a common feeling that the laws favour large corporations and The U.S. large media conglomerates, and not the creators, re-creators or consumers of , say, the arts. In addition, it is very challenging to understand the complexity of legalese!

Read the House of Commons document for Bill C-32 ( in legalese!)

Read the following for a translation of sorts!

Bill C-32 Michael Geist's Perspective on the Key Issues


I've included the following as it was very useful to me and might be worth a look for you too! The link to Rodd Lucier's other slideshow/webinars are also worth a look!

Creative Commons: What every Educator needs to know

View more webinars from Rodd Lucier.

 So let's review: Do You Copy?

I Emote, Move, and Choose, Therefore I Am?

Deus Machina by Neil Postman

Neil Postman relates the fable of  a land far away that decided to give up their guns, and return to using the sword. He writes,

"And so the politicians, the soldiers, the businessmen, and the plain folk decided it was best to give up their guns. This did not happen all at once, for people never agree to a thing one hundred percent. Some gun makers, for example, were not pleased until they realized that it was more fun and almost as profitable to return to making swords. And, of course, there were some soldiers who had never learned the art of swordsmanship and who worried about their future. But, eventually, people began to throw away their guns or sell them to the government, which was happy to destroy them. The government even paid the gun makers not to make guns, the way Americans pay their farmers not to grow food. In a short time, all the guns were gone. There were still wars, of course, for even in a fable the demons that make men war on each other cannot be wished away. But for two hundred years, the sweet song of the nightingale was never drowned by the retort of the rifle or the roar of the cannon. And the children slept peacefully, as they had done many years before."

The irony is that this actually happened in Japan in the 16th century. For Postman and others, this flies in the face of those who believe that there is no context in which we can turn back the technological clock and that technology is beyond the control of those who make machines or use them! This is a wonderful article to read and you must in order to truly reflect on its themes and ideas! At one point Postman compares two beginning questions for decisions we make, as in, we should question the 'why' rather than 'how' we should proceed in our technological endeavors.

And now that I have set the scene..

Beyond Human: Erasing the Line Between Man and Machine

This is part 9 of 9 clips from the series, Beyond Human, collected at SpaceRip This clip explores what the future may hold as we shape a tomorrow in which "robots will walk and work among us."

Together with chapters 6 and 7 of Donald A. Norman's book, Emotional Design, this series elicits different emotions, feelings and responses. On the one hand I can recognize the huge benefits such machines already have, and will increase in capabilities for,  in dealing with dangerous and life threatening situations, search and rescue missions, and other such contexts, in which it would be deemed preferable not to put humans at risk. At a stretch, I can even see and appreciate how beneficial a more "seemingly human" machine may alleviate the chores and stresses for, say, an elderly person, or physically challenged individual, in need of daily living assistance. On the other hand, even in these contexts, I wonder at one point we give control and compassion over to such mechanical devises. In the second examples I can imagine, if you will, the "societal convenience" of giving over responsibility for care and mundane tasks to an automaton, but at one point are we to question our own sense of humanity and provide for the unique relationships implicit in human interaction and physical and emotional contact? As my blog title suggests, I am uncomfortable with the idea that the more we provide, what appears to be, more realistic and appropriate emotional reactions, physical movements, and decision making capabilities to a robot, the more we also appear to be heading in a less than human direction towards each other.


I guess this is the age old question we need to keep asking: Just because we can, should we? Do we really want and need to pass over care of our children, and as suggeted by Norman, our childrens' education, to robots? Are we so enamoured of what appear to be 'progress' that we are willing to forgo the few human interactions and joys that remain? 

From the original meaning of the term, Robot, we find that it refers to 'drudgery' and 'servitude.' Is this how we wish to view our elderly and our youths needs? Are we so willing to define and reduce our relationships across generations to the idea of slavery? Maybe we should be asking what makes us human?


In clip #7 from the same Beyond Human series, the questions revolves around how to build and define human-robot relationships. I don't think we have figured out the human-human one as yet! Add to that thought that we have global human-human issues that we have struggled throughout history to resolve, and without much success!

Beyond Human: Can a Robot Be a Person?

Part 6 of the series asks, "What are the equations of emotion, the factorials of feelings, of consciousness itself?" Hmm! Indeed, I am worried that this mathematical metaphor is being applied whilst diminishing the attributes associated with say, the 'Mind" or the "Conscience" or "Compassion" or "Empathy" etc. In that they are considered at all, we are effectively reducing them to mechanical responses devoid of real meaning within the landscape of the New Robotics.

Here's a suggestion: Go to the YouTube pages wherein these Beyond Human series of videos are uploaded and then read the level of discourse around them! Hmm!

On a slightly less 'existential' level, I also wonder about the trend to robotize childrens' toys, as Sherry Turkle, a techno-sociologist at MIT states, as quoted in Future Courses:

"technology is fast propelling us into an entirely new paradigm of child development. 'Today's children are growing up with "psychological machines...they have become accustomed to the idea that objects that are not alive might nonetheless have a psychology and even consciousness."' (p. 33)

Then the critical question becomes, "Do toys that think--or pretend to think--also spur our children to think?" (p. 33)


As you can gather I am caught in a dilemma between what these 'Toys" and "Robots" can actually help us to achieve, enjoy and or, solve, and what it takes away from us at the same time! Consider this article on Qantos's Close Call, from George Jonas at the National Post.

We read that,

"They were the human minds in competition with the "beast," as someone nicknamed the computerized aircraft, that had a mind of its own. Like a person, it could be right, wrong, or merely unfathomable." 

because, as the article continues,

"The computer kept warning the pilots that the air-craft's aft centre-of-gravity limit had been reached, a condition that needed to be remedied by a forward transfer of fuel, but this was followed immediately by a warning that the forward transfer pumps were unserviceable. It must have been an eerie form of Catch-22 to orbit an Indonesian island with a hole in the port wing, while the computer kept advising a function it immediately warned couldn't be performed." 

and suggested that,

"It wasn't so much man fighting machine as pilots trying to save a plane from its designers....It suggested that computers are quite capable of developing suicidal tendencies."

Ah! There's the rub! Robots and technological machines are still designed and developed by humans! Can we truly design, and develop flawless Robots that can operate by Asimov's Four Laws of Robotics?

(Also on page 197 in Norman's Emotional Design )

One other quick thought: an overall philosophy regarding how we approach the reality of Robots and their "existence;" the need for a definition of what is considered human; the issues around ethics, morals, and life; the relationship between any mechanical or digital device and humans; and finally, the laws and legal ramifications of life versus not-life, are surely issues we should hear more discourse about today! Consider, for example, this issue that came to the fore at the 2008 Beijing Olympics, when Oscar Pistorius, was barred from competing as he had biltaral prosthetic legs designed specifically for running.




So, as you can see, I wonder if Robots will say, "I Emote, Move, and Choose, Therefore I Am"

Digital Native Revisited

Participatory Digital World

In the Home of the Muellers by Khym54

I just had to include this link to an 

interactive digital map  

from PBS Frontline who have produced a whole series online about the subject of a Digital Nation. Here you can click on parts of our "native's" body and find out what the research says! You really must try it! In addition, the site has many interesting sections on different topics within the virtual and/or digital world we now inhabit. Actually, you can watch the full Frontline episode on The Digital Nation at this site.

 You know, I can see me having to keep an 'Iterative Relationship' to a Digital Native Revisited

Keep It Simple!

David Pogue says "Simplicity Sells"

David Pogue is a New York Times columnist who writes about technology. Watch the video, which although from 2006, still has great relevance for anyone who is concerned about interface design. He gives good and bad examples as he empathizes with the user. It's also pretty funny!

 

So don't forget to Keep It Simple!