I know I have been down his road before but, I cannot help but to revisit the topic. Today, I was having a conversation with my sister about technology. Very broad topic with some very interesting possibilities, and very scary possibilities. Starting at the beginning of my memories, I have always had a major fascination for how things work. Not just gadgets, but living things. One Christmas, my parents (really my mom, because dad really did not do a lot of the family stuff...that's another story for another day) got me a science set. This set had a real microscope, jars of formaldehyde (yup...formaldehyde), implements for dissecting, tweezing, slide preparation, various dying chemicals (methylene blue, phenolphthalein, and some others), a real Bunsen burner, and test tubes. I thought I had died and gone to heaven. If I had only had the internet back then, who knows what kind of mad scientist I could have become. I often would take frogs (toads actually) and dissect them to watch how the heart worked...how long it would take to die, etc...That was real intellectual curiosity (as well as a marker for sociopathy [http://www.crimemuseum.org/crime-library/early-signs]--and I have more than a few of them). Early on I knew that I was nothing like any of the kids I knew. They could not understand my thirst for knowledge. If I had a curiosity about a topic, it was not unusual for me to sit in a library (keep in mind this was pre-internet) and read everything I could get my hands on. Typically I would start at one topic and end up at some other seemingly unrelated topic. It really is no surprise that I fell into the wonder of the internet. Now instead of having to go to the library, I could literally read anything I wanted to from my own house (when computers and internet were new, they were very expensive and very slow, so most homes did not have one, and those that did could rarely afford more than one). As computers became affordable, I would come to acquire more than one. I would often take old antiquated (3-4 years old) computers and disassemble them and reassemble them just to understand how they worked. I was enthralled by them (a trait that has endured the years [20 to be exact]). Which brings me to the topic I meant to write about.
We have too much access to information today. There, I said it. It is true if you think about it. If there is a minor earthquake in equatorial Brazil (read that as rainforests), the entire world knows about the event in less than 5 minutes. Soon after that the news stations (the talking heads) are all talking about the potential repercussions of that quake. Seriously, it is that quick, and that is where the problem lies. When the internet was new, pages were static and informational. There was no commenting on a topic...no satirical websites. Nearly all of the information was factual and not subject to questioning (as they were mostly written by collegiate professors or students experienced in documenting references). Most people did not have an opportunity to create webpages because it was not yet possible. Soon after came the interactive web. This meant that people could comment on pages though still most still could not create their own, so the integrity of the internet was still, for the most part, intact. Then came the immersive net. This is the internet we know today. Anybody can now create webpages or effect the populace by making posts on blog sites, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and the myriad of other instant publishing services.
The history is there for anyone that cares to research it. The point of my post is to bring light to the idea that we, as citizens of the 21st century, have too much access to information. If one steps back and looks at trending information, it is possible to predict what might happen in the future. For example, the incident in Ferguson. It started with a few [black] people crying of the indignity that poor young kid that was killed by a [white] police officer. A few prominent people (that we made prominent BTW) started making accusations and offering sound bytes to the masses (via internet and television) which flamed that little spark of indignation into this huge media meltdown over racial iniquity. One or two lonely voices brought up that the "poor kid" was known to be a troublemaker that had a lengthy criminal record. Those few were drowned by the rest of the media hype. One only needed to log into Facebook or some other social network to see the result of the media fanning the fire. Many folks bough into the hype without looking at all the facts and instead jumped on their virtual surfboards to ride the wave. One only need type any news story into a search engine to see how it works.
This is our problem. The internet [and other communication venues] have grown so fast that we have had no time to develop ways to teach our kids not to believe everything they read on the internet. I think that all kids from preschool should be taught that the internet is a great way to learn just about anything, but that they need to be cautious about stories purported to be FACT. They should all be taught how to think critically and to look at all sides of an argument [or story] before deciding to believe what is written. A very powerful demonstration might be the creation of a webpage by the instructor to show the kids that not everything on the net is not true. One of my college instructors early in my academic career taught us that before reading anything in print, listening to anything recorded, or getting an opinion from anyone, to put on your "SKEPTICALS" and really examine what you are consuming. Just because "everyone knows", does not make it a fact. As a result, I rarely take any opinion as fact until I have researched it and know all sides. Then and only then, will I make a judgement as to the validity of an argument.
Another way I think we (as people of the 21st century) can help mitigate this problem, is to have students learn cause and effect. When the sun goes down, the temperature drops causing a chill in the air. If A happens, then B might happen, unless C causes D which will result in E. I know it seems complicated, but if we were to think through all of the decisions made on bad information, then we might have decided that the risks outweighed the potential benefits. If G W Bush had been made to prove that WMD were indeed there, we might not have gone to war with Iraq (this time). If the FBI had shared intelligence with CIA and NSA then perhaps, 9/11 might not have happened and we would not have gone to war with Afghanistan. If we (people of the UN countries) had not gone to war, then perhaps the economy would not have collapsed (worldwide). Many ways to see in retrospect, that decisions we make on minimal or incomplete data, can result in catastrophic consequences.
In closing, I would stress to the parents and educators of the world, to please, please, teach critical thinking and practice cause and effect scenarios with your students and children. By arming our progeny with tools to be skeptical and investigate, we can give them the power to make good decisions and not fall into the "SHEEPLE" and "LEMMINGS" we are today. Good information makes good choices.
No comments:
Post a Comment