After an 8-month hiatus from blogging that included
a heavy dose of reading, I’ve returned to work this year with an awareness of
some paradoxes around learning that I didn’t know could exist. I’d never viewed technology in the classroom
as a paradox prior to now. I saw tech as
a vehicle to advance all kinds of learning opportunities. The PowerBook, upon which I tap out this
installment, is a technological tool I’d rather not give up. In the past year I’ve encountered technology
driven content delivery platforms that would appear to be able to capture and
keep eyeballs and attention for extended periods of time. Nothing paradoxical about that, just good old
time-on-task. Web-based portals like the
TED Talks site are fantastic resources.
For me, Technology adoption and adaptation was seen as both common and
rewarding.
Recent additions to my own practice have been the
use of a team organizer site and a learner-mapping platform customized for
career counseling processes. Both help
me to help learners control and manage the ‘orchestration’ aspect of their
academic/athletic year. These platforms
address the administration aspects of learning and appear to perfectly suit
those whose philosophy and practice places a heavy emphasis on
organization. Given my personal sense of
the importance of organizing, I am on-board with making the sequencing more
concrete and easier to access. Should
my world and the world of the learners I’m in charge of, become more manageable
as a result, it should follow that I’d have more time to get on to the other
learning priorities that provide an indication that learning of substance is
occurring.
This brings me to the subject of today’s
installment, the term Neomania,
encountered while attempting to wade through Nassim Taleb’s Antifragile. The author of The Black Swan (which I
have not read) has a lot to say about a lot of things. From his perspective, uncertainty is the
platform for discovery, while effect awareness trumps true/false accuracy (he
paraphrases and labels this as non-sucker vs. sucker). He goes in-depth on why most of life’s
important exposures are non-linear and why we should take notice of that fact,
and he has a deep respect for all things “barbell”. The references to Benoit Mandelbrot and
Daniel Kahneman, two scientists I hold in high esteem, didn’t hurt my opinions
of his opinions either.
So why in a vast sea of aphorisms (which is really
what the book is), did the term Neomania
stand out? I guess I should explain what
Mr. Taleb defines the term as. Simply
put, Neomania is “the love of modern for its own sake” (Taleb, 2012)
The term is nested in Book VI (the author is a fan
of recursion as well), which is titled Via Negativa. This look at the benefits of less is more starts with the topic of
subtractive knowledge: the admission and knowing that what does not work is
more robust than speculating about what might work. Then examples are cited where less is more is
proved out by relating the 80-20 rule, finding the Statue of David in the block
of stone, and recognizing the importance of Location, Location, Location. This leads the reader to a connection the
author wants to confirm: Time and fragility are inextricably linked. Although the entire book is very interesting,
the time-fragility connection intrigued me because I am a big fan of folding time through the internship
process and began to wonder if time folding would promote fragility or
anitfragility. (Note: the temporal effects of internship have been discussed in
previous blog postings)
Taleb talks about the fact that non-perishable
things behave exactly the opposite of perishable things when it comes to time
and life expectancy. The older a
perishable thing is, the less life expectancy you’d expect it to have. He points out that fewer days of life
expectancy is but one form of fragility. Non-perishable things like technology,
behave differently in that, the longer the technology lives, the longer the
life expectancy going forward. Technology
that has been around for 30 years will probably be around for another 30 years
because it has been harder to replace by the newest ‘killer app’. He also points out that technology is at its
best when it is used to cancel out, or subtract out what he calls “bad
technology”, -technology for technology’s sake.
Instead of over iterating, he believes the focus should be on the
creation of elegance that some technologies develop through paying attention to
the natural world. For me of course, the
postulating centred on which aspects of internship would express as perishable
vs. non-perishable.
I would have just ruminated (and not written) but
then book VI contained a section titled Neomania
and Treadmill Effects. Briefly, the
effect is psychological, and has to do with having the latest version of
something, specifically, the initial satisfaction that comes with having the
latest (and hopefully greatest), and then the sense of loss when the novelty
wears off. Taleb acknowledges Kahneman’s
work on this phenomenon, and then goes on to point out the “strange
inconsistency in the way we perceive items across the technological and real
domains.” (Taleb, 2012) To make his point…
“I have never heard anyone address the large
differences between e-readers and physical books, like smell, texture,
dimension (books are in three dimensions), color, ability to change pages,
physicality of an object compared to a computer screen, and hidden properties
causing unexplained differences in enjoyment.
The focus of the discussion will be commonalities (how close to a book
this wonderful device is). Yet when he
compares his version of an e-reader to another e-reader, he will invariably
focus on minute differences. Just as when
Lebanese run into Syrians, they focus on tiny variations in their Levantine
dialects, but when Lebanese run into Italians, they focus on similarities.” (Taleb, 2012, pp. 323,324)
Upon reading this my first thought was, “Oh-oh, I
have written about novelty’s role in learning.”
Were there now types of novelty that
created inconsistencies that until this point I was unaware of? Next thing I knew, there was a cascade of
questions developing in my mind. The
first was, what would Taleb say are the implications of these perception
responses for something like learning internship? I know he doesn’t like the
current way education is delivered; he makes this abundantly clear throughout
the book. His concerns about education
aside (I’m not going to try and find out if he likes the idea of internships),
for me the second question was: does education’s current fixation on all things
technological run the risk of creating learners who use up novelty even faster
than previous generations? Which lead
to: If something today isn’t new, are learners even more prone to
dismissing? Also, do we run the risk of
confusing learners through our desire to have more technology, more “Friends”
on our technology platforms, essentially, more commonality with our technology
at the expense of recognizing and celebrating the variations that make up the
world? Of course the world of variations
is very much present in the social relationships we develop face-to-face, so
are we blinding ourselves to variation by sitting in front of a computer
instead of sitting in front of another human being, while arguing that our
world is expanding from internet usage?
If this is true, that is a pretty big paradox.
Asking myself these questions in the context of
running an internship program can mess with your head. The implication as a program developer is
whether the experience (bringing together mentor-intern-situation) is more like
a Walkman (little variation and now practically extinct) or a Wheel (many variations,
many years of existence)? I believe it
is the later. However, internship
certainly couldn’t be described as ‘less is more’; adding a mentor means, ‘more
is more’ (hopefully). Additionally, by
putting faith into, and adopting the program’s learning goals, the learner
certainly does nothing but prove Mr. Taleb’s assertion that knowing what
doesn’t work is more robust than speculating on what might work. As I’ve seen with my own eyes, some interns
fail, but is that evidence that the concept of internship is more prone to
failures than success? Not really, or at
least not in my experience, in fact quite the opposite.
As I went for a walk today to think about some
answers to all these questions, I was reminded again that perception plays a
big role in our lives, and not just our learning lives. My job these days is to get people acting on
the perceived benefits of interning at the high school level. To the people I talk to about doing this
work, this is quite a novel idea. The
parallels in our perceptions to technology use compared to the adoption and use
of a learning platform might be real even if we aren’t conscious that the
parallel exists. As for the role that
novelty plays when working with a technological or relational platform, the
response to said platform may be similar, or as Taleb points out, quite
inconsistent. It’s my job to make sure
both the good and bad of ‘novelty’ are managed in such a way that the
inconsistencies that turn out to develop discovery and creativity, aren’t lost
by trying to be novel for novelty’s sake.
As I stated in the opening, I like and use the
latest technology when I get the chance.
‘Trying something new’ can be as powerful an excuse as my main focus on
creating efficiencies around time and information management and administration
of learning. At the same time, I’ve found that the novelty that comes with
working with a mentor, the “trying something new by connecting school work with
field work”, has some uncanny similarities to technology, if the mentoring is
perceived as being faddish. Some
mentoring relationships last longer than others, but the interns I work with
want to stick with the program even if it isn’t the same mentor year after year. Depending on the nature of the relationship
between mentor and intern, there are going to be varying degrees of focus on
similarities and the variations, but there can never be a sense that this work
is flavor of the month stuff.
As my walk ended, I knew that what internship is, at
least as I teach it, is a combination of old and new. To me, internship is grounded in a process
that has been around for a very long time: artisanal apprenticeship. Of course apprenticeship was/is used as a way
to help the learner define and refine and has pretty much stood the test of
time. I’m not sure if anyone has ever
done a study to determine how long an apprenticeship platform feels novel for
learners, but I do know that that matters.
In this technological age I believe there is the very real possibility
that learning, no matter where the learner is situated, runs the risk of
learner ‘sense of loss’ around novelty much sooner now, than even a couple of decades
ago. That said, if you aren’t bringing
the novel into the learning equation, you’d better be looking at other learning
platforms that have stood the test of time.
As to my question around commonality, I won’t get trapped in the me vs. we argument. What I can say is, where Taleb describes bad
technology as technology for technology’s sake, I think he’d describe learning
for learning’s sake as the exact opposite.
To bring this discussion full circle, and hopefully
have it make sense, the ability of technology to save time through
administrative/management efficiencies can be a great thing if you use that newfound
time to go learn something important.
This is not technology for technology’s sake. The paradox is, in our quest to use the
latest technology, we may be potentially abandoning the very tools that have
‘stood the test of time’ (both technological and non-technological). So we need to ask ourselves, do we adopt new
technology because different is good
(maybe, maybe not) or because the technology adoption effect is good (time will tell if I’m actually saving time). If it is proven out that the adoption effect
is good, then what?
The worst thing that could happen would be that the
saved time isn’t used to get smarter. In
this paradox, we may have in fact become more fragile as we are now more
dependent on technology, and a little more brain atrophied due to a lack of
taking advantage of other learning opportunities. In my case, I’ve been able to use that saved
time via technology to read many new books like Antifragile, which made
me realize that in fact what’s old can be new, what’s new isn’t always better,
and if technology is involved, we’d better think about the effect on our
thinking bias’ for seeking out novelty.
Maybe now more than ever, our learning relationships are going to become
critical, maybe even more critical than our smart phone.