Once upon a time, the metaphor that best represented the organization of the internet was the “web”. A loosely organized topology of nodes and connections.
But social media - first Facebook, then Twitter - shifted the metaphor in the direction of “the stream”. As the internet grew, the topology became overwhelming and we became accustomed to the idea of information, both trivial and germane, flowing past us like a stream.
The problem with the stream is that it has no end. Humans like tidy narratives and consistent explanations. We like to stand back and admire our work. We like to sign our name on something with pride. But the stream moves on.
There is no sense of accomplishment on Twitter or Facebook. You squeezed something clever, snarky, or pithy into 140 characters? Great. Now watch the stream carry it away.
I’m reminded of Marge Piercy’s poem “To be of use” in which the poet talks about the value of real work:
“The work of the world is common as mud.
Botched, it smears the hands, crumbles to dust.
But the thing worth doing well done
has a shape that satisfies, clean and evident.”
In Alexis Madrigal’s seminal article, “2013: The Year ‘the Stream’ Crested” published in The Atlantic, he talks about the “permanently unfinished” nature of the stream. Because the stream is perpetually unfinished it gives us all a slight anxiety about what we’re missing as the stream flows by. What if someone said something interesting?
We need more of what Madrigal calls “edges”. Edges are the boundaries of content. Edges are the final brush strokes on a painting. Or the last note in composition.
“There is a melancholy to the infinite scroll.”
More and more people are getting out of the water. The stream is too fast. It’s overflowing its banks. They’ve tried to help by making little tributaries. But the rivulets just feed us over-optimized stuff. We need writing and sharing that has depth and edges.
By now I think we all recognize that large free services on the internet exist to make your information - your buying habits, your interests, your searches, your quirks - marketable. You, in essence, are the product.
For me, the darker side of free on the web is that it takes advantage of the good will created by millions of people who offer bona fide free content without any expectation of return. Companies like Facebook have put down roots in a land tilled by people who are legitimately offering content and services and are now choking out the native dwellers.
It’s not only that these companies are quietly selling us, it’s that they’re cynically stealing the good will of free at the same time.
Our local school board has been attempting to deploy iPads to every public school student in the district for over a year. Its feasibility has been called into question more than once.
Today our local paper ran a headline article entitled “iPad program to cost $4M a year”. The article details the various funding mechanisms proposed by the Board but overlooks the key question about efficacy.
The Board members, like those of other schools systems, appear to have succumbed to a form of “technological solutionism” as writer Evgeny Morozov terms it. That is, they assume, without sufficient evidence that any problem can be solved by bringing sufficient technology to bear on it. In the case of public education this may be a flawed assumption. Some of the best-performing public education systems in the world make little use of technology. It would be presumptious to conclude without evidence that our national or local systems have needs that are so unique that they can only be fulfilled with iPads in every student’s hands.
Any discussion of the affordability of technology in education must depend first on answering questions about the effectiveness of the tool in achieving some educational goal. In the case of iPads, what evidence suggests that student iPad users are more likely to achieve certain educational outcomes than their tech-less peers? Do such studies exist? What are their strengths and weaknesses? Are the outcome measures relevant? What is the effect size of the intervention?
It would surprise me if our local students were tech-deficient by any legitimate definition of the term. Free-access internet-capable computers are widely available; and in a metropolitan school district such as ours, I doubt that the so-called “digital divide” is very large.
More importantly, I’m concerned that consigning more education to glowing rectangles of any sort actually decreases educational attainment. Heavy internet and cell phone users have lower reading efficiency. They tend to skim content in a telegraphic fashion that matches the on-screen layout. It is rare to see a teenager whose attention is not riveted to a screen at least half of the time. The constant barrage of interactivity causes kids to expect that everything will interact with them. They are noticeably uncomfortable with moments in which they can’t interact with media.
I’m deeply skeptical that whatever performance issues exist in our public education systems, they can be solved by giving students iPads.
As the parent of a kindergartner, my most important goal is to see that she fully develops her enormous potential.
Although I suspect that most positive outcomes in parenting can be attributed to a handful of factors - among them, simply being intentional - I believe that we must go even farther to equip kids for stark realities in the economy that exist now and will intensify as they eventually enter the job market.
A recent editorial in The New York Times, points out the causes and effects of wage stagnation in the US. Although a bachelor’s degree was historically a ticket to a relatively high-paying job, the editorial notes that: “having a B.A. is less about obtaining access to high paying managerial and technology jobs and more about beating out less-educated workers for the barista or clerical job.” While Americans stress the importance of doing what you love and loving what you do, the reality for today’s students is that competition will play a larger role in ensuring their success than ever before. You may be doing what you love; but you need to be better than the next guy.
Professor Quanyu Huang in his new book “The Hybrid Tiger” looks carefully at the factors that shape the success of Chinese-American students, a group that is almost always best positioned in the academic competition. He stresses the importance of viewing education as a competition because it heightens ambition among children. American children, it seems, are increasingly shielded from competition in an attempt to protect their self-esteem. Instead of promoting self-esteem, though, it robs them of the drive for personal betterment and it gives them a distorted view of the way the world actually works. There are, after all, only a handful of spots in the freshmen class at each of the Ivy League schools.
Although there are strident opinions, both positive and negative about the effects of competition on performance, there is evidence that the context of competition makes a significant difference. Competition often improves performance when done to win (rather than to avoid loss), when the stakes are low, and when the reason for competition is to increase the level of mastery over a discipline. It seems that the benefit (or harm) of competition is in the framing.
Dr. David Shields, Professor of Educational Psychology at St.Louis Community College, has written about the framing effects on competition. He distinguishes authentic competition from decompetition wherein the latter is the typical “contest is war” embodiment of the term. In Dr. Shields’ framework, the looks at the role of metaphors in shaping the frame in which one can begin to think about competition.
Align talent with service; grow, learn, develop, create
Dominance, elimination of competitors
Intrinsic: provide value, serve a larger purpose
Extrinsic: obtain rewards, maximize security
View of competitors
Stimulators of innovation, efficiency, service
Views of regulation
Necessary "rules of the road"
Largely unnecessary infringements
Table adapted from David Shields, PhD, Harvard Business Review
To synthesize the ideas of both Huang and Shields, competition is important. It creates a vital striving for excellence. It sets up a gap between where one is today and where she would like to be in the future. The gap is the “potential energy” that gets converted into work toward a goal. But it’s also the parents’ responsibility to frame competition this way. We know from our understanding of current events and the economy that the job market is highly competitive; but children lack an understanding of what this means for the future. In framing competition as an opportunity to push personal limits we can create the necessary conditions for ambitious striving without exposing kids to stakes so high that defeatism is the likely response.
But for the love of all that is good in the world, don’t give kids medals just for participation. Remember: participation is an expectation.
The New York Times, “Where Have All the Raises Gone”, March 3, 2014, Full text link↩
Harvard Business Review, HBR Blog Network, “A More Productive Way to Think About Opponents”, David L. Shields, February 22, 2013. Full text link; Accessed 2014-03-03 ↩
My relationship with the iPhone is coming to an end.
I love the iPhone. Rather, I love what it was before it became indispensable. But when a piece of technology becomes indispensable, I think we need to pause for a moment to evaluate whether we can’t truly live without it or whether it has insinuated itself in our lives in ways that make it seem like we can’t live without it. In other words, has the smartphone affect us in ways that have come to make us depend on it?
Smart phones are expensive. They are expensive to acquire and even more expensive to operate. In the last month, I paid over $94 for cellular voice and data services for 47 minutes of voice and 266 MB of data. For voice, this amounts to over $1 per minutes, which is ridiculously expensive.
Instead, I could purchase a prepaid phone for $20 or less, and a basic plan for $0.10 per minute. If I talk for 47 minutes, this would cost $4.70 per month without text messages.
Distraction can feel a lot like productivity
The problem with smartphones is that they can make the user feel like he’s accomplishing something, even when the “something” in this case, is just checking the email, reading vapid tweets, or updating Facebook status. But it’s a mental trick that the iPhone has played on us. All of these things involve the same motions - staring into the screen and gesturing with the fingertips, as doing something productive; so from a purely motor basis, we feel like we actually done something.
People? What people?
A UK study from 2011 showed that 50% of smartphone owners use their devices when they are in the company of others. The same study showed that 25% of users use their devices during mealtimes. Three years after these data were published, the situation is almost certainly even less favorable.
It takes practice to communicate with another person in an open way. It takes eye contact, attention, and reflective listening - all skills that are eroded by constant interaction with smartphones.
In the end, I’ve made the decision based on many converging factors. I enjoy being able to navigate in unfamiliar places using my phone; but I could buy a map ahead of time, or gasp, actually ask for directions. And my spatial reasoning skills would probably improve as a result.
I enjoy being able to take a photograph whenever the moment arises; but it’s not really necessary.
As I’ve written before I’m increasingly worried about how our society in the US has come to view itself. We are full of claims about American exceptionalism but can’t rationally back them up.
The unquestioned philosophy of US exceptionalism has the unintended consequence of causing us to fail to strive. Societies perform best when striving for a collective goal. WWII. Sputnik. These were moments in US history when we engaged collective action. People took their mutual responsibilities seriously. Today, it seems, we lack a reason to strive. In a sense we are unwitting victims of our own success; and the threats to our economic and social security are subtle and slow-acting. It’s not to nuclear holocaust that we’ll succumb, but to the slowly decaying competitiveness and irrelevance. As T.S Eliot wrote: “Not with a bang, but a whimper.”
Our collective ambition is in decay. We’ve been etherized by countless distractions - social technology, pro sports, Dancing with the Stars, and stupid cat videos. Our attention has been stolen from us by the unethical purveyors of “entertainment.” Succinctly, we’re not serious about the sorts of things that will ensure our country’s success.
Kids and a window to the future
If we wish to glimpse the future we need only to contemplate our young. Are our kids driven to distraction by SMS, Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat? Then we will all soon live in a society that is so distracted that we can’t look each other in the eye.
Are our kids falling behind in our international education rankings? Then we had better resign ourselves to a second class status on the international stage.
None of this is irreversible, of course; but we need to analyze cause and effect to create a world in which we prefer to live.
###Restoring the formulas of success###
Success and hard work are inextricably linked. Contemporary media over-emphasizes serendipity in the path to financial success; but for the majority of us, the only way to get there is by hard work, orientation toward goals, and academic preparedness. We need to begin to draw the connection between striving and eventual success - however defined - in children from their earliest moments. Parents must praise kids for authentic hard work and reserve praise for what’s truly praiseworthy.
###Where there’s scarcity, competition will follow###
The worldwide economic upheavals and the political strife over healthcare, Social Security, and other social support points out the serious scarcity of opportunity. Whether our kids - and the adults they become - seek it or not, they will participate in a society that is increasingly competitive. Nothing can be gained by shielding children from this reality. Instead, we should be equipping them for competition in academics, music, sports and other pursuits.
Nothing that is unattended-to develops in a positive way. Just as a closed system tends toward chaos, inattentive parenting yields disordered kids. Children need direction, gentle nudges in the right direction, discipline, consistency, and help with goal-setting. Trusting schools and recreational soccer clubs to do the long-term work of child development is misplaced. Parents must simply make development of their children their top priority. Are you reading about child psychology? Are you doing thier homework with them? Are you reading books yourself; or are you playing with your iPad? Are you looking out keenly for their strengths? Are you modeling for them the behaviors that will equip them for success?
What’s good for kids is good for our country.
For (the good) of country, for (the good) of children. ↩
As a progressive, I lament that fellow liberals have granted US conservatives near exclusive ownership over the symbols of patriotism. After all, why does the flag have to mean: “Insufficiently low marginal tax rates.”? Or “Health care is a privilege, not a right”? Or “We believe in limiting the rights of gay people”?
Yet these symbols have clearly been co-opted. A Harvard Kennedy School of Government Study in 2011 concluded that participation in Fourth of July events - parades, fireworks displays - all full of patriotic symbolism - increase potential voters’ identification with Repulican candidates and increases their likelihood of voting for Republican candidates. Furthermore, US Republican voters are more likely than liberals to claim their pride as a US citizen.
What is “the best”?
In my experience, one of the most striking empirical differences between liberals and conservatives on the subject of patriotism, is the unwillingness of the latter to openly question the idea of American exceptionalism. Ask a conservative: “Is the US the greatest country in the world?” and the answer is almost always an emphatic affirmative. Ask a liberal; and the response is more nuanced. “Yes, but the NSA spies on our own citizens. And we’re still unlawfully detaining people at Guantánamo Bay.”
What does it mean to be “the best”?
Best at education? Hardly. On a widely applied, validated examination, US students were well below average.
Best at health care? Wrong again. Our infant mortality rates are higher than in most developed countries. Even among adults, the improvement in mortality rates year-over-year shows signs of a plateau. This plateau is not evident in similar data from Sweden and Australia.
But we have our freedom, right? Sure, like every country in Europe - most of whom outperform us in education and healthcare. And most of those countries don’t feel the need to spy on their own citizens.
OK, well, we’re the happiest. Wrong again. We ranked 17th in the UN World Happiness Report 2013.
###The unexamined life###
Socrates said that “the unexamined life isn’t worth living” meaning that there’s no instrinsic value in living an existence without the introspection that yields personal growth and development. In the same way, unquestioned American exceptionalism does no one any good. We need to let go of our Cold War beliefs and look critically at where we find ourselves now in history. Other countries are passing us by in productivity, education, health care, happiness, and environmental sensitivity.
Preference for symbols
There is a particular disorder in the preference for the symbol over the thing that it represents. No less sad is the preference for an obsolete meaning of a symbol. If flags, fireworks, parades, and lapel pins once meant American exceptionalism, it is objectively wrong to make that association today.
Data, rationalism, and a way forward
Only awareness of objective data about our international standings and rational evaluation of their causes can drive us out of the doldrums of confused patriotic symbology. We must ask ourselves critically what it means to be the best. What strongly-held opinions are slowing our progress? What have other countries figured out that we’re missing?
Every assumption must be questioned.
Gallup poll, 2013 This poll published in 2013 showed that 89% of self-identified conservatives are extremely proud to be an American citizen, in contrast to 76% of US liberals surveyed. ↩
In nearly every discipline, traditional hierarchies of authority are dissolving. Although this is supported by evidence in some cases - aviation and its crew-resource management (CRM) philosophy, for example - the leveling of authority in all cases is by no means universally beneficial.
We want students to develop critical reasoning skills by questioning received wisdom. But breaking down the gradient of authority impairs kids’ ability to receive well-vetted, widely-held knowledge. The transition from student to teacher is exemplary. One becomes an expert by working under the guidance of an expert. To prematurely flatten the hierarchy short-circuits the intellectual development of the nascent expert.
Even in the parenting relationship, authority must be earned. For some, authority is a punitive, prejudicial word when used in the context of child development. It conjures up ideas of a restricted range of expression, meanness, and even corporal punishment. But this confuses an authoritarian style with an authoritative one. In the former, parents assert authority by over-controlling, giving few options, punishing without explanation, and providing no warmth or nurturing. Parents who exhibit an authoritative style provide limits on what is acceptable and what is not while giving some latitude on how to live within those limits. The authoritative style balances nurturing and warmth with consistent limit-setting. Of course, there is a third style, common among U.S. parents, that places feeble and inconsistent limits on children while indulging their whims and desires. This laissez-faire style muddles nurturing with indulgence; and no authority is possible. Only good luck can salvage that style.
But authority cannot be taken for granted. Children need to sense that authority comes from a consistent place of wanting them to be successful, responsible, and ethical in the world. They do this by evaluating the tacit curriculum of the household. In other words, if parents model the behaviors and attributes they intend for their children to adopt, they must exhibit the same. Do you want your children to take learning seriously? Then you must show them the ways that you are constantly learning something new as an adult. Do you want your children to be able to delay gratification? Then put first things first yourself. The old adage: “Do as I say, not as I do.” sadly ignores the power of modeling.
The right of children to exert unconstrained choice is not appropriate. Instead, we should be thinking about how to help them progress from from dependent to independent in a stepwise fashion over years of development. When adults and kids do this, there is a symmetrical development of authority.
When kids live within a framework of earned authority and respect, not only do they progressively claim their own authority, but they learn and exercise the willpower that comes with deferring gratification.
For the last several years, after leaving my medical practice, I’ve been a full-time iOS and Mac developer.
Increasingly, I feel an uneasiness about my work, especially on mobile devices. I’m proud of the professionalism and rigor that I bring to my work; but I fret about the consequences of our ubiquitous use of smartphones. In short, I feel as if I’m part of the problem.
Every time I see a parent “anesthetizing” their child with an iPhone or iPad. Every time I seem someone texting while driving. When I see teenagers glued to their phones while tuning out the real world. When I see parents surfing and not paying attention to their children.
I don’t doubt that mobile technology has helped us in many ways. But I question the net effect.
After blogging on Octopress for a couple years, I got tired of its “heaviness.” Octopress has been a great way to blog; and deployment to Amazon S3 couldn’t be easier. But after playing around with the styling a bit, I still felt like trying to radically change and simplify the design required too much dealing with the internals. In short, I was looking for a static blogging system that offered more simplicity and flexibility than Octopress. That’s how I wandered into Hakyll.
At its core, Hakyll is a Haskell library on which bloggers can build a system for generating static sites. Because at its core, Hakyll is just a library, it means that the blogger can develop his own systm for parsing posts, generating pages, linking the blog together, and even deploying. I admit that I know nothing about Haskell; but it looks interesting. And I like the way Hakyll works; so I’m willing to give it a try.
####Installing Haskell on OS X 10.9####
I chose to install haskell-platform using homebrew, simply as:
1 2 3 4
$ brew search haskell haskell-platform
$ brew install haskell-platform
There were a handful of issues involving the Xcode command line tools and the PATH variable; but none were difficult. And I failed to record what they were. Sorry.
One of the things that the cabal package for hakyll gives you is an executable called hakyll-init that when run, creates an example site. Ideally, you should just be able to:
$ hakyll-init my-great-site
but for me, hakyll-init is not found. You’ll have to make sure that ~/.cabal/bin is in you PATH for that to work.
####Configuring the example site####
Once you’ve built a sample site with hakyll-init you need to use the use ghc to build the site configuration program site.hs:
1 2 3
$ cd my-site $ ghc --make site.hs $ ./site build
Now you can preview your site with ./site watch on localhost:8000.
My site is hosted on Amazon S3 and I use Transmit to synchronize my local directory with the bucket that serves the site. This works well, except for the fact that CSS is poorly handled by Amazon web services when you serve a static site from an S3 bucket. The problem is the Content-Type of the css files is provided as binary/octet-stream. This is not right. You can change in the management console; but it gets reset every time you upload the file. Clearly not a good solution.
If you use Transmit, though, you can set the Content-Type for cloud uploads on a per-file extension basis. The relevant details are described in a blog post by Adam Wilcox. Basically, you just go Transmit preferences, Cloud tab, and set the Custom S3 Upload Headers for css files:
After making those changes, static blogs hosted on S3 will return css files with the correct type header.
Since Transmit is scriptable, you can write an Applescript to connect to your S3 bucket and sync. The most straightforward way to make this work is to create favorite in Transmit as show in the screenshot. If you use a named favorite that specifies both the remote and local paths, you should be able to adapt the following script to perform the sync.
Finally, you’ll want to link that script into the deploy command in your blog configuration. There you’ll want to modify your site.hs file and recompile it.
Your post source is written in Markdown; so you’ll probably want to write rules into your site.hs file that specify how you want to parse the metadata in those files. If I knew more Haskell, I’d describe that in more detail for you. I had a small number of posts to migrate; so I changed the metadata format manually. Essentially I changed the formatting of the tags (they’re called categories in Octopress) and removed quote marks from the post titles.