btw Will – look forward to seeing you in Melbourne on 12 May…

I read an article last month called “Change Agents” in the Spring 08 Threshold Magazine sponsored by Cable in the Classroom which addressed the same thinking about the effects of social networks. I had the same feelings of fear after reading that article as what you write about here. In my opinion, we have to be proactive in our understanding of what “smart networking” might bring to the crowd. Yes, it is scary.

What I struggle with is that I’m afraid teachers will not believe what is happening “out there” at the depth you write and read. How could they believe it, it sounds like a science fiction story. Systemically and personally, they seem to be held captive by a culture sunk deep in the cement of Industrial age thinking.

Okay, let’s unpack Manjoo’s basic notion: “new technologies are promoting the cultural ascendancy of belief over fact.” Not true. Technologies don’t promote anything. They are value-neutral. It is our use of the technologies that is creating a return to a world before “the Scientific Revolution. I wouldn’t argue there is no such thing as truth, but most conversations and exchanges are about finding an explanation that best fits our own experience and values (similar to the Classical Greeks in the Agora). The Internet provides the potential to understand every other point of view on a given issue, if we choose to. The real difference today is that issues we have come to accept as being part of “science” or a body of truths are now being challenged by those who prefer to believe an alternative explanation.

Perhaps that’s acceptable. Quantum Physics challenged Newtonian Physics with respect to whether the latter was a complete explanation of matter and motion. The fathers of Quantum Theory such as Heisenberg and Einstein tell us that matter and motion are really about probabilities, not certainties. Perhaps we need to rethink knowledge, and as Weinberger notes in his latest book, “Everything is Miscellaneous,” technology may have much to do with the motivation to reexamine what we think is real and what is belief. Perception is everything. If that scares Will and others, then we really need to understand why people cling to proximity of experience and belief systems. Then we can redefine our assessment of anything to be “True Enough” or “Good Enough.” There will be less left over in the category of “Truth.”

The irony of all this is the basic premise of digital technology. Binary circuits are about absolutes, on/off, yes/no, true/false. Yet in this new world of true enough, the switch is stuck in the middle most of the time.

If you get a chance to read the book, there’s an interesting section on the Dr. Fox effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr_Fox_effect) that suggests teacher enthusiasm trumps teacher content in student surveys of teacher ability. I’m not sure what to do about that little nugget of info.

Just pondering what we can “do” in regards to this for our students–both as educators and parents.

I think we have to balance this theory with the truth that for most of us, we also have f2f communities that aren’t necessarily completely by choice, and will continue to have those for the foreseeable future, so there is a balance to the self-selected communities.

And it’s interesting, because on the one hand you have the proliferation of blogs and cable channels that are clearly “selective exposure” while on the other hand, you have the standardization of content by homogenized, same in every city, shopping centers, bookstore conglomerates, chain restaurants, etc. So on the one hand, there is increasing individualization and compartmentalization, and on the other hand, decreasing choice.

That being said–I do think we can model divergent thinking for our students.

Socratic discusssions in class?

Asking our students to counterbalance their research with a news source from another country?

Requiring them to find one opposing source to their own?

I do think this is an issue educators “outside the echo chamber” are tuning into somewhat–I frequently hear concerns about students isolated behind their ipods, facebook communities, etc., so at some level, it seems this is on the radar for people.

Perhaps that is one advantage of f2f schools–it does cause all of us to interact with a variety of viewpoints!

Should he now spend thousands of dollars to travel half way around the world to meet her? What are his chances of his beliefs matching the facts?

The dating game wherein people are “vetted” online before sharing LEVELS of personal contact seems to fit this topic and the quote [54] in your post, especially since the opportunity for fraudulent information being used to form relationships means that any student or child needs to be taught how to manage the idea of belief vs. fact when establishing relationships of a personal nature in the new world of “selective exposure”.

This is a deep issue, and I will check out this book!

Thanks Will for the reference.

Is there a way to configure a RSS system to find and subscribe to packs of feeds that create that balanced set of voices instead of succumbing to the echo chamber?

Not sure if you saw Steven Johnson’s response to Farhad Manjoo…

http://www.slate.com/id/2186607/entry/2186608/

Tim

This idea/trend in finding relationships and associations with like-minded people online instead of forming proximal relationships has been on my mind for quite some time now. It first came to my attention when I was an undergrad in the 90s as a computer science student. I left that field of study because I was seeing my classmates take more interest in the people they met on IRC than the people they dealt with face to face. This frightened me enough to drop my major and take up art education. It then came to my attention again two years ago when working in an urban alternative school. The students there were for the most part what we would classify as representatives of many different fringe subcultures that were largely socially isolated in the mainstream classrooms at the “normal” high school. These students did not appear to suffer from social isolation the way similar students when I went to school did. They all had their own online social groups where they formed relationships with like-minded people.

These observations that I once was concerned about now make me curious. What will the future look like if and when this structure of socialization continues to grow and evolve? Nearly every major institution (formal and informal) in our society is in some degree based on relationships. I think it is conceivable that government will evolve to be less about physical borders and more about ideological borders. There could be entirely separate laws governing the behaviors of people from different ideological social groups. The laws that apply to your physical neighbors might not be the same laws that apply to you. Public resources might be public only to those who belong to the group that provides them. We could see a whole different type of segregation evolve based on ones ideological affiliations. We will see multiple truths depending on what ideology you ascribe to. Truth could become more like religious doctrine but for various secular groups as well as religious (Ideological Denomination?).

Such a shift is a change for sure. Change is something we almost always fear. Will such a future be better or worse than the one we currently have? Only time will tell if changes that are brought on by this shift will be good fortune or bad fortune. In some ways, this world of “truthiness” actually sounds more democratic and progressive. It recognizes the fact that truth changes depending on your own personal world view and it allows subcultures to thrive giving diversity to the public discourse that would otherwise gone silenced. It is definitely more multicultural and allows us to have our cake and eat it too.

Disclaimer: The thoughts expressed here in this comment on Will’s blog are entirely those of one hemisphere of my brain and do not necessarily represent the thoughts and beliefs of my mind and self as a whole, it’s management or staff.

On the issue of truth we all know we crave it. Those who argue there is no truth are essentially arguing that is is true that nothing is true. Now think about that. Do you see the contradiction. We all like relativism when it suits us but the objectivity of truth cannot be avoided.

We are all seeking truth regarding the questions of core meaning to our lives.

What’s the difference between the first lie I find on Google and the one that takes me hours to find?

How do you handle irresponsible research? I try to check sources on research papers by typing selections that sound “copied” into Google. But if a student is “good” the words can be changed enough to trick that method.