<------------------------------------------------------------------------>
In conclusion, news is not an accurate reflection of reality; as a matter-of-fact, if you passively ... the news as a daily part of your information diet, then it is very likely you have a distorted view of reality; distorted in the sense that, your reality is going to be a reflection of the informational news you are exposed to; to quote Tim Wu, from the book titled, The Master Switch, published in 2010, page p.13.
“It is an under acknowledged truism that,
just as you are what you eat,
how and what you think depends on what
information you are exposed to.”;
── Tim Wu, The Master Switch, 2010, p.13.
____________________________________
At what level (stage) of reality are we reporting
(increasing leverage and opportunity for learning)
•── Events - what just happened?
( knowledge pyramid : data => information => knowledge => wisdom )
•── Patterns/Trends
– what's been happening over time?
– have we been here or some place similar before?
– basis for diagnosis., p.73
• do we have problems?
• if so, how big is it?
• is it getting worse or better?
• what are the underlying causes?
• (p.73, Casting net assessment : Andrew W. Marshall and the epistemic community of the cold war / John M. Schutte, Lieutenant Colonel, USAF.)
– Trouble and news., p.16 (QMJ 94 Fall)
• “Hunting for trouble and making adjustments when no trouble exists, and ... failing to hunt for trouble and not taking action when trouble does exist.”
• “Hunting for [news] and making adjustments when no [news] exists, and ... failing to hunt for [news] and not taking action when trouble does exist.”
• (p.16 (QMJ 94 Fall), what deming told the Japanese in 1950, Peter J. Kolesar, Columbia university, filename: DeminginJapanin1950.pdf, The primary source documents are the published lecture transcripts that Deming considered authentic.)
– Variability is a rule in nature., p.16 (QMJ 94 Fall)
• “Variability is a rule in nature. Repetitions of any procedure will produce variable results.”,
• “Variability [as it is applicable to reality] is a rule in nature. Repetitions of any procedure [for example, news reporting] will produce variable results.”
• p.16 (QMJ 94 Fall), what deming told the Japanese in 1950, Peter J. Kolesar, Columbia university, filename: DeminginJapanin1950.pdf
•── Systemic Structures
– what are the deeper forces driving these patterns or trends and how do they arise?
– what are the forces at play contributing to these pathways?
•── Mental Models
– what about our thinking allows this situation to persist?
– human error is a symptom of trouble deeper inside a system, and to explain that failure, do not try to find where the people went wrong; instead, find out how people's assessments and actions made sense at the time, given the circumstances that surrounded them; What were they thinking? - “The reconstruction of the mindset begins not with the mind. It begins with the circumstances in which the mind found itself.”, Dekker (2002);--Heather Parker, Transport Canada slide presentation, titled, Investigating and Analysing Human and Organizational Factors, 2006-11-09;
____________________________________
the first private awareness that human error is a symptom of trouble deeper inside a system, and to explain that failure, do not try to find where the people went wrong; instead, find out how people's assessments and actions made sense at the time, given the circumstances that surrounded them; What were they thinking? - “The reconstruction of the mindset begins not with the mind. It begins with the circumstances in which the mind found itself.”, Dekker (2002);--Heather Parker, Transport Canada slide presentation, titled, Investigating and Analysing Human and Organizational Factors, 2006-11-09;
____________________________________
Donella H. Meadows, Edited by Diana Wright, Thinking in systems [ ]
If a factory is turn down but the rationality which produced it is
left standing, then that rationality will simply produce another
factory. If a revolution destroys a government, but the systematic
patterns of thought that produced that government are left intact,
the those patterns will repeat themselves.... There's so much talk
about system. And so little understanding.
――ROBERT PRISIG, zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
(Thinking in systems : a primer, Donella H. Meadows, Edited by Diana Wright, sustainability institute, 2008, QA 402 .M425 2008, )
____________________________________
news
1) log the news cycle (this runs about 1-2 weeks), with exception so far the war news on Ukrain; what is the major news outlet reporting on from week to week, from month to month, from year to year;
2) follow the money; look at the business interest; businesses pay tax, they employed people, who also pay taxes, to be able to pay the tax, they have to stay in business; what do the business do with their profits; do they reinvesting in the business to grow or do they buy their own stocks or do they payout dividends ...; do they reduce prices; do give greater benefits to their employees; do they give back to their local communities; do they setup a foundation; do they invest in research and development; do they pay down outstanding debt; do they retire some debt obligation; FIRE (finance, insurance, real estate) businesses are especially interesting; ...
3) look for mismatch between the reported story, the flow of money, the profits, the asset, the liability, and the debt; what do they do with the debt, what do they do with the money from the investors.
4) read up on history, look for historical pattern, historical pattern of boom and bust cycle; historical pattern on speculation; historical pattern on inflation and depression; historical pattern on price and wars; business history; history on debt; history on finance; ...
**increasing leverage and opportunity for learning
||
|| Events React
|| what just happened?
||
|| Patterns/Trends Anticipate/expectation
|| what's been happening over time?
|| have we been here or some
|| place similar before?
||
|| Systemic Structures Design/co-design/co-evolution
|| what are the deeper forces driving these
|| patterns or trends and how do they arise?
|| what are the forces at play
|| contributing to these pathways?
||
|| Mental Models Transform/re-form/re-organise/re-call
|| what about our thinking
|| allows this situation to persist?
\/
figure 12.1
── what just happened?; the news is usually reported at the events level
── look to see if the news report the current event and put the event in the context of patterns and trends
── then look to see if the news report on the deeper forces (systemic structure) driving the patterns and trends
── then look to see if the news report on the mental models that enable and disable the deeper forces that continue to keep the patterns and trends going and/or interrupt, disrupt the patterns ...
____________________________________
The necessary revolution : how individual and organizations are working together to create a sustainable world,
Peter Senge,
Bryan Smith, Nina Kruschwitz, Joe Laur, Sara Schley,
2008
p.176 mental models.
We all hold mental models——some shared across a society, others across a social class, a political party, an industry, a particular company, or even within our own family. What is often less clear is how these models affect, even dictate, our thoughts and actions and the thinking of those around us.
p.174
Ways of explaining reality
**increasing leverage and opportunity for learning
||
|| Events React
|| what just happened?
||
|| Patterns/Trends Anticipate/expectation
|| what's been happening over time?
|| have we been here or some
|| place similar before?
||
|| Systemic Structures Design/co-design/co-evolution
|| what are the deeper forces driving these
|| patterns or trends and how do they arise?
|| what are the forces at play
|| contributing to these pathways?
||
|| Mental Models Transform/re-form/re-organise/re-call
|| what about our thinking
|| allows this situation to persist?
\/
figure 12.1
p.177
Why is it so important to look beneath the surface at the deeper levels of reality? Because in our experience it is often the key to lasting change. When people or organizations pay attention only to the visible tip of the iceberg, they can only react to change as it happens—so at best, they survive the crisis. They often try to compensate for their lack of analysis of a problem with aggressive and "proactive" strategies. But being "proactive" from a reactive mind-set is reactive just the same. With long enough lever, boasted Archimedes, "I can move the world."
(The necessary revolution : how individual and organizations are working together to create a sustainable world, Peter Senge, Bryan Smith, Nina Kruschwitz, Joe Laur, Sara Schley, 2008, 338.927 Senge, pp.172-177)
____________________________________
“Scientia Potentia Est”
scientia - science - knowing, to discern
potentia - potent - powerful physically
potentia - potis - able
“Scientia Potentia Est” - knowing is power
“Scientia Potentia Est” - knowedge is power
(Netflix streaming show, The Crown, first season, episode 7, “Scientia Potentia Est”)
____________________________________
Ranjana Srivastava, A cancer companion : an oncologist's advice on diagnosis, treatment, and recovery, 2014
p.265
For some people, knowledge is indeed power but for others it creates anxiety and a sense of helplessness.
(A cancer companion : an oncologist's advice on diagnosis, treatment, and recovery / Ranjana Srivastava., 1. cancer──patients., 2. cancer──diagnosis., 3. cancer──treatment., RC263.S67 2015, 616.99'4──dc23, 2014, )
____________________________________
“Scientia Potentia Est”
is commonly translated and interpreted as Knowledge is power,
( knowledge pyramid : data => information => knowledge => wisdom )
however a more whole interpretion is:
there are aspects to knowledge and knowing that enable;
there are aspects to knowledge and knowing that somewhat enable;
there are aspects to knowledge and knowing that disable;
there are aspects to knowledge and knowing that somewhat disable;
there are aspects to knowledge and knowing that both enable and disable;
there are aspects to knowledge and knowing that neither enable or disable;
Marcel Proust:
Each reader reads only what is already inside himself.
A book is only a sort of optical instrument which the writer offers
to let the reader discover for himself what he would not have found
without the aid of the book.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sy%C4%81dv%C4%81da
These seven propositions also known as saptabhangi are:[53]
syād-asti – "in some ways it is"
syād-nāsti - "in some ways it is not"
syād-asti-nāsti - "in some ways it is and it is not"
syād-asti-avaktavyaḥ - "in some ways it is and it is indescribable"
syād-nāsti-avaktavyaḥ - "in some ways it is not and it is indescribable"
syād-asti-nāsti-avaktavyaḥ - "in some ways it is, it is not and it is indescribable"
syād-avaktavyaḥ - "in some ways it is indescribable"
dual-1 multiple-2 relative-3 commit-4
Students' conceptions of learning are said to develop over time. An influential study by Perry (1970) delineated progression through different stages of thinking about the nature of knowledge and evidence. While this development takes on different forms in different subject disciplines, there are four (4) discernible stages which may or may not be made explicit in the design of the curriculum or by university teachers:
—> dualism (there are right and wrong answers)
—> multiplicity (we do not always know the answers, people are entitled to different views and any one opinion, including their own, is as good as another)
—> relativism (conclusions rest on interpretations from objective evidence, but different conclusions can justifiably be drawn)
—> commitment (a coherent individual perspective on a discipline is needed, based on personal commitment to the forms of interpretation that develop through this perspective).
( LSRC reference, Learning styles and pedagogy in post - 16 learning : A systematic and critical review, Frank Coffield, David Moseley, Elaine Hall, Kathryn Ecclestone, Section 7, page 93/93 )
____________________________________
([ transparency ... transparency for who ])
([ transparency and privacy ])
([ transparency and secrecy ])
([ transparency and national security ])
([ what is the public right to know ])
([ how would the general public benefit from this knowledge ])
([ transparency is not the actual issue; transparent is the entry point; when you have transparency, when the story comes out, and if the story highlight and put a spotlight on a problem, problems, or a systemic problem with no workable and sustainable solution, then transparency is surfacing and causing problem for management; what is the upside for any management to implement transparency; ... ])
____________________________________
Bill of rights
Article I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise of thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Articles II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
([ what does it mean ])
____________________________________
Michael V. Hayden, Playing to the edge : American intelligence in the age of terror, 2016
p.430
I am fond of reminding audiences that soon after throwing out George II for his overbearing rule, we became disenchanted with the successor government under the Articles of Confederation, since it was too weak to protect the country or do much of anything that we expect governments to do. The miracle of Philadelphian fixed that with a much stronger centralized authority ── strong enough to be feared, actually, so that almost immediately it was constrained by the quick passage of ten amendments to limit its power, the Bill of Rights. We've seen this movie before. In fact, we've been in it.
(Playing to the edge : American intelligence in the age of terror / Michael V. Hayden, New York : Penguin Press, 2016, (hardback) (ebook), intelligence service──united states. | national security──united states. | united states. central intelligence agency. | united states. national security agency. | biography & autobiography / political. | political science / political freedom & security / intelligence. | history / united states / 21st century., JK468.I6 H39 2016 (print), JK468.I6 (ebook), 327.1273──dc23, 2016, )
____________________________________
... misleads.
... is irrelevant.
... has no explanatory power.
... is toxic to your body.
... increases cognitive errors.
... inhibits thinking.
... works like a drug.
... wastes time.
... makes us passive.
... kills creativity.
([ certain type of ... can cause the listener to feel hopeless ])
([ the news - by its very nature, format, structure - suffer from selection bias ])
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/apr/12/news-is-bad-rolf-dobelli
Rolf Dobelli
Friday 12 April 2013 15.00 EDT
In the past few decades, the fortunate among us have recognised the hazards of living with an overabundance of food (obesity, diabetes) and have started to change our diets. But most of us do not yet understand that news is to the mind what sugar is to the body. News is easy to digest. The media feeds us small bites of trivial matter, tidbits that don't really concern our lives and don't require thinking. That's why we experience almost no saturation. Unlike reading books and long magazine articles (which require thinking), we can swallow limitless quantities of news flashes, which are bright-coloured candies for the mind. Today, we have reached the same point in relation to information that we faced 20 years ago in regard to food. We are beginning to recognise how toxic news can be.
News misleads. Take the following event (borrowed from Nassim Taleb). A car drives over a bridge, and the bridge collapses. What does the news media focus on? The car. The person in the car. Where he came from. Where he planned to go. How he experienced the crash (if he survived). But that is all irrelevant. What's relevant? The structural stability of the bridge. That's the underlying risk that has been lurking, and could lurk in other bridges. But the car is flashy, it's dramatic, it's a person (non-abstract), and it's news that's cheap to produce. News leads us to walk around with the completely wrong risk map in our heads. So terrorism is over-rated. Chronic stress is under-rated. The collapse of Lehman Brothers is overrated. Fiscal irresponsibility is under-rated. Astronauts are over-rated. Nurses are under-rated.
We are not rational enough to be exposed to the press. Watching an airplane crash on television is going to change your attitude toward that risk, regardless of its real probability. If you think you can compensate with the strength of your own inner contemplation, you are wrong. Bankers and economists – who have powerful incentives to compensate for news-borne hazards – have shown that they cannot. The only solution: cut yourself off from news consumption entirely.
News is irrelevant. Out of the approximately 10,000 news stories you have read in the last 12 months, name one that – because you consumed it – allowed you to make a better decision about a serious matter affecting your life, your career or your business. The point is: the consumption of news is irrelevant to you. But people find it very difficult to recognise what's relevant. It's much easier to recognise what's new. The relevant versus the new is the fundamental battle of the current age. Media organisations want you to believe that news offers you some sort of a competitive advantage. Many fall for that. We get anxious when we're cut off from the flow of news. In reality, news consumption is a competitive disadvantage. The less news you consume, the bigger the advantage you have.
News has no explanatory power. News items are bubbles popping on the surface of a deeper world. Will accumulating facts help you understand the world? Sadly, no. The relationship is inverted. The important stories are non-stories: slow, powerful movements that develop below journalists' radar but have a transforming effect. The more "news factoids" you digest, the less of the big picture you will understand. If more information leads to higher economic success, we'd expect journalists to be at the top of the pyramid. That's not the case.
News is toxic to your body. It constantly triggers the limbic system. Panicky stories spur the release of cascades of glucocorticoid (cortisol). This deregulates your immune system and inhibits the release of growth hormones. In other words, your body finds itself in a state of chronic stress. High glucocorticoid levels cause impaired digestion, lack of growth (cell, hair, bone), nervousness and susceptibility to infections. The other potential side-effects include fear, aggression, tunnel-vision and desensitisation.
News increases cognitive errors. News feeds the mother of all cognitive errors: confirmation bias. In the words of Warren Buffett: "What the human being is best at doing is interpreting all new information so that their prior conclusions remain intact." News exacerbates this flaw. We become prone to overconfidence, take stupid risks and misjudge opportunities. It also exacerbates another cognitive error: the story bias. Our brains crave stories that "make sense" – even if they don't correspond to reality. Any journalist who writes, "The market moved because of X" or "the company went bankrupt because of Y" is an idiot. I am fed up with this cheap way of "explaining" the world.
News inhibits thinking. Thinking requires concentration. Concentration requires uninterrupted time. News pieces are specifically engineered to interrupt you. They are like viruses that steal attention for their own purposes. News makes us shallow thinkers. But it's worse than that. News severely affects memory. There are two types of memory. Long-range memory's capacity is nearly infinite, but working memory is limited to a certain amount of slippery data. The path from short-term to long-term memory is a choke-point in the brain, but anything you want to understand must pass through it. If this passageway is disrupted, nothing gets through. Because news disrupts concentration, it weakens comprehension. Online news has an even worse impact. In a 2001 study two scholars in Canada showed that comprehension declines as the number of hyperlinks in a document increases. Why? Because whenever a link appears, your brain has to at least make the choice not to click, which in itself is distracting. News is an intentional interruption system.
News works like a drug. As stories develop, we want to know how they continue. With hundreds of arbitrary storylines in our heads, this craving is increasingly compelling and hard to ignore. Scientists used to think that the dense connections formed among the 100 billion neurons inside our skulls were largely fixed by the time we reached adulthood. Today we know that this is not the case. Nerve cells routinely break old connections and form new ones. The more news we consume, the more we exercise the neural circuits devoted to skimming and multitasking while ignoring those used for reading deeply and thinking with profound focus. Most news consumers – even if they used to be avid book readers – have lost the ability to absorb lengthy articles or books. After four, five pages they get tired, their concentration vanishes, they become restless. It's not because they got older or their schedules became more onerous. It's because the physical structure of their brains has changed.
News wastes time. If you read the newspaper for 15 minutes each morning, then check the news for 15 minutes during lunch and 15 minutes before you go to bed, then add five minutes here and there when you're at work, then count distraction and refocusing time, you will lose at least half a day every week. Information is no longer a scarce commodity. But attention is. You are not that irresponsible with your money, reputation or health. Why give away your mind?
News makes us passive. News stories are overwhelmingly about things you cannot influence. The daily repetition of news about things we can't act upon makes us passive. It grinds us down until we adopt a worldview that is pessimistic, desensitised, sarcastic and fatalistic. The scientific term is "learned helplessness". It's a bit of a stretch, but I would not be surprised if news consumption, at least partially contributes to the widespread disease of depression.
News kills creativity. Finally, things we already know limit our creativity. This is one reason that mathematicians, novelists, composers and entrepreneurs often produce their most creative works at a young age. Their brains enjoy a wide, uninhabited space that emboldens them to come up with and pursue novel ideas. I don't know a single truly creative mind who is a news junkie – not a writer, not a composer, mathematician, physician, scientist, musician, designer, architect or painter. On the other hand, I know a bunch of viciously uncreative minds who consume news like drugs. If you want to come up with old solutions, read news. If you are looking for new solutions, don't.
Society needs journalism – but in a different way. Investigative journalism is always relevant. We need reporting that polices our institutions and uncovers truth. But important findings don't have to arrive in the form of news. Long journal articles and in-depth books are good, too.
I have now gone without news for four years, so I can see, feel and report the effects of this freedom first-hand: less disruption, less anxiety, deeper thinking, more time, more insights. It's not easy, but it's worth it.
This is an edited extract from an essay first published at dobelli.com. The Art of Thinking Clearly: Better Thinking, Better Decisions by Rolf Dobelli is published by Sceptre, £9.99. Buy it for £7.99 at guardianbookshop.co.uk
--
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in, or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise), without the prior permission of the publisher.
NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., section 107, some material is provided without permission from the copyright owner, only for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of federal copyright laws. These materials may not be distributed further, except for "fair use," without permission of the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
____________________________________
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amusing_Ourselves_to_Death
Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business (1985) is a book by educator Neil Postman. The book's origins lay in a talk Postman gave to the Frankfurt Book Fair in 1984. He was participating in a panel on George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four and the contemporary world. In the introduction to his book, Postman said that the contemporary world was better reflected by Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, whose public was oppressed by their addiction to amusement, rather than by Orwell's work, where they were oppressed by state violence.
<< public was oppressed by their addiction to amusement >>
<< oppressed by state violence. >>
What is the peekaboo world?
a peek-a-boo world, where now this event, now that, pops into view for a moment, then vanishes again. It is an improbable world. It is a world in which the idea of human progress, as Bacon expressed it, has been replaced by the idea of technological progress.
https://prezi.com/p/egoxlf6-bln8/neil-postmans-five-ideas-to-technological-change/
first idea: all technological change is a trade-off
second idea: advantages and disadvantages of new technologies are never distributed evenly among the population
third idea: embedded in every technology there is a philosophy, epistemological, political, or social prejudice
fourth idea: technological change is not Additive [to add]; it is Ecological
fifth idea: technology becomes mythic which is perceived as part of the natural order of things
https://prezi.com/p/egoxlf6-bln8/neil-postmans-five-ideas-to-technological-change/
https://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/classes/188/materials/postman.pdf
Five Things We Need to Know About Technological Change
by Neil Postman
Talk delivered in Denver Colorado
March 28, 1998
Neil Postman, speech at NewTech '98
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZKUak1fYr0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZKUak1fYr0
First Idea
----------
First, that we always pay a price for technology; the greater the technology, the greater the price.
The first idea is that all technological change is a trade-off. I like to call it a Faustian bargain. Technology giveth and technology taketh away. This means that for every advantage a new technology offers, there is always a corresponding disadvantage. The disadvantage may exceed in importance the advantage, or the advantage may well be worth the cost.
Think of the automobile, which for all of its obvious advantages, has poisoned our air, choked our cities, and degraded the beauty of our natural landscape.
Idea Number One, then, is that culture always pays a price for technology.
Second Idea
-----------
Second, that there are always winners and losers, and that the winners always try to persuade the losers that they are really winners.
This leads to the second idea, which is that the advantages and disadvantages of new technologies are never distributed evenly among the population. This means that every new technology benefits some and harms others. There are even some who are not affected at all.
Let us take as another example, television, although here I should add at once that in the case of television there are very few indeed who are not affected in one way or another. In America, where television has taken hold more deeply than anywhere else, there are many people who find it a blessing, not least those who have achieved high-paying, gratifying careers in television as executives, technicians, directors, newscasters and entertainers.
And now, of course, the winners speak constantly of the Age of Information,
always implying that the more information we have, the better we will be in solving significant problems—not only personal ones but large-scale social problems, as well. But how true is this? If there are children starving in the world—and there are—it is not because of insufficient information. We have known for a long time how to produce enough food to feed every child on the planet. How is it that we let so many of them starve? If there is violence on our streets, it is not because we have insufficient information. If women are abused, if divorce and pornography and mental illness are increasing, none of it has anything to do with insufficient information. I dare say it is because something else is missing, and I don’t think I have to tell this audience what it is. Who knows? This age of information may turn out to be a curse if we are blinded by it so that we cannot see truly where our problems lie. That is why it is always necessary for us to ask of those who speak enthusiastically of computer technology, why do you do this? What interests do you represent? To whom are you hoping to give power? From whom will you be withholding power?
I say only that since technology favors some people and harms others, these are questions that must always be asked. And so, that there are always winners and losers in technological change is the second idea.
Third Idea
----------
Third, that there is embedded in every great technology an epistemological, political or social prejudice.
Here is the third. Embedded in every technology there is a powerful idea, sometimes two or three powerful ideas. These ideas are often hidden from our view because they are of a somewhat abstract nature. But this should not be taken to mean that they do not have practical consequences.
Perhaps you are familiar with the old adage that says: To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail. We may extend that truism: To a person with a pencil, everything looks like a sentence. To a person with a TV camera, everything looks like an image. To a person with a computer, everything looks like data. I do not think we need to take these aphorisms literally. But what they call to our attention is that every technology has a prejudice. Like language itself, it predisposes us to favor and value certain perspectives and accomplishments.
The third idea, then, is that every technology has a philosophy which is given expression in how the technology makes people use their minds, in what it makes us do with our bodies, in how it codifies the world, in which of our senses it amplifies, in which of our emotional and intellectual tendencies it disregards. This idea is the sum and substance of what the great Catholic prophet, Marshall McLuhan meant when he coined the famous sentence, “The medium is the message.”
Fourth Idea
-----------
Fourth, technological change is not additive; it is ecological, which means, it changes everything and is, therefore, too important to be left entirely in the hands of Bill Gates [the current wealthy person that is in the news].
Here is the fourth idea: Technological change is not additive; it is ecological.
That is why we must be cautious about technological innovation. The consequences of technological change are always vast, often unpredictable and largely irreversible. That is also why we must be suspicious of capitalists. Capitalists are by definition not only personal risk takers but, more to the point, cultural risk takers. The most creative and daring of them hope to exploit new technologies to the fullest, and do not much care what traditions are overthrown in the process or whether or not a culture is prepared to function without such traditions. Capitalists are, in a word, radicals. In America, our most significant radicals have always been capitalists—men like Bell, Edison, Ford, Carnegie, Sarnoff, Goldwyn. These men obliterated the 19th century, and created the 20th, which is why it is a mystery to me that capitalists are thought to be conservative. Perhaps it is because they are inclined to wear dark suits and grey ties.
All they were trying to do is to make television into a vast and unsleeping money machine. That they destroyed substantive political discourse in the process does not concern them.
Fifth Idea
----------
And fifth, technology tends to become mythic; that is, perceived as part of the natural order of things, and therefore tends to control more of our lives than is good for us.
I come now to the fifth and final idea, which is that media tend to become mythic. I use this word in the sense in which it was used by the French literary critic, Roland Barthes. He used the word “myth” to refer to a common tendency to think of our technological creations as if they were God-given, as if they were a part of the natural order of things. I have on occasion asked my students if they know when the alphabet was invented. The question astonishes them. It is as if I asked them when clouds and trees were invented. The alphabet, they believe, was not something that was invented.
When a technology become mythic, it is always dangerous because it is then accepted as it is, and is therefore not easily susceptible to modification or control. If you should propose to the average American that television broadcasting should not begin until 5 PM and should cease at 11 PM, or propose that there should be no television commercials, he will think the idea ridiculous. But not because he disagrees with your cultural agenda. He will think it ridiculous because he assumes you are proposing that something in nature be changed; as if you are suggesting that the sun should rise at 10 AM instead of at 6.
What I am saying is that our enthusiasm for technology can turn into a form of idolatry and our belief in its beneficence can be a false absolute. The best way to view technology is as a strange intruder, to remember that technology is not part of God’s plan but a product of human creativity and hubris, and that its capacity for good or evil rests entirely on human awareness of what it does for us and to us.
Conclusion
----------
And so, these are my five ideas about technological change. First, that we always pay a price for technology; the greater the technology, the greater the price. Second, that there are always winners and losers, and that the winners always try to persuade the losers that they are really winners. Third, that there is embedded in every great technology an epistemological, political or social prejudice. Sometimes that bias is greatly to our advantage. Sometimes it is not. The printing press annihilated the oral tradition; telegraphy annihilated space; television has humiliated the word; the computer, perhaps, will degrade community life. And so on. Fourth, technological change is not additive; it is ecological, which means, it changes everything and is, therefore, too important to be left entirely in the hands of Bill Gates [Mark Zugerberg, ...]. And fifth, technology tends to become mythic; that is, perceived as part of the natural order of things, and therefore tends to control more of our lives than is good for us.
source:
https://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/classes/188/materials/postman.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amusing_Ourselves_to_Death
Summary
Postman distinguishes the Orwellian vision of the future, in which totalitarian governments seize individual rights, from that offered by Aldous Huxley in Brave New World, where people medicate themselves into bliss, thereby voluntarily sacrificing their rights. Drawing an analogy with the latter scenario, Postman sees television's entertainment value as a present-day "soma", the fictitious pleasure drug in Brave New World, by means of which the citizens' rights are exchanged for consumers' entertainment.
The essential premise of the book, which Postman extends to the rest of his argument(s), is that "form excludes the content", that is, a particular medium can only sustain a particular level of ideas. Thus rational argument, integral to print typography, is militated against by the medium of television for this reason. Owing to this shortcoming, politics and religion are diluted, and "news of the day" becomes a packaged commodity. Television de-emphasizes the quality of information in favor of satisfying the far-reaching needs of entertainment, by which information is encumbered and to which it is subordinate.
Postman asserts the presentation of television news is a form of entertainment programming; arguing that the inclusion of theme music, the interruption of commercials, and "talking hairdos" bear witness that televised news cannot readily be taken seriously. Postman further examines the differences between written speech, which he argues reached its prime in the early to mid-nineteenth century, and the forms of televisual communication, which rely mostly on visual images to "sell" lifestyles. He argues that, owing to this change in public discourse, politics has ceased to be about a candidate's ideas and solutions, but whether he comes across favorably on television. Television, he notes, has introduced the phrase "now this", which implies a complete absence of connection between the separate topics the phrase ostensibly connects. Larry Gonick used this phrase to conclude his Cartoon Guide to (Non)Communication, instead of the traditional "the end".
Postman refers to the inability to act upon much of the so-called information from televised sources as the information-action ratio. He contends that "television is altering the meaning of 'being informed' by creating a species of information that might properly be called disinformation—misplaced, irrelevant, fragmented or superficial information that creates the illusion of knowing something but which in fact leads one away from knowing".
Drawing on the ideas of media scholar Marshall McLuhan – altering McLuhan's aphorism "the medium is the message" to "the medium is the metaphor" – he describes how oral, literate, and televisual cultures radically differ in the processing and prioritization of information; he argues that each medium is appropriate for a different kind of knowledge. The faculties requisite for rational inquiry are simply weakened by televised viewing. Accordingly, reading, a prime example cited by Postman, exacts intense intellectual involvement, at once interactive and dialectical; whereas television only requires passive involvement.
Postman argues that commercial television has become derivative of advertising. Moreover, modern television commercials are not "a series of testable, logically ordered assertions" rationalizing consumer decisions, but "is a drama—a mythology, if you will—of handsome people" being driven to "near ecstasy by their good fortune" of possessing advertised goods or services. "The truth or falsity of an advertiser's claim is simply not an issue" because more often than not "no claims are made, except those the viewer projects onto or infers from the drama." Because commercial television is programmed according to ratings, its content is determined by commercial feasibility, not critical acumen. Television in its present state, he says, does not satisfy the conditions for honest intellectual involvement and rational argument.
He repeatedly states that the eighteenth century, the "Age of Reason", was the pinnacle for rational argument. Only in the printed word, he states, could complicated truths be rationally conveyed. Postman gives a striking example: many of the first fifteen U.S. presidents could probably have walked down the street without being recognized by the average citizen, yet all these men would have been quickly known by their written words. However, the reverse is true today. The names of presidents or even famous preachers, lawyers, and scientists call up visual images, typically television images, but few, if any, of their words come to mind. The few that do almost exclusively consist of carefully chosen soundbites. Postman mentions Ronald Reagan, and comments upon Reagan's abilities as an entertainer.
for the hardcore Reader, you can download a pdf format of the book at:
https://archive.org/download/postman-neil-amusing-ourselves-to-death_202012/Postman%20Neil%20-%20Amusing%20Ourselves%20to%20Death.pdf
source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amusing_Ourselves_to_Death
____________________________________
In a personal conversation between Bill Moyers and Joseph Campbell at Skywalker Ranch, Bill Moyers told the story ... Joseph Campbell said to him, To change the world, change the metaphor. Change the story.
____________________________________
to change the world, change the metaphor.
Bill Moyers, Joseph Campbell
“If you want to change the world, change the metaphor. Change the story.”
—— Joseph Campbell
53:22
A Conversation with Bill Moyers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJ8tlnrHVFw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJ8tlnrHVFw
https://youtu.be/MJ8tlnrHVFw?t=3069
https://youtu.be/MJ8tlnrHVFw?t=3069
Twin Cities PBS
Published on Aug 31, 2017
... ... ...
51:09 I called him at his home in Hawaii and I
51:11 said, “Joe, I didn't ask you about God.
51:13 Would you come to New York? Let's do one
51:15 more show”, so he did, but when I was
51:17 leaving, when I was leaving Skywalker
51:21 Ranch for the last time, he walked with
51:23 me out to our car, and he said, “Are you going
51:26 stay in this?”, meaning you know, I not
51:28 been certain about journalism, not been
51:31 fixed in my trajectory, “Are you going to
51:35 stay in this work?” and I said, “Yes, I think so”
51:39 and he said, “Well, good!”, he said, “If you
51:41 want to change the world, change the
51:45 metaphor. Change the story.”
https://www.artsmedicineforhopeandhealing.com/poetry-baby-blog/the-power-of-myth-by-joseph-campbell-with-bill-moyers
____________________________________
Theodore Rockwell., The rickover efffect : how one man made a difference / 1992,
p.157
As machines relieve of us the brutal, tiring, and time-consuming
labor that had been the lot of the majority of men
from time immemorial; as they enable us to universalize
affluence and leisure, we face a choice: we may take these
benefits and live the life of the idle rich of old, pursuing a
good time and not bothering about the quality of our own
life or the life of the nation. Or, we may decide to emulate
those ── and there were many ── who in the past considered
wealth and leisure a trust, to be utilized for self-improvement
and for improvement of their particular societies. The
choice is for each individual to make. Moreover, each individual,
under our form of government, has a right to speak
out publicly in favor of making better use of science and
technology than is possible under present conditions.
If those who agree with this new viewpoint became a
majority; in other words, if a consensus is reached through
public discussion of this issue, the American people may
decide to take action. The action may displease powerful
vested interest, but this is how we govern ourselves. The
status quo has no absolute sancity under our form of government.
It must constantly justify itself to the people in
whom is vested ultimate sovereignty over this nation.
H.G.R.
p.201
The wise use of technology calls for a higher order of
thinking than we have so far accord it. We have largely
left it to the management of practical men. I submit that we
now have scientific knowledge of such immensely dangerous
potential that we ought to bring a broader range of
intellectual power to bear upon its use.
I think one can make a general statement that the
practical approach to a new scientific discovery is short-range
and private, concerned with ways to put the
discovery to use in the most economical and efficient manner,
little thought being given to side effects and future
consequences. The scholarly approach ── if I may use this
term ── is long-range and public; it looks to the effects
which the use of a new discovery may have on people in
general, on the nation, perhaps on the world; present and
future ... What is important is to recognize that each
approach is necessary to illuminate the problem and help
solve it. To exclude the one or the other prevents finding a
way to reconcile technology and democracy ...
Conservation had had extremely hard sledding in this
country because we worship practical men and have little
respect for scholars. This is not an intelligent point of view
in today's world.
H.G.R.
p.278
The professional person's standing in the community
depends, in final analysis, on the public's insight of his
work, that is, on the educational level of the man in the
street. When specialized knowledge of professional people is
incomprehensible to the average man, he is apt to flounder
between frustrated suspicion and excessive awe, leading him
either to interfere unduly with professional independence or
to accept naively every claim made by anyone who calls
himself a professional. The relationship between the expert
and the public is one of the central problems of our day ...
Thus we observe a widening gap between the experts
and the public who depend for their well-being on the work
of these experts. This disturbing cleavage exists in the
humanities no less than in science. Thus most people are not
well informed in such vital matters as the languages and cultures
of the various peoples who share this earth with us;
the historic, geographic and economic background of current
events; the place of American civilization in the estimation
of the world; and the real strength of our country in the
shifting sand of power relations.
H.G.R.
(The rickover efffect : how one man made a difference / Theodore Rockwell., 1. rickover, hyman george., 2. nuclear submarines ── united states ── history., 3. admirals ── united states ── biography., 4. united states., navy──biography, V63.R54R63 1992, 359.3'2574'092--dc20, united states naval institute, Annapolis, Maryland, 1992 )
<------------------------------------------------------------------------>
the costs of two kinds of mistakes: “Hunting for trouble and making adjustments when no trouble exists, and ... failing to hunt for trouble and not taking action when trouble does exist.”
“Hunting for trouble and making adjustments when no trouble exists, and ...”
“failing to hunt for trouble and not taking action when trouble does exist.”
false
positive - “Hunting for trouble and making adjustments
when no trouble exists, and ... ”
false
negative - “failing to hunt for trouble and not taking action
when trouble does exist.”
p.16 (QMJ 94 Fall)
The technical lectures
In lecture 1, “controlled and uncontrolled variation”, Deming introduced the Shewhart statistical control chart as a tool for bringing a production process into control. He set the tone for this lecture with the opening remark, “Variability is a rule in nature. Repetitions of any procedure will produce variable results.”
Deming followed with definitions of controlled and uncontrolled variation, principally in terms of whether it is (controlled variation) or is not (uncontrolled variation) profitable to try to determine the causes. This economic definition is the same spirit as that offered in the original book of Shewhart (1931). Deming then called uncontrolled
variation a type of “trouble”, and introduced the costs of two kinds of mistakes: “Hunting for trouble and making adjustments when no trouble exists, and ... failing to hunt for trouble and not taking action when trouble does exist.” Deming offered the control chart as the most “economical solution” to this problem.
source:
what deming told the Japanese in 1950
DeminginJapanin1950.pdf
Peter J. Kolesar, Columbia university
QMJ 94 Fall
____________________________________
•── “false positives.” : The first error is overdiagnosis--when an individual tests positive in the test but does not have cancer. Such individuals are called “false positives.” Men and women who falsely test positive find themselves trapped in the punitive stigma of cancer, the familiar cycle of anxiety and terror (and the desire to “do something”) that precipitates further testing and invasive treatment., pp.291-292, Siddhartha Mukherjee, The emperor of all maladies, 2010.
• false
positive - “Hunting for trouble and making adjustments
when no trouble exists, and ... ”,
what deming told the Japanese in 1950, DeminginJapanin1950.pdf, Peter J. Kolesar, Columbia university, p.16 (QMJ 94 Fall)
- fishing expedition
•── “false negatives” : The mirror image of overdiagnosis is underdiagnosis--an error in which a patient truly has cancer but does not test positive for it. Underdiagnosis falsely reassures patients of their freedom from disease. These men and women (“false negatives” in the jargon of epidemiology) enter a different punitive cycle--of despair, shock, and betrayal--once their disease, undetected by the screening test, is eventually uncovered when it becomes symptomatic., pp.291-292, Siddhartha Mukherjee, The emperor of all maladies, 2010.
• false
negative - “failing to hunt for trouble and not taking action
when trouble does exist.”,
what deming told the Japanese in 1950, DeminginJapanin1950.pdf, Peter J. Kolesar, Columbia university, p.16 (QMJ 94 Fall)
- neglect
Siddhartha Mukherjee, The emperor of all maladies, 2010 [ ]
pp.291-292
Suppose a new test has been invented in the laboratory to detect an early, presympotamic stage of a particular form of cancer, say, the level of a protein secreted by cancer cells into the serum. The first challenge for such a test is technical: its performance in the real world. Epidemiologists think of screening tests as possessing two characteristic performance errors. The first error is overdiagnosis--when an individual tests positive in the test but does not have cancer. Such individuals are called “false positives.” Men and women who falsely test positive find themselves trapped in the punitive stigma of cancer, the familiar cycle of anxiety and terror (and the desire to “do something”) that precipitates further testing and invasive treatment.
([ see pregnancy test ])
The mirror image of overdiagnosis is underdiagnosis--an error in which a patient truly has cancer but does not test positive for it. Underdiagnosis falsely reassures patients of their freedom from disease. These men and women (“false negatives” in the jargon of epidemiology) enter a different punitive cycle--of despair, shock, and betrayal--once their disease, undetected by the screening test, is eventually uncovered when it becomes symptomatic.
The trouble is that overdiagnosis and underdiagnosis are often intrinsically conjoined, locked perpetually on two ends of a seesaw. Screening tests that strive to limit overdiagnosis--by narrowing the criteria by which patients are classified as positive--often pay the price of increasing underdiagnosis because they miss patients that lie in the gray zone between positive and negative. An example helps to illustrate this tradeoff. Suppose--to use Egan's vivid metaphor--a spider is trying to invent a perfect web to capture flies out of the air. Increasing the density of that web, she finds, certainly increases the chances of capturing junk and debris floating through the air (false positives). Making the web less dense, in contrast, decreases the chances of catching real prey, but every time something is captured, chances are higher that it is a fly. In cancer, where both overdiagnosis and underdiagnosis come at high costs, finding that exquisite balance is often impossible. We want every cancer test to operate with perfect specificity and sensitivity. But the technologies for screening are not perfect. Screening tests thus routinely fail because they cannot even cross this preliminary hurdle--the rate of over- or underdiagnosis is unacceptably high.
(The emperor of all maladies : a biography of cancer, Siddhartha Mukherjee, 2010, )
____________________________________
____________________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment