Twitter (X Account Deactivated)

As of today I have deactivated my Twitter account. I joined Twitter in 2008. I want not part of the Elon Musk show and his nonsense. Twitter is dead.

Social Media (and the Internet) Makes People Stupid

It is true. Social media, and the Internet, makes people stupid. The entire Internet is responsible for lowering the IQ of the population of the world . Perhaps, we can even blame low student achievement on these technological mind-killers.

It really didn't have to be this way. In those early days, when the Internet was filled with free content and business had not discovered a means to economically exploit its use, the Web had promise. The same was true for social media sites like Facebook and Twitter ( or X, or whatever name Musk has decided to provide his own personal domain of verbal garbage). These technologies provided opportunities for connecting with others and forming communities of people otherwise impossible due to factors such as distance and divisions within society. The Web provided the easy access and means to obtain information from reputable sources that had true value. Then, the "moneychangers" took over the temple of technology and it has never been the same.

Today, too many people believe the blather they read and view on the Internet and social media. Social media companies, with their algorithms of addiction will feed users with amounts of bull-splatt and provide them a "custom-fit" bubble of information so that they never, ever encounter an idea or even a thought that runs counter to their chosen views of the world.

Then there's idea...the memes on the Web that are spreading. No one seems to question the value of what's trending or even if the hype aroused about these ideas are worthy of our attention. Instead of empowering people to be informed, the Internet and social media empower people to be stupid and accept at face value what everybody is sharing.

So, what's the answer? Regulation? No, the Internet and social media has become a cesspool of misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation. These technologies are hopelessly fouled up in excrement. Even Linked-In, which likes to pretend to be above the stench with talk of business, industry and marketing, has its own odoriforousness. As a technology, it has its algorithms that hype and promote as well. What gets promoted is not what is necessarily worthy of that promotion, but simply dependent upon the skills of individuals who know how to game the algorithms to get the attention. All is lost in all of social media and the web because what gets elevated is not what is worthy of attention, but what can be manipulated to go viral.

Where does this condition of loss leave us? It leaves us with a technological media channel on par with tabloid technologies such as The Weekly World News and the National Enquirer where nonsense and half-truths get promoted as worthy of attention simply because it is sensational. To counter this we need to educate students and our communities on all these issues with the web and social media. We need to quit allowing Silicone Valley, Tech Marketers and even our own educational technologists and other tech evangelists from spreading the myth that somehow these technologies are going to save us. They are not. Instead, we need to stop them from making people stupid. We can do that by simply educating people on how these technologies work and instill within them the good, old fashion practice of verifying and being skeptical of what you read, even if it is from your best friend. Be skeptical; question it, before believing and sharing it.

Sadly, I do not think the Stupid Machine created by these technologies is going to change. There is simply too many careers and too much money to be made. These tools are the perfect marketing tools for spreading anything, even if that is nonsense. But, we need to remember that we do control the spigot of information. We can turn it off on demand. If Facebook, Youtube or even Linked-In serves up a nice plate of baloney we can toss it. We can either choose to not to participate in the blather-spreading exercises or short-circuit it by refusing to be a part of stupid. We can even engage in resistance tactics like refusing to participate or sharing or even calling out these companies for their insidious part of spreading stupidity.

None of these technologies make people stupid against their will. It requires participation. Refusing to participate or even playing by social media or web rules goes a long way in resisting the lowering of our IQs and others. 

Here We Go Again! The Educational Hype and Promise of Generative AI in Education is a Re-Run I've Seen Before

 "Across the sciences and society, in politics and education, in warfare and commerce, new technologies do not merely augment our abilities, but actively shape and direct them, for better or worse. It is increasingly necessary to be able to think of new technologies in different ways, and to be critical of them, in order to meaningfully participate in that shaping and directing." p. 2 New Dark Age: Technology and the End of the Future, James Bridle

Educators are jumping on the next-best-thing...Generative Artificial Intelligence, or AI. The workshops, PD offerings, conferences, and key notes abound everywhere you look. There is money to be made and careers to be made on this latest "Silicon Valley Miracle." But how could educators be duped again by the marketing and hype about this latest technological offering by the whiz-kid computer entrepreneurs from the West Coast? 

Did we, and have we not learned anything about the failure of such technologies and their promises, such as social media's promise to connect us and make us one unified, world community? Did we not just experience the massive remote learning flop that shows us that education is really about teachers and students connecting, in person? Now, educators everywhere are all ga-ga over Generative AI, singing its praises and indoctrinating their whole communities about its"unquestionable promise." What educators need to be doing is utilizing their intellect and asking critical questions about this new gadget, instead of blindly accepting it in awe.

Bridle was on to something when he pointed out that "New Technologies" do not just "augment our abilities" they "actively shape and direct them, for better or worse." This was true of social media specifically and the web generally. Technology has not just augmented our abilities to teach and learn; it has shaped how we do these things "for better or worse" and sometimes mostly "worse." Social media has divided us more than ever and also has made it easier for students to bully and be bullied. It negatively affects the mental health of our youth as well, so it has not just augmented our abilities to connect; it has shaped and directed who we connect with, how we connect with them, and not connect as well. 

Generative AI is absolutely no different. In spite of the AI evangelists who stand to gain much through its promotion, this technology will also shape us, as well as shape and direct how we do things too, for better or worse. But let's not just focus on "the better." Let's take a breather and focus on the potential worse things this technology is already doing and also explore carefully the unintended consequences that widespread adoption might bring. Don't just accept the "hyped-up" rhetoric about how "you are going to be left behind if you don't adopt." I've heard that tune before, it is stale. Take time. Think and be critical. Ask tough questions.

If we are going to be sane about Generative AI, we have to be critical of it. We need to do that so that we can participate in "shaping and directing" it as Bridle points out. We can sanely use technological tools without the evangelical hype spouted by both these companies and other educators and educational leaders who see this as a means to promote their own careers. You can call this thinking the thinking of Luddite if you wish, but this "Silicon-Valley Promise Story" is starting to sound like a rerun.

Do Our Educational Institutions Really Value and Want Originality? Not Really. Conformity Is More Desirable

 "Originality is dangerous. It challenges, questions, overturns assumptions, unsettles moral codes, disrespects sacred cows or other such entities. It can be shocking, or ugly, or, to use the catchall term so beloved of the tabloid press, controversial. And if we believe in liberty, if we want the air we breathe to remain plentiful and breathable, this is the art whose right to exist we must not only defend by celebrate. Art is not entertainment. At its very best, it's a revolution." p. 229, Salman Rushdie, Languages of Truth: Essays 2003-2020

Schools, whether K-12 or university, don't care for "originality"; they prefer status quo, the standard, and the way we've always done things. Originality isn't valued much, especially in many university colleges of education where the goal is often to satisfy the accreditation and simply "credential" teachers, principals, and other educational graduates. K-12 schools are no better and value conformity and "wake-free thought zones" where students just follow the rules, do the work, and get their credentials. In both these educational places, "originality is considered to be dangerous" because "original" by definition is outside the box and nonconforming.

Conventional education at all levels sees the dangers of originality and either ignores it or even tries to stifle it. This is because, as Rushdie points out, "originality challenges, questions, overturns assumptions, unsettles moral codes, and disrespects the sacred cows" of conformity. Schools want none of this. The entire educational institution at all levels wants its expert authority and assumptions unchallenged and unquestioned.

This might also be the reason schools have devalued art in the curriculum and it is still often seen as an "add-on" and expendable.  Schools devalue art in favor of STEM subjects, and when budgets are to be cut, orchestration or visual art is placed on the chopping block. Maybe this is really because our society values these subjects more. It certainly seems to reward them more at the career-level. But part of me in my 30-plus years as an educator says that art is devalued because it is "a revolution" as Rushdie says. It fosters originality and even an unwillingness to conform to convention. It has the potential to overturn the possibility of conformity. It can disturb the smooth surface of assumptions and even the peace when some of the most original, creative students don't try to entertain the PTO or community with their artwork; but attempt to "challenge, question, overturn, unsettle, and disturb" the world.

It's really impossible to have it both ways. If schools really want to value originality and innovation, then you have to accept its dangerous nature. And if we want and value originality, then we must make art indispensable and unquestionably part of schooling. But beware, it does have revolutionary potential.

Developing a Thoreauvian Skepticism to Blind Trust in Technological Solutions

 "The terrible lethality of machinery is one problem; the more banal daily drain of technology is another. A faceless and amoral machine comes to us as incessant robocalls, spam emails, algorithmically optimized ads, brainless 'customer service' chatbots, automatic fees, and leaks of private records." p. 67, John Kaag & Jonathan Van Belle, Henry at Work: Thoreau on Making a Living

Thoreau in Walden, made clear repeatedly that our "inventions" or technologies do not always represent a better means for carrying out a task. Today, the technology industry's marketing departments have worked overtime to convince us that their products are a "must-have" and that they always provide a "better way of doing things." But is that always true? Who really desires to be accosted by the "faceless and amoral machine" that replaces a friendly voice or a smile?

This particular technology problem is clearly illustrated by my own recent visit to a local car dealership for a scheduled service call. I'll admit up front that I liked the ability to make the service appointment through their app. It was easy. I simply selected a date and time and submitted it. There was no need to call the dealership, navigate through automated menus until I spoke to a living person. This "Say 'Customer Service' or "Press 1" process is undoubtedly the most miserable electronic process one can experience when trying to speak with a company representative. It might be efficient, but it makes the customer miserable.

On the day of my service appointment, I arrived, got checked in and my car was taken back to the garage. I settled in the waiting area and sat reading a book, waiting until the service was done. As is my habit, I set my phone down beside me. I do not have any beeping and chirping notifications turned on because I loathe that constant intrusion into my solitude. I also do not, purposefully, constantly check to see if I have notifications, messages, texts, etc. I check those when I decide to check them. 

Later, the service rep walked out into the lobby and informed me that my car was ready. I followed her back the garage, and checked out. I left the dealership and went to a local bookstore and browsed for a while. While in the bookstore, I checked my phone, and I saw a text message from the dealership. I opened that message, and the service department I had just left, had sent me a text message with suggested service items WHILE I SAT IN THEIR WAITING AREA. In other words, instead of briefing me on these suggested service items when I was there in person, they texted them to me. Why not walk into your own waiting area and speak to me directly? Ultimately, the dealership lost out on additional revenue because I would have chosen to have those additional service items done. This was entirely due to the reliance on technology being a better means to deliver these service recommendations to the customer.

As long as we continue to rely on technology because it is more convenient or efficient without considering the human element in our social transactions, we are always in danger of losing in the end. The dealership in this instance lost additional sales. Technology does not always offer the best solutions.

Schools Need to Be Cautious of Business Leaders Telling Us What Kind of Graduates Educational Institutions Should Provide

 "...it was in the 1990s that shop class started to become a thing of the past, as educators prepared students to become 'knowledge workers.'" Matthew B. Crawford, Shop Class as Soulcraft: An Inquiry into the Value of Work

The education system has taken on the role of distributing people in the niches needed by business and industry. When business calls for "knowledge workers," the education system reacts and cuts funding of some programs and distributes students into the chosen learning niches of business and industry. 

The problem with the education system reacting in this manner, is that students are placed in educational niches that might be short-lived due to business and industry's concerns with short-term profits and benefits. For example, when business and industry does not have the long-term interests of their workers in mind, they move entire production lines overseas or to lay workers off for the sake of short-term stock benefit or profit. In these cases, educational institutions have done a great disservice in placing students in deadend careers and jobs. These institutions should have an even greater vision that reaches beyond the horizon of the short-term advantages sought by these companies.

Education systems that purely have their students' interests in mind will look with a skeptical eye towards the kinds of workers called for from the private sector. It does not mean that the system ignores them entirely, but educators need to remember that the way business ideology is currently constructed in the United States especially, is more libertarian and tilted toward the idea that what is best for them is what is best for everybody. A quick glance at history immediately dispels this illusion. Maybe instead of shoving students into the STEM niche, we need a broader consideration of their potentials and interests. Niche-learning limits possibilities rather than increases them despite what the pro-business and STEM evangelists would have us believe. 

Schools do not need to dismantle "shop classes" nor the school orchestra or any other school programs on the advice of any business leader. They are interested in the short term: educators must be concerned with lifetimes. Educational institutions have a moral obligation to be critical and skeptical when business and industry starts dictating what kinds of graduates we should be providing. Their short-term perspective benefits them. Schools morally have to take the long-term perspective and prepare students for lives well-beyond what the immediate demands.

When Crawford pointed out the demise of shop classes in the 1990s he captured how schools often react to short-term business interests instead of advocating for the lifetime possibilities of students. Schools have a moral responsibility to students not to business or industry.

Leadership Experts and Consultants Everywhere and How to Avoid Being Scammed By Them

 "Want to be an expert on leadership? You could get training and exposure to the relevant research literature, but it's not necessary. If you are persuasive enough, articulate enough, or attractive enough, if your have an interesting enough, uplifting story of some combination of these traits, you are or can be a very successful leadership blogger, speaker, and consultant--whether or not you have ever read, let alone contributed to, any of the relevant social science on the topic." p. ix, Jeffrey PFeffer, Leadership BS: Fixing Workplaces and Careers One Truth at a Time

One thing that is more commonly found than a qualified teacher is a leadership consultant or expert. My own work inbox explodes every day with emails from some expert offering to make me and the other administrators in my organization the greatest leaders in our field. They advertise all manner of "keynotes" who have cracked the code of leadership excellence, and by just hearing their words, I will find my own leadership transformed they promise. But has anyone every really seen any data and evidence presented that shows that attending their conference delivers as promised? Probably not, if you set aside their anecdotal evidence.

Today, in the education field, if you want to be a "leadership expert" you really don't have to know a thing about leadership. If you are convincing, articulate, and looks help, you can open that leadership consulting business and make more money and be your own boss. It helps to also have a litany of inspiring stories, humor, and some overall "operational leadership model scheme" and you are on your way as a leadership guru.

But Pfeffer also points out in his book Leadership BS that "the leadership industry...has its quacks and sham artists who sell promises and stories, some true, some not, but all of them inspirational and comfortable" (p. x, Pfeffer, 2015). What is worse, there is very little "follow-up" research to see what really works and what doesn't.

I propose that the next time one of these leadership consultants sends you an email, send them one back stating: "I tell you what, I will listen to your sales pitch IF you can send me independently verified data and evidence (no anecdotal stories permitted) of how successful your services are. Or, if they dare call you, stop them mid-sales pitch and ask them if they have independently verified, supportive data (again not anecdotal stories or references). I have done this, and nothing makes these peddlers of leadership coaching services clam up faster when you ask. Most of them have not really taken the time to independently study the leadership wares they're selling.

What if we as educational leaders were able to establish our own version of the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) whose task would be to test and analyze the claims of these leadership gurus and determine whether they really do produce the results claimed? Of course that is a dream unlikely to happen, but it be a means to dispense with much of the leadership consultant quackery.

The bottom line is that it is our role to be critical. I am not dazzled by individuals who brag about how many TED Talks they've done; how many books they've published; or even jobs they've once held. That is not evidence of efficacy of their consultant product. In the end, ask tough questions before you spend anything on these leadership products. Demand data and evidence and question their "success stories." If their consultancy can't stand the critical scrutiny, then spend your money wisely elsewhere.