I think the problem Obama hints at (but not really explains) is very real. We're the first generation with all the world's information at our fingertips.
We could all be polymaths, we could all get sound understanding of Philosophy, Math, Physics, Chemistry, Politics and so forth... but largely, we don't.
Learning has never been easier, because you can get information in the format you want (audio, video, text, or interactive content) with a click of the mouse. You can pick between course material from dozens of universities and you can read papers written by academics all over the world. And yet, largely, we don't.
We read blog posts that have near zero information content, and the ever present discussion threads where only the least controversial and inane posts rise to the top. But why? Why do we do this, when we know that we'd get much, much more from the internet if we used it to read well written and thoughtful content instead?
Most likely it's just human nature. We're addicted to small bite-sized chunks of non-information. There are a lot of people who can read the internet all day, ever day, only to take breaks by watching TV shows and playing video games. Without ever getting bored. Day, after day, after day.
"papers written by academics all over the world" != "well written and thoughtful content"
I think the power of the internet is not access to long boring and often useless or esoteric academic papers, but rather that the internet is the most powerful reference tool ever invented. It's information on demand. Rather than get a sound understanding of Chemistry, I can just look up the occasional chemical compound I am concerned with at the moment. Similarly, I can review individual historic topics at will, and math equations, and search large text volumes for Philosophical gems. Information a-la-cart is power, freedom, and leisure all rolled into one.
There are more well-written and thoughtful academic papers available online than any person will ever make it through in a lifetime. The fact that many (or even most) don't rise to that distinction is irrelevant to the basic point.
It's a rare person who can "look up the occasional chemical compound" to any effective end who hasn't already immersed themselves in the subject of chemistry to know why they are doing so and what the information they're getting back actually means. Information-at-will is unbelievably powerful and amazing, but it's not a substitute for in-depth study.
Actually, it is relevant to the basic point. If I could reliably look up well-written and interesting content on the Internet, that would be wonderful. But most of it is lost in a morass of crap. There's probably some level of "Human nature just doesn't incline us toward useful learning," but I think there's also just basic risk aversion: If I read a blog or forum, the information content might be low, but at least I have a good idea what I'm getting. I have no trouble finding an amusing and semi-informative blog, but finding a chemistry text that is useful to me is actually much harder, even though I'm sure there's probably more than one on this giant Web.
How do you find blogs you like to read? Google only gets you so far, so you come to places like HN. You still have to know where to look in order to wade through the masses of crap. "Low signal" is just a fundamental characteristic of the web at this point.
It makes me think of going to the supermarket where there are 80 different breakfast cereals. Some of them might be healthy for me; I need to figure out which they are. Tedious but doable.
Except in the Internet cereal aisle there are 80 thousand different breakfast cereals, unreliably organized. Yes, the healthy stuff is in there, but finding it is a whole other issue. Now I have to rely on a curator, and I need to know how best to find and pick one, which is a different sort of problem.
You're absolutely right. Those were the two flaws in my statements. But, my main point (however poorly stated) is that the internet should be viewed as a successful reference tool and not a failed enlightenment or educational tool.
While I admit Obama has some points, the discussion is far too complex to address in a presidential speech and I don't think he struck the proper tone. A man with one watch knows the time; a man with two watches is never quite sure. His speech is a failure, because I think it was the effects of having so much information -- as the quote above mentions -- that he wanted to convey rather than the fact that we have this information in the first place. Presidential speeches are all about take-aways, and this was a miserable failure. The take-aways were "Xboxes, iPads, and technology are diversions" which I'm pretty sure was not his intention.
We live in a world where the uneducated and uninformed speak in terms of certainty and absolutes. Liberals have long believed that if only you can debate and reason with your counterparts, you can sway them to your side. Conservatives figured out that this wasn't how human nature worked and I think the Republicans were particularly good throughout the mid 90s and this past decade, at providing a more reassuring world view that is black and white. The more educated we get, the more uncertain we can be about our opinions. I think Obama wanted to point out that the educated might lose control of political power. There is a very real possibility of a reality similar to that of Idiocracy taking hold, and I think Obama wanted to challenge his audience to ward this off. In order to do this, they'll have to learn how to speak to people and be masters of the human psyche. So it's kind of ironic that Obama failed so miserably at delivering his message. I'm sure he's kicking himself because the whole debate is now being framed around "is technology good or bad?".
This happens often in Obama's speeches. If you watch them whole they're insightful, well thought out, and very meaningful. However, both the visual and printed press have no patience to actually deliver the full content, but rather will always take a soundbite, or quote out of context, thus leaving the rest of the speech meaningless. It's unfortunate that the majority of Americans don't actually read or watch the speeches in whole.
Personally, I think this is part of what he was getting at.
It may have been unwise of Obama to give a speech that would lend itself to misinterpretation. Many people mentally shut down the moment they hear something they might disagree with. So to be effective you have to wrap every statement in as much flowery language as you can or you won't get through to people. Even here on HN where most people are intellectually curious and highly educated you still have to pick your words very carefully or you'll get attacked from a dozen different angles about claims you never made and which are not even fundamental to the argument you're making. This mistake we all make time and time again before it truly sinks in that everything you say will be misinterpreted, ripped out of context and used against you.
Now... if only Obama had a blog then he would never have made that remark. The irony indeed.
Yeah, when is Obama going to realize that actions or theatrics will be a much more effective means of communicating his points than long thoughtful speeches? All he had to do, was wait for the opportunity to drop the bomb, preferably in a short sentence that leaves people jaws dropping, that he doesn't spend a bunch of time on games and media diversions, and (gasp!) he thinks they make people stupid.
It wasn't a speech about technology, it was an offhand comment during a speech to students at Hampton University, which the Economist then chose to center an article around.
The comment itself had a kernel of truth but if you expand it to a 4-graf article then yes it turns out not to do the situation full justice. Stop the presses :)
" We're the first generation with all the world's information at our fingertips."
We're a long way from "all the world's information" being available.
What we have is a seemingly endless stream of information, but it is neither complete nor well-vetted.
You spend considerable time wading through or past useless junk, ideally filter for the good stuff, but perhaps not knowing what's missing or what's really accurate.
They said exactly the same thing after the printing press created the world's first generation with all the world's information at their fingertips. Somehow we'll manage to survive this onslaught of access to information as well.
Yes, we have unpreceduented access to information. But that just makes clear the real bottleneck to true learning is not lack of information, but lack of INTEREST.
True progress in any field is made by the tiny group of people with burning passion in that field, clustered together and sharing ideas.
Technology exposes us to more fields and connects us to more people than we would have been able to reach. That is its true value. Information by itself is worse than useless.
Why didn't he mention TV when saying "information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment"?
Oh wait, he mentioned all media in the actual, in context quote:
And meanwhile, you're coming of age in a 24/7 media
environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and
exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don't
always rank that high on the truth meter. And with iPods and
iPads; and Xboxes and PlayStations -- none of which I know
how to work -- (laughter) -- information becomes a
distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather
than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of
emancipation. So all of this is not only putting pressure on
you; it's putting new pressure on our country and on our
democracy.
Way to go Economist for taking his quote out of context.
Obama didn't even use the word "technology". How do you go from "gadgets" to "technology"? Actually, if you're The Economist, the same way you write most articles about things whose ideology and political affiliations don't agree with yours.
This is why I particularly dislike The Economist. They are shrewd. Fox News (or, say, The Guardian) poisons the minds of idiots; The Economist poisons my own unless I am extra careful.
Socrates...feared that relying on written texts, rather than the oral tradition, would “create forgetfulness in the learners’ souls…they will trust to the external written characters and not remember of themselves.”
Yeah, the Economist is good for foreign reporting and business reporting but since Obama's been elected they've been so clearly biased and/or recycling silly 30-year-old Washington conventional wisdom that I actually didn't renew my subscription.
Actually, The Economist is particularly bad for foreign reporting, because it is here that their fairly intelligent readers are most willing to trust them. Almost all other Anglophone news outlets don't even make a pretense of providing serious foreign reporting, which gives The Economist a sort of monopoly. Also, BS is harder to recognize when it has no implications for you or anyone you know.
True, good points. In a lot of their foreign reporting you do see 2 sides to the story and it's less connected to any general ideological principles that the economist would be concerned with, so I guess I'm generally more impressed with it than the american/british/euro reporting. European stuff I just assume that they're biased and I don't know enough about the situation to pick up on it so I skim it and try not to draw conclusions.
I'm not sure they are taking it out of context. According to your quote, it sounds like he is grumbling about new forms of communication: the "24/7 media environment". That's exactly how the economist described it.
(Note: I only read your quote, not the full speech. Please correct me if the full speech elaborates.)
Also, the economist does observe that he dislikes some low tech media. Not TV, but radio: "...with his grumbling about the crazy theories circulated by the combination of blogs and talk radio."
The quote is clearly a complaint about the quality/truthfulness of various media sources in an environment where the listener gets total freedom to choose their media.
It's a warning to students that with more information comes more responsibility to be skeptical. This has been a theme of a lot of Obama's speeches and it's clearly something that's important to him as a former professor.
Now you can get all victimized and complain about how he's singling out talk radio for criticism -- but before you do that, I'd like you to wholeheartedly endorse/defend the content of said talk radio hosts. You know, the ones who continually talk about Obama's birth certificate or draw ridiculous blackboard conspiracy theories based on word association between various boogeymen ("liberals", immigrants, black helicopter plans for global government).. Obama's not saying they should be muzzled or have their right to speech taken away, he's saying they're full of shit.
JGC criticizes the economist for implying Obama was opposed only to particularly new media (ipads, etc), and not also mentioning TV. I pointed out that they mentioned he also opposes some traditional forms of media (talk radio).
The economist said he joined "a long tradition of grumbling about new technologies and new forms of media", not that he wanted to censor anyone. I pointed out that the quote JGC provides suggests the economist is correct: Obama is criticizing a new information delivery system, the "24/7 media environment". No one besides you mentioned censorship.
He's not criticizing any particular information delivery system, he's pointing out that in a 24/7 media environment and given a number of actors who are wholeheartedly committed to ignoring the truth in pursuit of preconceived agendas, students and individuals have a responsibility to filter and not believe everything they hear/read.
That's what the quote seemed like it was saying to me.
It's hardly a dog whistle reference. Everyone knows there are hardly any left-wing talk shows on the radio. It's too obvious to be a "dog-whistle reference".
I always thought dog-whistle references were more subtle, like anti-Semitic people denouncing "Zionists", or making oblique Biblical references most religious people wouldn't understand.
Oh please. If anything, he's shown to be quite well equipped to debate a reasonable opponent, and therefore has no reason to complain about said opponent "getting a voice".
Some of the 'talk radio' conservative pundits are more like cult leaders than talk show hosts. (i.e. they do not hold, nor inspire rationality in their followers/faithful)
Obama wasn't ranting against technology. He was making a nuanced argument about our new information society, and being prescriptive about how we should interact with the Internet.
To roughly paraphrase what Obama said, quit dicking around on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, etc. and look for good articles. You also might think about writing some, or even reading a good book. That's not in any way technophobic. He was just doing what any public figure should do at a commencement address, which is tell the graduates to use their education to lead meaningful and productive lives.
He didn't say never dick around with twitter, etc. In the context of this quote, he's saying that for many people, it's gotten to the point where the dicking around has become a constant distraction from anything more real (or good).
“WITH iPods and iPads and Xboxes and PlayStations—none of which I know how to work—information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment.”
Anyone got a pointer to the context of this quote? This piece relies heavily on it and it reads to me like it may well be innocuous.
Obama argues that when you're drinking from the information firehose you may lose track of more important things. A completely obvious and very dangerous trend.
His real problem is that the media is no longer centrally controlled.
And meanwhile, you're coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don't always rank that high on the truth meter.
"Some" of which don't. And "some" of which do, which is the real problem. The fact that he is objecting to "all kinds of arguments" whatever their content might be, is a giveaway.
information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment
Well, if you're old enough to remember when there were 3 channels and 1 local paper, you know that "information", such as it was, was a sedative at best. Sit in front of the TV, believe every sugary bit of crap on the 11 o clock news, go to bed. Nobody, and I mean nobody, was ever "empowered" by the media configuration as it existed through the 20th century. But for a centralized government, it was ideal--very empowering.
"His real problem is that the media is no longer centrally controlled."
No longer centrally controlled? You know we are down to 5 distributors that control an overwhelming amount of the music and films that we listen to or watch. Add the fact that Comcast just bought NBC Universal and you can assume the media is more concentrated by a few more than ever. But as long as we have 1000 blogs carrying the exact same message than it doesn't appear that way.
Which is worse 10 independent newspapers or 1000 blogs, financed and controlled by 10 people.
It is a small part of a larger point, but the speech writer had to know it was a provocative, quotable line. I have some problems with this line that I mentioned in the other thread: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1345882
You should be downvoted for the horrendeous crime you just commited; but instead I upvoted and managed to avoid going to that site. I'm either growing up or growing old.
Not everyone who criticizes technology is a luddite. There are some valid criticisms of technology as a waste of time and a diversion. This article doesn't give enough context to the quote before diving in and passing judgment on Obama.
> Not everyone who criticizes technology is a luddite.
I think that issue is denouncing something, while at the same time admitting that you know nothing about it. It makes you sound as if you are just resistant to change because it's different and new. Granted, the Obama quote is taken out of context, but leaving the quote out of context, this is the issue that people are arguing over. Not necessarily that any criticism of technology makes someone a Luddite.
Yeah, this feels like a subject that needs a few pages, even for a short, journalistic take on the subject, and this article treats it pretty flippantly in half a page, which doesn't add a whole lot to the debate.
(And I even like The Economist; it's the only dead-tree periodical I subscribe to.)
Exactly. I for one, and probably many others on this site, hate social networking. I really believe it dumbs down human interaction and that the South Park episode on it really summed up the issue. However, I do write code for a living so I am far from a luddite.
Social networks are not completely useless - Twitter, Facebook (and here in Brazil, Orkut) are useful tools to find old friends you lost contact with or to start conversations and point to interesting things you find. I get many tips from the hacker news popular feed.
But I really, really don't care for the farms people manage, the hearts people get and so on. I don't need a second job managing a farm.
I do think that Twitter is useful for self branding. Especially if you are famous. For me though, friends are old friends for a reason. If I still want to talk to someone I have their contact information.
I find the fact the writer focused on the wrong thing - the devices being denounced as bad - and miss the message - that important information is drowning in a sea of distracting, enjoyable trivia - telling.
I too worry for this Facebook generation. I would be happier if they spent their time becoming smarter. We will need lots of smart people in the future.
If I have an interesting conversation with a friend, and we're discussing something, I will remember it pretty well.
If I am listening to a professor read through a lecture, with little to no interaction from the students, I am not as likely to remember it as if I had read it from a book.
I have often found that most college lectures have a hard time with distance learning. There normal lecture style translates very badly on a TV screen and people tend to fall asleep in front of a boring TV. The best distance learning teachers I have found come from a community college background. They tend to have to be more interesting to their students and know how to work an audience.
It's more than that. Writing naturally invests itself with great authority. It tends to override ones own judgement, reason, experience, and sensibilities. This is what Socrates was referring to.
Thus the skilled reader learns to question authority, as a necessary defense.
It's a good thing that the Library of Alexandria
was destroyed, because now all of that information
was handed down the *right* way, through oral
tradition...
We could all be polymaths, we could all get sound understanding of Philosophy, Math, Physics, Chemistry, Politics and so forth... but largely, we don't.
Learning has never been easier, because you can get information in the format you want (audio, video, text, or interactive content) with a click of the mouse. You can pick between course material from dozens of universities and you can read papers written by academics all over the world. And yet, largely, we don't.
We read blog posts that have near zero information content, and the ever present discussion threads where only the least controversial and inane posts rise to the top. But why? Why do we do this, when we know that we'd get much, much more from the internet if we used it to read well written and thoughtful content instead?
Most likely it's just human nature. We're addicted to small bite-sized chunks of non-information. There are a lot of people who can read the internet all day, ever day, only to take breaks by watching TV shows and playing video games. Without ever getting bored. Day, after day, after day.