You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Technology’ tag.
Let’s file this under common sense facts we should all know.
- Cellphones are connected to social media one of the greatest detractors from long term attention span and focus.
- Children are not particularly good at self regulation and control
- Thus, we should enforce standards of conduct around the use of cell phones at school to encourage responsible use of said technology.
“When British Columbia school counsellor Tulani Pierce started noticing mental health trouble in some of her students last year, she said it gave her an idea: ban cellphones in the classroom.
They were distracted and they had a hard time putting their phones away, she said.
It’s been five months since students at Chatelech Secondary School on B.C.’s Sunshine Coast have been banned from using their cellphones without permission, and Pierce said they’ve seen promising results.
“We are seeing improved mental health, we’re seeing decreased bullying, we’re seeing more engagement in class, we’re seeing more social interaction, kids are playing again instead of being on their phones and we’re seeing increased academic success.”
Duh? Does it take a degree in counseling to connect the notions that distraction devices, erm… cause distraction?
“She said when the students were first told about the ban, some were angry and upset, while others “were extremely relieved.”
“We care about our kids that much and the reason why we did this was because of the mental health, academic achievement and equity issues,” she said, adding that not all families can afford cellphones for their children.
Robert Schumann, a physical education teacher at the school, said he has watched the gradual rise of cellphone use in schools for over two decades, and the ban is a turnaround for students.
They are joking around and actually engaging in classes, Schumann said, and he attributes the transformation to the school’s no-cellphone policy.”
Not being hyper-focused on the online world results in more real world interaction. This is ground breaking.
“However, former Vancouver School Board chair Patti Bacchus disagrees with a ban, saying it’s a “1960s solution to a 2023 problem.”
The education commentator said she has no doubt that cellphones could be a distraction in class, but over her last 10 years working in many schools, she doesn’t see phones as a big problem.
“I would not want to be a teacher tasked with enforcing this and constantly having to police somebody who brought their phone to school,” Bacchus said.
Students have lives going on outside of the class, such as taking care of siblings or doing part-time jobs and they may need phones to manage these tasks, she said.”
Students need to focus on learning while in the classroom. Teachers of even middling ability should be able to set up an environment that facilitates this basic requirement.
Students since 1960 and before have been able to function without being tethered to the digital world. Students will be fine.
“Bacchus said people also need to accept the fact that phones are ubiquitous components of modern life, and the technology is not going away.
Instead, she said teachers should perhaps take the opportunity to talk about addiction, list the pros and cons of using phones and leave it up to students to decide.”
Ubiquitous does not mean necessary. And again students are stupid and ignorant and will make self serving decisions not in their best interests. That’s why we have adults and not other students teaching them.
“Learn about it from that perspective, use it as an educational opportunity as opposed to, let’s just make rules and hide from it because that is not education,” Bacchus said.
Pierce said her goal is to see students across Canada taking a break from their phones in school rather than constantly checking social media notifications and responding to texts.”
Having rules, standards, and expectations is how effective education actually works. Making rules addresses problems/situations in the classroom and sets the stage for children to learn in a environment that is conducive to learning.
Pierce’s goals and methods are not coherent. I’m not seeing the path between “leaving it up for the students to decide” to “students [voluntarily] taking a break from their phones”. If you can see the way please let me know in the comments.
Cell phones are great, just not great in all contexts.
:)
A deliciously wriggling can of worms this topic is. I lean toward the answer being yes, but having rights in our society isn’t a guarantee of justice or fairness. I would hope that by the time sentient AI becomes a thing, we have our own house in order so we can be a good example to our AI children.
On the level folks, I do use a cellphone – a smart phone even. But I’m not sure I like it. I most certainly enjoy the GPS that comes with it, as finding those schools tucked away in suburban hell can be very tricky, even at the best of times. But, past the land navigation benefits, I’m not too sure.
Owning a mobile phone is not helping me in my struggle to continue to read widely and with depth in the topics I am interested in. The false novelty of the facebook feed is much to easy an out, versus intellectually girding oneself for tackling that next book on feminist theory or the ravages of American imperialism. I read a great deal in my 20’s and have the bookshelves to prove it, but now reading seems on a path that is further and harder away to reach. I remember my voracious reading days and wonder where that zeal went, and how to restoke that desire for knowledge and perspective of the world.
Facebook is open in the other tab, even as I write this post, offering its usual semi-catered beguilement for my consumption. It is truly the ‘ghost feast’ we read about in fairy tales – where you can eat and eat and eat and yet slowly starve to death because the scrumptious food being consumed is a insubstantial, desultory facade.
Much of what Dr.Reed says resonates with me, and I thought I’d share a part of his essay here.
“The decisive reason, however, for me to refuse a cellphone is the opposite of everyone else’s reason for having one: I do not want the omnipresent ability to communicate with anyone who is absent. Cellphones put their users constantly on call, constantly available, and as much as that can be liberating or convenient, it can also be an overwhelming burden. The burden comes in the form of feeling an obligation to individuals and events that are physically elsewhere. Anyone who has checked their phone during a face-to-face conversation understands the temptation. And anyone who has been talking to someone who has checked their phone understands what is wrong with it.
Communicating with someone who is not physically present is alienating, forcing the mind to separate from the body. We see this, for example, in the well-known and ubiquitous dangers of texting while driving, but also in more mundane experiences: friends or lovers ignoring each other’s presence in favour of their Facebook feeds; people broadcasting their entertainment, their meals, and their passing thoughts to all who will bear witness; parents capturing their daughter’s ballet performance on their phones rather than watching it live; people walking down the street talking animatedly to themselves who turn out to be apparently healthy people using their Bluetooth.
The cellphone intrudes into the public and private realms, preventing holistic engagement with what is around us. Smartphones only perfect their predecessors’ ability to intrude.
The disembodying and intrusive effects of cellphones have significant implications for our relationships to the self and to others. Truly knowing and understanding others requires patience, risk, empathy, and affection, all of which are inhibited by cell phones. Cellphones also inhibit solitude, self-reflection, and rumination (formerly known as ‘waiting’ and ‘boredom’), which I think are essential for living a good life.”
The dour feminist in me would like to point out that women are still struggling toward full autonomy in society after some 2000 years of ‘civilization’ ( :/ ), but the hot topic of self driving vehicles has crossed my desk and merits a comment or two with regards to society.
A healthy dose of skepticism is always in order when it comes to vaunted new technology promoted by the tech industry. Because they, like other features of capitalist society, value profit over anything else, the tech industry will often jazz up, embellish, and often outright fabricate their claims to make their product seem like the next “must have” consumer item in society (consider the recent crapple failphone X – now with *twice* the screens to break).
Skepticism in place, we do need to realize that sometimes the technological advance is real and will have serious effects in society. Consider the case of the elevator operators in the 1940’s. It was a flourishing job opportunity, and even wielded social power as a 1945 elevator-operator strike in Manhattan severely clogged the engines of business industry. Within a generation this profession was gone; automatic elevators had all but replaced human elevator operators and ran elevators more efficiently and cheaply ever since.
A shit deal if you happened to train for and be a Elevator Operator – with the phrase “this is progress looks like burning in your ears” you had to go out a get a different job, and most likely one that did not pay as well as being an Elevator Operator.
Fast forward to the present day – Truckers are now facing this very same conundrum as automated vehicles are entering their field of work. Operating truck driving software and actually driving a truck are two very distinct categories; thus yet another blue collar job opportunity might very well be shut off to the people. I’m not a Luddite when it comes to new technology in society, but the motivation behind the vehicles (and most of capitalism to be honest) has me worried. “In Canada 1 in every 100 workers is a truck driver, some 300,000 people – it’s the second most common occupation reported by men.” (The Walrus – Overhauled by Sharon J. Riley).
Are we going to spend the money to retrain these people if the technology for self-driving vehicles actually becomes a standard? Or do we just turn these people to the wind, like the Elevator Operators of the 40’s, “here’s your last paycheck, sorry about your luck , bu-bye now.”? I highly doubt that the trucking industry – the prime mover in its quest for ‘automated-efficiency’- is going to step up to the plate and sponsor job retraining for all the employees that have become redundant. The responsibility for integrating these now jobless people back into the economic workforce will most likely fall to the government and as valiant as Canadian social services are, a three hundred thousand plus hit on our limited social resources just won’t end well.
So, the case looks like this – Business moves ‘forward’ creating more efficiency and profitability, while the social and economic damage caused by said advances is left to the government to haphazardly repair with the limited resources available to it. This smells like a looming case of what in corporate culture is known as “externalities” or items that have a tangible economic or social cost but importantly not directly to the company itself (Pollution is a prime example of an ‘externality’). So really, it will be the common citizen, who will be responsible for keeping society going while business plunges ahead willy-nilly chasing the most effective and profitable supply chain.
I have a problem with these technology driven calamitous ‘externalities’ that we will be facing, not just in the transportation sector but in other sectors as well. This process is driven by greed, and greed gives no fucks for those who must perish in the process of efficiency maximization. The argument against me would be such – but with greater efficiency and optimization more people will be better served by the industry at hand, thus society will be better and everyone wins.
It’s just that everyone doesn’t win. The people put out of work by technological advances and their families are going to lose and lose big because they will have no income to afford the goods being delivered so efficiently and profitably to the stores. Our profit driven corporate/business sectors almost always seems to ignore that fact that their profitability hinges on condition that people exist in the market that have the capacity to buy their widgets. You may have the best widgets out there, but with no demand, nothing happens. Of course you can keep profits going up through dubious accounting methods and the churn and burn of the stockmarket magic – but that is an illusion as you are just moving money around an not creating actual value in society; plus that financial shell game periodically crashes hurting everyone in society (see 1929, 2008 et cetra).
The way forward is clear, at least to me. Technological advancement needs to examined and fined tuned through the lens of what society as a whole needs, and not just the business sector because the business sector is necessary too short sighted to see beyond the bottom line and what is good for them at the time.
Related reading and some of my paraphrase fodder – Overhauled – By Sharon J. Riley found in the Walrus Magazine December 2017.
The fight to maintain Net Neutrality has been raging. You have not heard about it because it is not in the big companies interests for you to know about it. Think it isn’t a big deal? Please partake in the observed behaviour of said companies and remind yourself that these infractions happened during the time when the regulations were still in full force with the FCC enforcing the rules.
The best predictor of future outcomes is past behaviour… Stop this shit. Canada is waffling at the moment, but it is better than the free for all that will going down in the US. If you happen to be a US citizen spend some time filling out a form and/or making a call to your congress critter here.
I’m not sure what exactly goes on in the American psyche when it comes to regulations that make the shit-kettle we know as life better for everyone. Romanticizing the ‘good ole days’ is pretty much just bug-fuck crazy, unless you enjoy eating tainted meat, breathing polluted air, and having the female half of the population as sex slaves. Regulation is necessary in a democratic society, libertarian fap-happy wet dreams aside.
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…