Parfois, il faut faire des choses...

Saturday, February 11, 2012

Marcos on Marx

My readings on the life of Karl Marx have yielded both examples of and contrasts to a surprising number of recent class themes:

PARTICIPATION>CONTENT CREATION

The manner in which Marx discovered, refined, and subsequently disseminated his opinions and ideas reflects several primary mediums for the flow of ideas during the 19^th century.

Marx was a prolific writer. His longer treatises (such as Capital and The Communist Manifesto) were many years in the works, and he was known to ignore publishers’ deadlines. He also wrote shorter articles for French and German periodicals, in addition to contributing material to the New York Tribune.

Newspapers could perhaps be called the “blogs” of the period. Editors heavily influenced a paper’s content and political slant; circulation (or the government) most often determined their lifespan.

INFORMATION>CONNECTIVITY >DIGITAL DIVIDE

Universities were centers of thought and seed beds for new ideologies, but only for those with the necessary funds. Marx was heavily influenced by the philosophy of Professor G.W.F. Hegel (more on this philosophy in an upcoming post). The professor died a few years before Marx transferred to his school, the University of Berlin, but Karl joined the ranks of the “New Hegelians” on campus.

PARTICIPATION>SOCIAL NETWORKING

Social (though not google+) circles and beliefs were deeply intertwined. Marx was influenced by his future father-in-law, the Baron von Westphalen from a young age (they were neighbors). The views on utopian socialism Karl picked up from the Baron were tempered by his father, Heinrich Marx. Later, social circles in Paris, Brussels, and England contributed to the refinement of Karl’s ideas. Marx made the acquaintance of Friedrich Engels, one of his chief collaborators, in these circles.

Social Proof existed even during the 19^th century, as evidenced by the inclusion of some Marx’s writings in “a series of pamphlets on ‘Leaders in Modern Thought’” (Singer). In addition, “Marx and Engels kept up a correspondence with revolutionaries throughout Europe who shared their views” (Singer).

CONTROL>DISRUPTION>CENSORSHIP

The Prussian Monarchy didn’t like Marx’s ideas, and censored at least one of the publications he edited while in Germany, the Rheinische Zeitung (the Rhenish Gazette). They eventually forced him from the country. He took another (short-lived) editing post in Paris, but the French government yielded to pressure from the Purssian monarchs and Marx was again obligated to flee, this time to Brussels.

PARTICIPATION>COLLABORATION

Marx helped organize two early forums for Communist thought: the Communist Correspondence Committee, and The International Workingmen’s Association also known as “First International.” Marx was head of this second forum, and when members started to differ from his views, Karl effectively dissolved the organization by moving its headquarters to New York, out of feasible communication range for its European members.

CONTROL>IDENTITY>REPUTATION

Education and the value of a degree

Following the death of his father, Marx realized he couldn’t remain at university indefinitely, and submitted his doctoral thesis to the University of Jena instead of the University of Berlin (which had much stricter standards). As Buchholz states, the University of Jena was “a noted diploma mill.”

One of the great benefits of studying history through the lens of digital and social media is the validation of “our” digital concepts. We find that while there are some new means and mediums, the base concepts are in fact iterative in nature and have evolved throughout history.

Saturday, February 4, 2012

Musings

Last Tuesday, one of the “Openness” presentations sparked some discussion on education, which we were able to continue somewhat on google+. Jared Halpin shared a link to uncollege.org, which I have been perusing over the past week (I’m not dropping out just yet). Tonight I just finished listening to a 1.5 hour dialogue between Dale Stephens (founder of the UnCollege movement) and Michael Ellsberg, author of The Education of Millionaires. You don’t have to tell me, my Saturday nights are riveting.

All jokes aside, I found the discussion exceedingly interesting, and very much in line with our themes of self-directed learning and open education. I even think these guys may be two of the thought leaders we are looking for. You can see an outline of the discussion here. If you decide to listen, be aware that some of the statements are passionately enhanced with expletives.

Dale Stephens’ efforts are focused on fighting the idea that you must possess a college degree in order to be successful. Ellsberg’s slant emphasizes “practical” education; he describes his new book as: “a bootstrapper’s guide to investing in your own human capital.”

One of the high points of the discussion is a parallel drawn by Ellsberg between the former Soviet State and our current education system (found at 26:45). He explains a bit about a concept known as Goodhart’s Law, which basically holds that when specifications are given and emphasized, individuals evolve (or devolve) to fit them. Ellsberg sees a parallel to standardized testing (making reference elsewhere in the discussion to college entrance exams) and goes on to state: “kid’s entire lives are being shaped and molded just to fit these tests.”

That statement resonated with me as I reflected on my High School academic career. It was highly competitive and GPA focused, but for what? I do feel like I came into college with the ability to write well, and I know something about prioritizing assignments for maximum (or minimum) effect on GPA. I could write my own treatise on cramming. These are skills that have their place and can even be transferred and made useful outside of the traditional educational environment. But they are not the skills (aside from writing and communication) that I want to define my university experience.

Thursday, February 2, 2012

On Keynotes and Lecture Notes

I was also scribbling (typing) thoughts about presentations last class, and after seeing the recent posts from Dr. Burton and classmate Hwanhi Chung, I decided to contribute some of my musings.

Here is the question I asked myself: “What is the purpose of a presentation?”

“To inspire further research by the attendees later?” posited my lofty, philosophical self.

“To spill my knowledge into your brain?” retorted my college-general-attending self.

“To burn time?” snorted my cynical self

“Tradition?”offered my nostalgic self.

The next set of musings could follow this question: “What makes a Keynote speaker?”

I believe that speakers of note are invited to present because they wield one or both of these attributes:

1. Their ideas or experiences are deemed important enough that others should be made aware of and gain some basic understanding concerning them. Their ideas or experiences. Not their rehashing of someone else’s ideas or experience, necessary as that might be for purposes of context.

Steve Jobs: How to live before you die

2. The other attribute of a great presenter is that their manner of presenting highly engages the audience, eliciting response and action. This is the presenter who connects with his or her audience, instead of talking at an audience.

What is the difference between a rehash of information and the more eloquent manner of presenting?

Rehashing results in bullet points, while a developed manner of presenting yields a memorable experience.

Randy Bott, BYU

(0:40-1:00 for the pertinent part of the video)

In church and at school, we are invited to present (or give talks) at least in part because the preparation of the presentation has the potential to yield great educational returns to the one preparing.

Shouldn’t we also be striving to develop those two traits of the master presenters? Why not take the opportunity to develop our own ideas and reactions, and polish our manner of presenting them?

A question I will ask myself as I contribute to my upcoming group presentations:

How can I make my presentation go farther than what the audience can get from downloading my slides?

Saturday, January 28, 2012

Self, when did you join the social media revolution?

It was 6^th grade when they got me. AOL Instant Messenger was the platform, and “aren’t you on A.I.M.?” the tag line. My friends and classmates were the recruiters, and it didn’t take much for me to think of a new alias, claim it as my own, and join their ranks.

I remember the exhilaration of that first chat using my new “s.n.” (screen name). Now I could be like the others, at last privy to the nuances of “A.I.M.“ culture.

Even my early brush with chat (now integrated into nearly every major social media platform) illustrates some integral aspects of digital culture:

The seeds of identity authenticity and reputation were sown: a person’s screen name seemed to reveal more about them than their real name. We middle-schoolers were much more brave in our comments “on I.M.” than in person, and I remember exchanging with people who rarely if ever talked to me during the school day. I sometimes worried what my parents would think of my choice of friends if they saw their alter-egos spelled out on-screen.

Old ways were upset: It was not uncommon to call a friend and request that he or she “get on aim” so we could talk (incidentally, both activities tied up the phone line). Whether or not that girl im’ed you last night became as important as the note she might pass you during social studies the next day. We soon preferred the new medium of chat to the more traditional telephone conversation.

One way to consider the “social” in social media is that its technology spreads in response to social pressure. As having a screen name and chatting with friends online became the “in” thing to do, the technology was adopted by more and more people. Participation feeds the revolution.

When did you join the social media revolution?

Tuesday, January 17, 2012

Economics, Intellectual Property, and Why It's Hard to Say

Fellow classmate Brandon Robison recently extended an in-class discussion and presented an argument in favor of intellectual property law in his post: “Open Science and Why It’s a Bad Thing.” I chose to explore some of the major underpinnings of the intellectual property debate in a position paper for another class a few years ago, and thought I might as well dig up that paper that only I and my professor had ever read and contribute it to the discussion. I feel that there is a lot of useful background information on the issues, as well as some conclusions of merit.

The intellectual property debate is broad and encompasses several sub-debates that can be classified in various ways, including intellectual property type, government branch, and economic region. The over-arching question, however (also articulated in our class discussion), is this: does the patent system (and intellectual property in general) encourage innovation?

I hold that the ability of intellectual property protections such as patent systems to achieve this goal in today’s globalizing world is dependent on economic context.

But what does that mean, exactly? Basically, the effectiveness of intellectual property rights in encouraging innovation is contingent upon the ability of an economy to sufficiently reward and thus motivate said innovation. It is important to remember that the original goal of intellectual property rights was to encourage innovation, not necessarily to maximize the profitability of its application. As I state in my paper: “It is precisely because time and money are of such great focus that patents, and thus the intellectual property system, do accomplish their purpose of encouraging innovation in the United States. The economy is sufficiently built up so as to merit consideration of money, and by extension time, as the most universal form of incentive for innovation. The patent system secures for inventors the opportunity to receive compensation in return for their time and effort.”

But we aren’t cut-off from the rest of the world, and neither is the debate about intellectual property. There is a push for “global harmonization” of patent law, presumably to continue the encouragement of innovation on the global playing field. But again, we can’t think solely in terms of protecting profits: “In addition, the economic impact of intellectual property on both developed and underdeveloped countries is a major consideration in the global harmonization of patent law. Developed countries want to secure rights to their innovations worldwide, while underdeveloped countries would like to advance their ability to innovate through imitation.”

“Many countries simply do not have the economic strength to justify intellectual property rights as the sole incentive for innovation.”

The idea here is that not every country’s economic-political tag-team is well-suited to rewarding innovation. A scientist working independently in a foreign country may not, because of intellectual property laws, have the right to build upon previous advances in his field, and even if he did, the bleak prospects of protections for his own innovations in his own country and abroad may discourage him from even trying.

“A question that perhaps lends itself slightly better to the situation today is whether or not innovation would truly be discouraged without these protections.”

Perhaps the market, left to operate without the lurking variable of intellectual property law, would reward innovation all by itself.

We have to consider why intellectual property rights are (or were) effective, and be open to the idea that past solutions may not be adaptable to fit all.

Maybe intellectual property rights have outlived their usefulness. In today’s globalized society, the cost of non-collaboration may be greater in terms of potential innovation lost than the economic advantage offered by “protecting the rights” of the discoverer.

Higher-Educate India

My dad sent me a link yesterday. The header is indeed an attention-grabber—(though perhaps not quite a tweethis): “To become an economic powerhouse, India needs to educate as many as 100 million young people over the next 10 years – something never done before.”

Digital concept: information/connectivity/digital divide

This story touches on themes central to the future of education, which I feel is at least implicitly, if not explicitly, a learning outcome of the Digital Civilization course.

In a nutshell, the current Indian educational system cannot supply the talent to keep up with the country’s economic growth. The article briefly highlights some of the methods being used to confront the challenge: educational institutions backed by corporations, the internet and distance learning, and partnerships with established foreign universities.

Perhaps of greater value than the analysis of the Indian Education dilemma, however, are the quotes which speak to our Digital Concepts:

"The way education is today in the global market is not scalable," says Sam Pitroda, an education adviser to the government. "The cost of education has really increased substantially, mainly because IT has not been used effectively the world over in education."

Digital concept: information/connectivity/scalability

“As much as any of the attempts to solve India's higher education crisis, the Internet may hold the potential to transform the system the most. This is in part because the country embraces online learning more than many Western nations. It's also because the technology is improving so fast.”