I want to define here my personal philosophy, what guides my life, what I believe in and why, what makes me do what I do and why I do it...basically, my inner self. This has been a long time coming, but now, in the wake of some inner turmoil, I think I'm ready. I'll try to start with things as basically as possible, and move up and out from there. So. The beginning. In the beginning, there is me. I exist. Do I, though? My senses endow me with the capacity to distinguish many things, but simply by sensing, I seem to be defining myself. How do I know I exist, and am not somebody's imagination, or just a simulation? Are those different? Do androids dream of electronic sheep? Does it matter? It doesn't seem to. If I am somebody's dream, then I have no control, so I may as well take no action. By taking no action, I am still in his or her dream. Pretty lame dream. If I am not somebody's dream, then I probably came from somewhere. By investigating, it seems a lot of other people have looked into this, and we came from our mothers, and so on, back to some crazy explosion way back when. I can dig it. I trust these people and their "scientific methods." They seem to be way farther along on the track I started with, back when I was questioning whether I exist or not. But why am I existing? Why can't I be dead, like all those other people? Seems a lot easier than all this eating and sleeping and working. As far as I can tell, I have nothing better to do. No one stops being dead, once they really get into it, as far as I and everyone else I trust can tell. So, knowing that dying is final, and I'm already alive, I may as well carry on. For now, it seems, logic and I have worked out: I'm alive/existing, by dint of sensing and such. Even if that's false, it doesn't really matter, because it means I have no control. Assuming I have control, I also reject death, at least as long as I can, because that's a done-deal. In the meantime, what? We'll move from there next time.
telling her that it's okay not to love me - that it is, in fact, better than the alternative - when I still love her myself is probably the hardest thing I've ever done. I thought that engineering school is the hardest thing I've ever done, and it still might be. I also thought that willing myself out of depression was the next hardest thing. Pretty sure I was wrong. Having done this, though, and in the spirit of my previous post, I'm pretty sure I'm now the best person I've ever been my entire life. I now want to do even harder things, but I can't think anything more than simply getting on with the life I intended to lead. The fact that this seems like the hardest thing I can do is somewhat reassuring. I hope to start posting more here about my philosophical ideals. For now, though, I also have a lot of things I'm trying to sort out, and writing has classically been a great way to deal with that. Back to the beginning though - very difficult thing. But I managed to do it smiling, and making jokes, and wiping away her tears. None of my own. I don't know how I could've done any better. But I want to try.
hold me accountable if you must, but I didn't end up using this thing as often as I intended. Life doesn't move at a constant rate; it's accelerating. This is terrifying, and I'm doing all I can to keep up. The changes I've made to my lifestyle are many and varied, and I can only hope I've made the right choices, at this point, to save my grades. I'd like to go into those changes, some of which aren't really changes at all, but just realizations of things I've written about here all along, or maybe on my old xanga, at least. Been meaning to post here for a few weeks. Have only made time now that I've skipped out on sleep tonight/today. Now it's time for a micronap, then a new round of my constant battle with life. In the meantime, please content yourself with my Twitter, at shindleria235 (as usual), or just keeping in touch with me as you normally do, because I don't think anyone actually reads this.
using this thing at one point. Actually, I remember using my old one. Facebook, tragically, makes it way easier to keep track of people. Maybe I'll take up writing again, though reading currently has me engrossed. I just finished The Tipping Point (worth checking out), and I'm working on The World Without Us, as well as all my back-issues of Science News. I really do love teh science. I'll be starting Chemistry at a local community college, to make up for failing it my first semester of college. I've learned a lot, and grown a lot, since I first started on Xanga, and I've come to many personal and universal revelations in the meantime. I don't know if they count as universal if they only apply to the universe via myself, though I could and would like to share them with others, if possible. That's one thing I haven't lost - my urge to proselytise. Maybe this'll help me get my personal philosophy in enough of an order again to make it worth at least spouting respectfully at people, as opposed to the little bits I drop, like half-chewed cookies, when I deal with friends and family. Maybe this can be my napkin, or bib, if you prefer that image. Sicko.
I'm rather proud of it... I'll even include the rubrik and guidelines I used!
1.Introduction
(concisely defines technological literacy; briefly explainswhy it is important in a democracy; offers an argument about how the
candidate should approach technological literacy; states the purpose of the paper; and forecasts the structure and content
of the remainder of the paper)
2. Policy Issue You Researched as an Example
(accurately and concisely summarizes the policy issue youhave researched; makes the case for it as a concrete example of issues
related to technological literacy, including answering the question of how much TL is required to make a decision about the
policy)
3. Discussion of Technological Literacy
(expands on the definition of TL and explanation of itssignificance that you offered in the introduction; relates your definition
and explanation to others offered in readings 9.1 and 9.2; uses concepts from readings to develop a richer and more useful
understanding of TL)
4.Conclusion
(offers an action-oriented policy recommendation regarding TL that follows from and builds on the argument about TL that
you have been developing through the paper; reminds the candidate of what is at stake for both technology and democracy)
5.Organization
(clearly structured overall and in paragraphs; transitions between and within paragraphs facilitate flow of ideas; makes the
logic behind the paper’s organization clear) Note: 2 and 3 above are tasks to be accomplished in the paper, not a structure
for organizing it.
6.Integrating Sources and CitingReadings in the Text
(pulls from a wide range of course readings, relates topics raised to issues discussed in this course, formats and cites
sources correctly, introduces and integrates direct quotations, relies more on paraphrase than direct quotations)
7. Writing Style and Mechanics (follows all guidelines as established in previous papers and on the handout for the paper)
Main goal: - present & defend an argument about most appropriate way for candidate to approach broad topic of
tech. lit.
Methods: - draw on analysis of the technology policy in first two essays
- how much tech. lit. required to make a net neutrality decision?
- how much tech. lit. should voter have to decide which are best candidates and policies?
- assume candidate vaguely familiar with tech. lit. concept but has no clear sense of its significance in a democracy
- provide own def. of tech. lit.
- relate own def. to the def. in readings
- critique tech. lit. concept in light of readings done so far
- conclude with action-oriented policy recommendations
Purpose: - build off previous papers
- add critique of readings 9.1 & 9.2 in light of learning throughout entire course
Specs.: - have a full bibliography
- should cite course readings
- draw upon additional books and articles as needed
Technological literacy is an often misunderstood phrase, with a very subjective definition. I define technological literacy as an understanding of the history of technology and the systems that influence and produce it, how such systems actually work in reality, and how they relate to oneself and others. In a societal context, specifically that of the American democracy, this understanding is key when the time comes for a citizen to cast a ballot. It ensures that the decision being made is valid – that is, supported by a wisdom born of, if not actual knowledge or interactional expertise, then of knowing what is unknown, and where to find information on it, and to then make an informed decision. President-elect Barack Obama’s stance on technological literacy takes only an incomplete definition, and uses this to make a generalized policy position. Redefining technological literacy and his policy in a more realistic and effective manner is not difficult, and requires only going beyond the artifact-based outlook that his definition implies. This paper will reexamine Obama’s definition of technological literacy, focusing on the controversial topic of network neutrality, with the final goal of arriving at a more ‘literate’ policy for his presidency. This will be accomplished first by an examination of net neutrality and Obama’s policy, followed by a more in-depth treatment of technological literacy, and a suggestion of policy change based on the previous sections.
Net neutrality “is the principle that Internet users should be in control of what content they view and what applications they use on the Internet.” (A Guide, 2008) As stated on Obama's site, “A key reason the Internet has been such a success is because it is the most open network in history. It needs to stay that way. Barack Obama strongly supports the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet.” (Technology, 2008) However, is net neutrality an issue the government – especially the President - should have a voice in? According to the paleo-conservative, laissez-faire ethic, such a policy is an intrusion on the marketplace. But, respond more neo-liberal voices, in a world where Internet access is increasingly controlled by a smaller number of organizations, should not the government act to safeguard the free market through legislation?
Using the three-way model of sociotechnical systems to analyze net neutrality is, by my definition, a technologically-literate method. It incorporates a sense of history, through observation of the culture and organization, as well as knowing literally how the system works. To make a political decision on the issue, either as a legislator or a voter, one must have an understanding of the basic technology that makes up the Internet – such as whether or not it is “a series of tubes.” (Wired, 2006) One must also have a sense of the culture of the Internet, both in- and outside of it, as well as the ways in which it is currently organized. For example, do we currently have a ‘net neutral’ system, or is there already a tendency by Internet Service Providers and other organizations to charge for certain content? It is ultimately up to the voter or legislator to understand how he himself is affected, and what to do about it. Effectively, this does mean that the voter or legislator must be fully technologically literate to make such decisions – anything less means that he or she is making a decision incompetently and unfairly.
None of these questions or decisions can be voiced if one assumes Obama’s version of technological literacy. “Barack Obama will emphasize the importance of technology literacy, ensuring that all public school children are equipped with the necessary science, technology and math skills to succeed in the 21st century economy,” claims his website, the only mention of “technology literacy” in his Fact Sheet on Technology and Innovation. (mkommareddi, 2008) His artifact-based outlook is visible in the following line: “Access to computers and broadband connections in public schools must be coupled with qualified teachers, engaging curricula, and a commitment to developing skills in the field of technology.” (mkommareddi, 2008) Though he does seem to acknowledge the importance of looking beyond just technology usage to teachers and curricula, there is no meaningful statement of how or with what technological illiteracy will be combated. Skills and jobs seem to be the focus of this policy.
However, technological literacy in general requires a more concrete definition, if our voters, legislators, and President-elect’s policy are to be judged so critically. George Bugliarello of Polytechnic University says that “technological literacy means far more than just theability to use computers and other machines. It impliesan understanding of the factors involved in the creationand development of technologies and of the impactsof technology on society, on individuals, and onthe environment.” (Bugliarello, 2000) His definition closely parallels my own, stated as such, but he calls for a much more massive movement to diffuse technological literacy than I believe is realistic. He states, for example, that “the media need to step up to the plate and do far more than the relatively anemic or sensational reporting that…they are wont to do.” (Bugliarello, 2000)
This idea is similar to those put forth by A. Thomas Young, Jonathan R. Cole, and Denice Denton in their paper “Improving Technological Literacy,” which has a similar objective in defining technological literacy and working on how it implement such a concept in the general populace. They agree that public education is probably the most important arena in which to begin dissemination of technological literacy, and list a number of skills and concepts to form their own definition of what should be taught. (Young, 2002) They also call for massive societal shifts, including in the media, for full technological literacy. (Young, 2002) Ironically, the media-conglomeration that is making net neutrality an important issue for some people is the reason why I think that the overall societal changes suggested by Bugliarello, Young, Cole, and Denton are unrealistic. Technological literacy is such a personally-aware, critical mode of thought that major media corporations mostly interested in profit would be reluctant to promote it – especially if it would detract from their moneymaking.
Instead, my definition is one based mostly on knowledge and skills that can be acquired in a few weeks of a Science, Technology, and Society 101 course. With little change in the curricula, such a course could be reordered and distilled into a sort of technological literacy course that can be taught in one year of high school. Taught correctly, my definition of technological literacy would require the following foundation: the basic principles of the four types of knowledge (information, skills, judgment, and wisdom); thethree-way sociotechnical systems model (technology, culture, and organization); a basic recognition of our social and cultural history as a Madisonian-style representative democracy; and the associated readings, discussions, papers, and other such assignments necessary to reinforce, or, if the student disagrees, rebut and help find alternatives to the core definition of technological literacy. Adding to or working with concepts of ‘media literacy’ commonly taught in higher-level social studies courses, which commonly include watching for bias and encouraging fact-checking, would make a technological-literacy course a double-edged sword, making the students both technologically aware and socially independent consumers of technology and the information commonly rendered through it.
As recent events in world affairs, the economic sphere that is increasingly globalized itself, and the ever-fickle domestic front unfold, few can argue that President Barack Obama will have plenty to deal with in his new office. Based on his stated technology policy and numerous speeches he has made in the course of his campaign, Obama seems like he would like a technologically-literate populace on his side. His policies do not seem to encourage this, though, so I suggest that he consider redefining technological literacy more along the lines of what Bugliarello, Young, Cole, and Denton, and I have proposed. A nation that is able to look at itself now, as well as through its own history, and grasp how these relate to the many sociotechnical systems in place today, will be better suited to accept and assist a leader such as Barack Obama. Proposing an education reform act to Congress that encourages states and school districts to mandate such a course as I outlined – possibly tied to funds to upgrade technology in the schools themselves, or to train teachers for such a course – is one method through which he could raise a more technologically-literate public. Another could be a call to mainstream media to have more discussion of sociotechnical issues that increasingly affect us all, like net neutrality or Digital Rights Management, and to try to spur on greater popular participation in such discussions, as suggested by Young, Cole, and Denton. Failure to take any action, though, will result in exacerbation of America’s decline as a knowledgeable and advanced industrial nation, as the rest of the world races to match and surpass us. As John F. Kennedy once said, “There are risks and costs to a program of action, but they are far less than the long-range risks and costs of comfortable inaction.” (Inaction, 2008)
Young,A. Thomas, Cole, Jonathan R., Denton, Denice. (2002). Improving Technological Literacy. Issues in Science and Technology Online, Summer 2002, 1-7.
