Kids can't use computers... and this is why it should worry you

[pier4r]

http://coding2learn.org/blog/2013/07/29/...computers/ (warning, a bit harsh)

Maybe someone posted it already (I tried a google search, many good threads but not the same topic).

I find the article interesting, and I agree that when everything is ready to be used, the user don't really learn (whatever the domain).

[BruceH]

It's dated 2013 so less relevant than it might be.

He comes over as thoroughly supercilious and the suggestion that teaching Linux would somehow have prevented his examples is so stupid as to be ludicrous.

For those interested, the UK National Curriculum for computing is summarised here. There's no mention of "teaching Office" as he put it.

[pascal_meheut]

This falls into the old category of "there is something new so mankind will become stupid because of it".

People have said that about writing as it was supposed to prevent us from using our memory. And then about almost everything including printers, newpapers, radios, etc.
My teachers told me the same about calculators and computers: we were not supposed to use them because then we wouldn't know how to do basic tasks.

Of course, once we started to work, our tasks were mainly to use said computers to do a huge part of the job.
They were simply afraid of something new they did not understand.


P.S: my kid was born and raised in a modern environment with unlimited access to computers, Internet, smartphone, videos.
He is now a young adult, travels the world and seems to be able to do so without drooling when he talks and is even reading books...
And I have not noticed that younger people at work or any other place are lacking anything we were supposed to have because we did not have the tools they do.

[Roberto Volpi]

That article is interesting indeed, even if the author likes to stretch conclusions to extreme.

It is true that we are all computer users, but most of the time computer illiterates: for at least 50% of word processors users, computer is just a magic typewriter on a video.

The final panegyric in praise of Linux is laughable,

[Garth Wilson]

I have said that in spite of the exabytes of information available today on even a smartphone, today's kids are incredibly ignorant.  I could elaborate on that to no end; but I'll give just this one example:  My wife and I were working in a Wednesday nights kids' program for many years.  There was always dinner before club time started.  Six or eight years ago, just for the fun of it, one of the leaders went up to one of the tables which had 4th- to 9th-graders, and said, "Ok everyone, what's ten divided by six?"  All eyes turned glassy.  After several seconds, two of them thought to reach for their smartphones to try to find a calculator ap, but even still, could not give an answer.  I was flabbergasted.  Yes, folks, this is what our $12K/year/student is giving us in the public schools.

Related, in the field of programming:
Editorial: The reason kids can't program today is because technology is making it harder.
Blog: The Duplo®code Fallacy, how industry & academia make it harder today for kids to start programming
Report: 80's kids started programming at an earlier age than today's millennials

I dumped Microsoft and went to Linux 15+ years ago, and 90+% of my computer problems disappeared.  For the few remaining problems, which are few and far between, I need the help of our son who worked very successfully for a manged-services provider, installing and maintaining computer and digital-phone networks and being a technical-help man for the software problems.  How I wish someone would write a real Linux manual!  The answer is always, "Oh, it's all on the internet.  You just do a search for whatever you need..." but in many cases you don't know what you need.  HP's manuals of 40 years ago were absolutely outstanding, and when I was writing manuals for our equipment at work, I used HP's as a pattern to follow.

[mfleming]

(03-07-2023 05:30 AM)Garth Wilson Wrote:  <snip>  Six or eight years ago, just for the fun of it, one of the leaders went up to one of the tables which had 4th- to 9th-graders, and said, "Ok everyone, what's ten divided by six?"  All eyes turned glassy.  After several seconds, two of them thought to reach for their smartphones to try to find a calculator ap, but even still, could not give an answer.  I was flabbergasted.

This is a good example of context and experience. Decades ago in a cash economy everyone carried an assortment of bills and coins to pay for purchases. If you were low on small denomination bills or had too many small denomination coins you'd hand over more than the purchase price with the expectation of "breaking a twenty" or trading a few small coins in return for one larger coin. Everyone, including the clerk, could instantly do the math in their head.

The transition from cash to plastic was gradual, but struck home decades ago when I handed some money to a clerk at McDonald's. First she looked at me in puzzlement because I gave her "too much" in small coin, then she had to punch the amount into the register to figure out how much small change to return. "Ha! Dumb!" I thought, but how many carry cash and coin these days? It's a shame no one can do that kind of math in their head, but does anyone really need to?

And no, I can't recite the complete Iliad from memory either

[BruceH]

(03-07-2023 05:30 AM)Garth Wilson Wrote:  Related, in the field of programming:
Editorial: The reason kids can't program today is because technology is making it harder.

This, 100%.

Fortunately there are people trying to remedy that situation. Have a play with www.endbasic.dev

[johanw]

Required skills change as our environment changes. I would be incredibly dumb in the eyes of our far forfathers, I can't even make a simple stone ax from a piece of flintstone.

[Garth Wilson]

I just came upon this article: America’s Teens Are Dumber Than They’ve Been In 100 Years
"America’s teens are registering lower IQs than they have in nearly a century."

[KeithB]

Could be because the IQ tests don't relate to them.
I took an IQ test in the 60's and one of the answers hinged on the fact that an alarm clock was a 12 hour clock not 24.

[Garth Wilson]

(03-15-2023 08:17 PM)KeithB Wrote:  Could be because the IQ tests don't relate to them.
I took an IQ test in the 60's and one of the answers hinged on the fact that an alarm clock was a 12 hour clock not 24.

I think I remember that question.  You still got 140 IIRC though, right? 

[jte]

(03-07-2023 12:34 PM)mfleming Wrote:  ... The transition from cash to plastic was gradual, but struck home decades ago when I handed some money to a clerk at McDonald's. First she looked at me in puzzlement because I gave her "too much" in small coin, then she had to punch the amount into the register to figure out how much small change to return. ...

A few years ago I experienced a situation like this. I don’t remember the exact amounts involved, but I expected change involving a quarter rather than dimes / nickles (and I vaguely remember that my intent was that the change would naturally involve a $5 bill). The cashier told me I was paying too much and tried to hand me back some of the coins. It took me a few attempts to clarify that, yes, I was aware that the amount I was handing over exceeded the price even if some coins were not included. (She tried to slowly explain to me, more than once, that $x.00 already exceeded the price.)

Somewhat stranger was the interaction I had yesterday at a local bakery. I handed over $10.10 to pay for an $8.10 purchase. The cashier has a double take, looking at the $10 bill and wondering why I also wanted to hand over a dime. After the register exclaimed $2 as the change (one toonie, here in Canada), she took it out of the register and turned it over and over in her hand, clearly doing some mental arithmetic. Even as she handed the change over, she was clearly a bit reticent / suspicious; something seemed quite off in the amount of change, to her. And this is at a cash-only business dealing with many small payments. I’m guessing that it was her first day (or nearabout so) and that most patrons make no attempt to aim for a convenient amount of change.

[mfleming]

(03-15-2023 08:03 PM)Garth Wilson Wrote:  I just came upon this article: America’s Teens Are Dumber Than They’ve Been In 100 Years
"America’s teens are registering lower IQs than they have in nearly a century."

An educational system suited to a rapidly industrializing nation, churning out an obedient, uniform, mediocre product, is no longer suited to a modern society. Tossing in a computer lab here and there won't help. Maybe kids today are just too smart to fit into the current factory model?

[KeithB]

(03-15-2023 09:31 PM)Garth Wilson Wrote:  

(03-15-2023 08:17 PM)KeithB Wrote:  Could be because the IQ tests don't relate to them.
I took an IQ test in the 60's and one of the answers hinged on the fact that an alarm clock was a 12 hour clock not 24.

I think I remember that question.  You still got 140 IIRC though, right? 

I don't recall the exact number, but I did well enough to be placed into the "Mentally Gifted Minors" program!

Also, I believe the question specifically referred to a *wind-up* alarm clock.

[johnb]

I have mixed feelings about all of this, because:

1. Yes, every generation thinks some new thing is going to make us all dumber.
2. However, because we don't need certain skills any more, we ARE getting dumber... in certain areas...
   

And by "we" I mean "myself." Case in point...

My dad passed away when I was 2 years old, so I don't really remember him, but I know him through the stories of others, and from the stuff he left behind. He was an electrical engineer for GE; he graduated high school in 1942, went off to WWII, then finished his EE degree in 1949.
Just a couple of years ago, I ran across some notes of his, where he needed an approximation of some continuous process. He'd characterized it as a system of (actually fairly simple) equations and applied the proper calculus and gotten an answer to 3 or 4 significant digits.

I had to pull out my math books and look things up and think really hard to fully understand how he'd solved it.

To solve it myself, I would have just banged out an iterative solution in one of my trusty HP's... or slung together some C code or javascript or whatever platform I had handy. Worst case, an iterative solution in Excel. The point being, I would brute-force it by numerical methods because I'm so used to "having the machine do it," whereas he finessed it, and I bet he didn't have to crack open a single math book to do it.

[Jlouis]

So, what to say now with A.I. like ChatGPT4?

[pier4r]

(04-21-2023 09:41 PM)johnb Wrote:  I had to pull out my math books and look things up and think really hard to fully understand how he'd solved it.

To solve it myself, I would have just banged out an iterative solution in one of my trusty HP's... or slung together some C code or javascript or whatever platform I had handy. Worst case, an iterative solution in Excel. The point being, I would brute-force it by numerical methods because I'm so used to "having the machine do it," whereas he finessed it, and I bet he didn't have to crack open a single math book to do it.

About this - good point - the author of "The Secret Horsepower Race" (I can suggest the book, though it took some savings for me to buy it) wrote:

I recently spoke to a Professor of Engineering at one of the best technical universities in Germany - who told me that he could not offer an updated opinion on a technical report I had from 1943, because "we are not smarter today than those engineers".

The question is, that if this is the case - it means we in our current methodology of study and work are we merely handing over more and more of our time towards handling software, and less and less into understanding our topic.

Therefore since our intellectual capacity is now more and more tilted towards software usage, with the same capacity - the frightening implication is that we can end up becoming mere glorified software users instead of applied scientists.This is not an isolated conversation, and in England this year I had a similar discussion after I gave a technical presentation on 1940s science. I believe we are headed towards a two-tier system.

A small number of engineers able to understand fundamentals, and the bulk relegated to "advanced software users".

I`m not sure this is wise or healthy, with universities eager to promote "industry relevant" courses teaching usage of current CFD/FEA/CAD etc, how can we ensure our brains and not software remain at the core when academic teaching hours are reduced year-on-year?

(source: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn...166077440/ )

---

My comment on this was: "This is a good summary and I think it applies everywhere. The more the specialization, the more one is "user of tools developed by others" while a smaller group develops those tools (note that the developers of that circle can still be larger than the group in the past). Of course this also means that missing some fundamentals can lead to less optimal solutions." (see brute force, consuming computing power rather than brain cycles)

[JimP]

One example of this is spell checkers (a standard component of MS Word et al). There are those who say they don't need to worry about spelling because the spell checker will take care of any errors. Sadly, this results in people talking about having red a book and playing led guitar in a band.

Spell checkers (and arguably grammar checkers) are for people who CAN spell, not for those who cannot. In the same vein, calculators are there to help people do relatively laborious or mundane tasks that would otherwise take more time than what is available. However, kids should learn how to do the math without them first so they understand the principles. It's how we were taught 50-55 years ago when all we had were things like log tables and slide rules.

[rprosperi]

(04-25-2023 06:10 PM)pier4r Wrote:  About this - good point - the author of "The Secret Horsepower Race" (I can suggest the book, though it took some savings for me to buy it) wrote:

[snip]
---

My comment on this was: "This is a good summary and I think it applies everywhere. The more the specialization, the more one is "user of tools developed by others" while a smaller group develops those tools (note that the developers of that circle can still be larger than the group in the past). Of course this also means that missing some fundamentals can lead to less optimal solutions." (see brute force, consuming computing power rather than brain cycles)

This is indeed an extraordinary book, probably the most satisfying I've bought in years (among > 50). As for the point made about being no smarter today, keep in mind that the topic was designing ultimate piston engines for fighter aircraft, and due to the emergence of Jet engines, very little additional effort was spent on that specific effort since them. While engine development has certainly continued in general, the specifics pertaining to making the absolute maximum power at any cost, and unrestrained fuel consumption, etc. has no place in day-to-day normal engineering development, hence the Engineer's comment makes sense - we're no smarter today since we haven't worked on that problem since then.

All that said, I don't disagree with your broader comments, I just wanted to shed some light on the context of his comments.

[David Hayden]

To me, the article is just arrogant nonsense.

The mechanic complains that nobody knows about cars.

The farrier complains that nobody can shoe a horse.

The medical coding specialist complains that nobody knows the right terms for medical procedures.

Here, the tech specialist complains that nobody can modify proxy settings and recognize when a firewall blocks access to an embedded file. Give me a break. He's just another jerk who thinks everyone should know his specialty.

Dave