Now, this video has virtually become one of the borderline cliché videos in the education forefront. Everyone knows about it or has seen it.
But the book is a much more deeper analysis of many, many stories regarding Robinson’s proposal of the Element, an interphase of desire, senses, creativity, and intelligences that converge to create a happiness and productive super-state.
Concurrently, Robinson also critiques and comments on the current social structures, particularly education, that appear to stifle and disrupt the achievement of the Element.

In essence, Robinson proposes that there is a sweet-spot in the human adventure and life is about finding that.
It’s also similar to Dan Pink’s Johnny Bunko, which I wrote about here.

Right now, I’m somewhere in chapter three, and it’s been a good read.
But for me, I feel as if this is something I’ve always believed in.
Okay, always is probably exaggerating, but I have been in lockstep with Robinson’s argument.

But right now, I wonder… What of multiple Elements?
Robinson argues that there are ‘mediums’ that people enjoy their Elements.
Whether that’s Richard Feynman, Matt Groening, or Paul McCartney, each has found their zones.
But they’ve found them in physics, animation and music.

Except, bringing it to a much more egotistical venue,  I tend to find myself in many mediums.

I love music.
I love photography.
I love teaching (though I will rarely, if ever, admit it).
I love to write.
I love to work on computers.
I love to read.
I love leading & planning.
I love analytics.
I love free expression.

I can find myself working in many areas and enjoying every moment of it.
Yet, I also get stuck in zones.
And I also get bored too.

What is my Element?

I guess I’ll have to read on.

I’m a pretty big Star Trek nut. No, I don’t know where the Romulan Neutral Zone is or what star Ceti Alpha VI orbits, but I like me a good Star Trek here and there.

Unfortunately, there were very few good new Star Treks lately.
That show with the pansy song intro sucked beans until the season it got canceled and the movies were crapola in a box too.

And here we are with a new trek across the stars with a new crew and an old Spock to boot.

What did I think? Lessee…

Lens Flares… WTF?

Did some of the keys on the editing software get stuck or something?

The lens flares are annoying.

WTF.

Bigness in Real Life doesn’t necessarily transfer to Film and Screen.

Okay, so I’ve heard that JJ Abrams wanted to make Enterprise feel all big and stuff.
So they used everything from a beer factory to a new, larger bridge to do it.
Unfortunately, it didn’t work.

The Bridge, Sickbay, Engineering.
All of it was purposefully BIG looking.
But it entirely failed to communicated the size or bigness of the ship.
Abrams’ camera work and the tightness of the shots ended up making the ship feel tiny.
And the random junk around the sets made it feel cluttered like my desk.

And at the same time, the old sets felt more advanced because it allowed more of the ship left to interpretation and imagination.
JJ’s intent to show the ship to be bigger made it feel smaller because it created real borders, as opposed to those imagined.
Much like the Star Wars prequels with fake giant sets, the world became restrained.

And big doesn’t mean advanced.
I mean, for frak’s sake, we try to make things smaller when things get good.

Even Battlestar Galactica was able to pull off a much larger feel, despite tinier sets.
I don’t know how Ron D. Moore was able to pull it off, but Galactica felt like a behemoth.
I mean, they didn’t even show the engine room until the last half of the last season!

Enterprise felt the smallest in years.

Slow. Down. It’s. Okay. To. Lay. Off. The. Speed.

Am I getting old or something?
It’s not like I can’t keep up.
I can.
It was damn fun.

But please, please, someone try to educate me as to why everything is so damn fast.

Didn’t they teach you that a good steak needs to rest before you eat it?
Or cook it, for that matter.

This movie was definitely fun, but the problem is that once it starts running, it just keeps on galloping to the gate at full flank.
It doesn’t slow down for the sadness, speed up for the action, or give you time to consider Nero’s position.
It just runs straight ahead on warp factor 9 straight through the script as if mommy was calling JJ in for dinner.

In Japan, especially Western Japan, and in many areas around the world, the concept of ma is appreciated.
Ma is purposeful rest.
It’s a fundamental in music, cooking, comedy, everything.
With silence and lull comes the emotion.

All I got was an adolescent “AWESOME!!!”.
I would like a little more than that.

And the Moral of the Story is…

This movie is good, but it’s not great.
It’s a popcorn action movie.

Except, the greats of Star Trek, and much Sci-Fi for that matter, are able to carry a nice plot point to the end.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan wrestles with aging and cheating death.
Battlestar Galactica wrestles with morality where your conscience is your only policeman.
1984 wrestles with information freedom.

But this Star Trek could have had a perfect plot point.
Yet, it failed.

Star Trek could have been entirely opposite of it’s Khan predecessor by saying “YES, YES YOU CAN cheat death/be awesome/take risks and succeed. (Circle One)”.
It could have been about confronting adversity and succeeding despite your pitfalls.
It could have been partly the pursuit of happiness.
It could have been, “fall seven times, rise eight”

But it just ended up being traditional hero worship.

The good thing is that there’s enough to hope for the next movie though.

Captain James T. Kirk is not a douche. Just kinda. But he’s okay.

Recently, there was an article on io9 that straight out called Chris Pine’s Kirk a “douchebag”.

At face value, that’s what I thought too.
Yet, really, he’s just cocky and confident, not super douchy.
Pine’s Kirk is definitely not William Shatner’s Captain. James. T. Kirk.
Yet, Pine does justice and creates a believable, yet herotastic Kirk.

Recently, I was asked where I get my confidence.

(Okay, I’m not that confident, but apparently I look so. Anyways.)

My answer was that I don’t really know.
I just am carefully confident.
In my opinion, Kirk was always this way too.
He just is confident.
And this Kirk is just as so.

All Good Things…

…must come to an end.

And right when you thought things could pickup, the movie ends.

Nero?
Oh, yeah.
He’s dead already.
Can’t we go explore the next solar system or something?

That’s what the movie ends on.

And I like that.

It ends with a great platform for the next feature.

I just hope it’s a little deeper.

Space, The Final Frontier…

It’s damn good.

Go watch now.

In fact, as many technologic forerunners like to say, ranging from Mimi Ito to Don Tapscott to my boss to occasionally me, this new age in information ubiquity is all about life long learning. The availability of information allows for education and learning to be a constant, on-demand and no long stringently constricted by the availability of a teacher. The Internet allows for that small world syndrome to come to an apex, freeing all of us to learn what we want, when we want, and from who we want. And by extension, schools are somewhat reduced to rubber stamp organizations that commoditize the individual.

In theory.

But the same constructs that allow all of this information transparency and access also directly affects the constraints on non-educational things as well. Websites, services and games have all allowed for the space between people feel closer and less distinct. We can now access the activities of our friends, family and even neighbors via constructs such as, in no particular order, Facebook, email, Twitter, blogs, World of Warcraft, Second Life, SMS, Skype and instant messaging.

Indeed, the world has gotten smaller! WE CAN BE WITH OUR FRIENDS ANYTIME!

Yet, despite the spread of the newest of new technologies, the ’social’ of ’social networking’ remains poor facsimile of the real thing. Regardless of our social mannerisms and stature, the persona of our human existence is often warped and construed by the interpretation of the two-dimensional context of the Internet. The medium is inherently flawed and is not a substitute for actual face-to-face interactions and true social membership in a community. The medium is naturally dividing and allows for the detachment of the ‘real’ individual and the ‘online’ individual. Concurrently, the ’social’ component is inherently fueled by the presentation of the individual. The feedback, in turn, creates a pleasing response that fulfills the social hunger of the single person. Though it is hard to diminish or rate this interaction, it is a different type of social membership and community. But that doesn’t make it the primary… At least until we all evolve into machines.

Enter study hall.

Study hall is a construct that is supposed to allow students to study during school hours. Naturally, it is open for students to freely interpret and select what they feel as optimum. And it’s no surprise that such hours, except in those times of duress (typically post-procrastination), this interpretation typically involves not doing a lot (procrastination!). Though it is also available for group work, study hall naturally moves what is individual time typically outside of the school schedule into it. And this is where things begin to separate.

Despite the long, long twelve years of primary and secondary education, this time is actually a fairly short in the grand scheme of things. Yet, high school is barely four years and study hall is an even tinier speck of this spectrum. But this time in high school is also, what I believe to be, strongly formative in the lives of many students. And study hall wastes this time. Time that school can create communal and social participation.

As mentioned above, schools have become somewhat marginalized with the rise of information ubiquity. But no social construct has usurped its place as an organization that can organize and bring together similarly aged groups of people, especially youth. Regardless of the overall efficiency of the educational structures themselves, schools act as a hub that can allow for strong academic collaboration and facilitate the healthy growth of the youth. Schools also enjoy place in many societies as places of learning and a status of pseudo-sanctity. It is these qualities that we cannot ignore nor squander. Schools need to be efficient and have it so students can exploit every single moment they get to be with their peers while manipulating the increasing deluge of information.

Study hall flies into the face of this, wasting time that can be used to collaborate in the real world. And this is without considering the fact that students are busier than ever and have less real time to spare outside of the school day. Naturally, one or two hours of freedom is probably not a bad thing, but it is subject to the typical laws of diminishing returns. Technology allows for individual time at home to be enriched with the strength of community and face-to-face time, but let’s not waste the real thing when it’s available. When it all comes down to it, Facebook Groups do not replace band and student council nor teach how to organize events and negotiate rent. Let school be where students get real social experience.

I have always been a science fiction fan. Star Wars, Star Trek, Cowboy Bebop. Brave New World, 1984, Blade Runner. Whatever the medium or style, science fiction has always been one of my favorite forms of exploring the human experience.

That said, Battlestar Galactica was a show I got into very, very late. Despite hearing all the rumors and talk about an incredible sci-fi experience, the show didn’t catch my attention until far into its last season. This was most likely due to the campy, craptacular nature of the original and the varying science fiction shows that have been mentioned in the past, such as Babylon 5 and Firefly, that were talked up but barely caught my attention.

“For that one fraction of a second, you were open to options you had never considered. That is the exploration that awaits you… [C]harting the unknown possibilities of existence.” – Q (John DeLancie), Star Trek: The Next Generation

Although dystopias and the continuous questioning of human progress are part of my own personal views, I have a soft spot for Star Trek and its optimism. Though fans and product are both eternally mocked and loved for its own form of campiness, Star Trek provides a view to a world where life is better, but with its own set of problems. Yet, instead of simply trying to overcome problem after problem, its storytellers invited the watcher to try to understand the conundrum beyond the plot device of the week. Through a lens based on tolerance and diversity, creator Gene Roddenberry projected an optimistic worldview in an age of Cold War hostilities.

But, in essence (or cynically), Star Trek is about a set utopian rules and testing these rules with various allegories of (nearly) everyday problems. Racism, good & evil, sharing, artificial intelligence, arrogance, sin, war, death, cheating, whatever. Star Trek was a dispenser for stories that were tackled with the gloss of optimism.

“You cannot play God then wash your hands of the things that you’ve created. Sooner or later, the day comes when you can’t hide from the things that you’ve done anymore.” – Commander William Adama (Edward James Olmos), Battlestar Galactica.

Where Star Trek tested its own fictional rules of tolerance, Battlestar Galactica presented a world where the society was shattered. Star Trek’s stories & world were always supported by a mythical United Federation of Planets and its Starfleet. Few times were such givens blatantly broken by the heroes, as repercussions and uniformly strong moral character seemed to be without shortage in the universe.

In contrast, the crew of Galactica and its ragtag fleet are faced with the abyss of extinction during the entire run of the series. And with that premise, they confront the perpetual questioning of existence itself and sustaining values that they had previously held as inalienable.

“Sometimes, you gotta roll the hard six” – Lieutenant Sharon Valerii (Grace Park), Battlestar Galactica

For me, Battlestar Galactica’s appeal came from this struggle between the divide between order and anarchy. Where Star Trek tested rules that were enforced, Battlestar Galactica tested how the rules stood and bent under duress. And it is this freedom from the rules that allowed a new exploration beyond a single vision of the future. In place of a vision, Galactica explored the fringes and limitations of mankind. And it danced all over it.

Galactica’s “rules beyond the rules” may not seem too revolutionary, but for me, it opened up a new set of considerations. What are the rules where there are no rules? What rules are the rules that need to be rules and which are superfluous? Add to that the considerations of the classic dystopia of technology versus humanity and you’re left with a enormous pile of materials for the dreaming Chief of IT Operations. (No surprise that my position title is inspired by all the ‘chiefs’ that fix everything on sci-fi starships.)

“All good things must come to an end” – English Proverb

Obviously, this post has been inspired in part by the end of Battlestar Galactica. And really, I’d rather talk about that. Because the final episode was a vapid excuse for an ending. No, I don’t really have a problem with the ending itself. But the delivery was awful. The action story never teased the viewer with the possibility of failure and everything felt as if it was scripted and on greased rails running towards a happy ending as fast as possible. Ron D. Moore has said that he felt that it was all about the characters, but really, we need plot too. The character stories were well scripted, but the story lacked punch and whatever complexities were left to the will of God or the Gods or whatever other random plot device they could come up with. Including making Starbuck a frakking archangel or something.

All in all, it was a good run. Galactica made me think. It made me laugh. It made it fun.

Now I just need to find another place for my sci-fi fix.

This video goes best with this one from CHOW.

But.

Don’t say I didn’t warn ya.

Here we go.

What if schools get in the way of students?
Please note that this opinion is entirely based in the frame of the developed nation. United States. Japan. Western Europe. Basically countries where people have a large amount of disposable income.

Back to the topic.

We have an innate assumption that school is good. It’s the ultimate ‘parent’s word’ that has few spoken justifications beyond ‘you have to’, ‘it’s your job’, etc. And it’s not like we have a choice. Regardless of background or economic standing, these words are nearly universal. Children are a special case where their entire choice is dictated by the parent.

As a result, we have our schools. Pushing for a balance of academia and activity, our schools provide controlled environments for students to explore their world. Most of the time, the schools are built to give a fairly balanced, if not identical, education to each student. Regardless of the flexibilities of the IB or AP or any other academic program, students are inundated with work that is, on the surface, developed to give students different shades of gray.

Yet, with our economic standing, what if these assumptions and results were wrong? What if school, in the sense of “reading, writing and arithmetic”, had a negligible, minimal or detrimental effect on the development of kids. Partially, this is discrimination based on economic standing. But this is not a moral issue. A child of a billionaire is going to inherently have more opportunities and freedoms than a middle class family. Similar to Amartya Sen’s argument in Development as Freedom, the increased development is only going to allow for more choices and liberties. We, as members of the first world, are going to have more chances and flavors of ice cream.

In a sudden, but completely related jump, let us consider economics. The typical economist may work on figuring out prices and market theories to figure out how development or trade works out. But in the end, it is the study of the allocation of scarce or limited resources. Key factors such as diminishing returns and comparative advantage determine how the economist views the world. These are common concepts when considering trade, manufacturing or other various doodahs regarding our wellness. Yet, these are not considered in the educational field.

So, what if we did apply this to a certain range of students. What would happen if we considered diminishing returns in a student? Consider a student that has diminishing marginal returns as we increased the amount of math work (i.e. said student hates math). The economist may suggest the student ditch math class. Conversely, if the student loves math, the student would benefit from doing more math work. Most of us wouldn’t dream of growing rice in Antarctica or raising cows in Death Valley. So why should we force feed a certain type of curriculum on a student who rejects the material?

“But Genki! You’re insane!” may describe the thoughts going through your head. “We do a curriculum to make sure a student gets equal taste of all the intellectual ice cream!” To this, I have no argument against it. But why has the education in our much, much wealthier world remained in a strongly one-size-fits-all format, as if we don’t have the money to upgrade it ? Why isn’t curriculum customized down to the individual student level, where a teacher or mentor can nimbly adjust to a student’s desire of exploration and get the frak out of the way when the kids really ramp it up? Why are teachers forced into positions where they inherently block kids from their potential and interests? Why can’t teachers be guides for learners, making sure they follow ethics, principals and fundamentals of their interests? Why can’t teachers be co-learners, analyzing and offering constructive criticism?

Learning spawns learning. But why do we keep stuffing when we can be collaborating?

Why aren’t teachers enablers?

Because everything relevant, annoying or significant in the world seems to originate from there.

For instance…

• The object of everyone’s ire and envy, Microsoft
• Boeing airplanes everyone flies on
• The origin of the “i’ll just buy it online” school of shopping philosophy, Amazon.com
• The addiction and object of everyone’s distaste and envy, Starbucks
• The lesser known, lesser evil coffee addition peddler, Tully’s
• By extension, the entire post-modern international caffeine addiction.
• Bill Gates
• Paul Allen
• Me
• Nirvana
• Origin of the entire relevant music scene of the 1990s
• Eddie Bauer
• The company that originally made Sonicare toothbrushes.
• The player no one uses, RealPlayer
• Mario Batali
• The most overrated unknown player in the MLB, Willie Bloomquist
• Geoducks
• The Internet sensation known as Lolcats
• Jimi Hendrix
• Ray Charles started his career here
• Paramedics (all of them, really)
• Half-Life and the entire Valve family
• A good chunk of the current economic crisis (Washington Mutual)
• Costco
• Nintendo in America
• A half a ton of bioengineering and medicine firms.

Did I miss anything?

Don’t really know the ‘official’ philosophy behind it, but the all-mighty Wikipedia says…

Reductionism can either mean (a) an approach to understanding the nature of complex things by reducing them to the interactions of their parts, or to simpler or more fundamental things or (b) a philosophical position that a complex system is nothing but the sum of its parts, and that an account of it can be reduced to accounts of individual constituents.^[1] This can be said of objects, phenomena, explanations, theories, and meanings.

Sounds about right. After all, it’s all about reducing problems to simpler things. Nothing against holism, of course, since it is often that the total is a lot more than the sum of the parts. Development, as opposed to scientific investigation, is the opposite direction. It’s finding a way to put in a little to get a lot more. Otherwise, we’d still be using smoke signals and grunting a lot more.

Now, I’m no philosopher, and my problem solving isn’t on the scale of Planetary Motion, General Relativity or String Theory. What I seek is finding effective ways of learning and using technology. And it is my observation that typically we in education, as a whole, love to be dreamers and end up having gianormous projects or objectives. Or we make projects without analyzing the outcome (hello, technology babysitting), the process (hello, random technology project) or complete fear (hello, Mr. Scared-of-computer), and end up facilitating over a minor disaster.

The issue is that we aren’t separating the dreams and finding the objectives. Or, with regard to technology, we’re too stuck on integration as opposed to innovation. Technology in education isn’t optimized, as evidenced by large scale, high-visibility programs like one-to-one laptop programs and ineffective integration of technology into old curricula. These techniques are effectively shotgun shots and hail marys into the darkness. Much like William Easterly’s arguments regarding large-scale development aid plans (The White Man’s Burden), technology plans are planned programs with only theoretical ideals and pipe dreams. They rarely have the right experts in the planning process and attempt to anticipate too many variables in an infinitely complex world. At worst, they do not involve enough feedback from the learners themselves.

IT staff, educators and learners alike need to become Searchers, similar to Easterly’s proposal regarding economic aid. We need to find where technology is most efficient and recognize needs and tend to them. And we also need to gather authentic feedback (OF COURSE they like computers. What are they going to say? No, I don’t like YouTube? Get real.) from the students and make learning enjoyable, authentic and legitimate. If we keep handing laptops to students who need or want pencils, cameras, kitchen knives or hammers, the result will continue to be thousands of dollars of ineffective help. We need to recognize talent and skills that can be augmented or developed and use the same funds wasted on computers and printers and software on tools that can help develop the talent. If a student wants to explore becoming a chef, then a $100 chef’s knife, a copy of Kitchen Confidential and a book on Paul Bocuse is going to go a lot further than a computer. And when push comes to shove, we need to be learners that can nurture learners, not teachers that teach anything that breathes and expects it to learn.

It’s Occam’s Razor: the simplest solution is the best.

Hope is powerful.

I have been a big political cynicist since the GOP-fueled witch-hunt of President Bill Clinton. Ever since the Republican Party’s ruthless and cynical character assasination of President Clinton, it’s probably no surprise that many whom experienced this became apathetic at best.

So for the first time in my brief history on this Earth, hope is helping power the Union. The Constitution, a document forgotten and trampled on, has been embraced again. Politics, it appears, isn’t just shady suits and far off American politicians trading cards.

Whether or not President-elect Obama can change the world is to be seen. But he’s off to an excellent start, because what he has done is resurrect the idea of The Union as The People. Brought hope to one vote, one voice, one person. Brought substance to the American Dream.

Since 2001, we have feared. Now it is time to dream and believe in our own abilities to change the world, change our future, and make America and the world a better place.

We rant about this in the office on occasion. There’s no such thing as a stupid question (in theory), but… Yeah, go figure out how to resize margins in Word on your own, thank you.

But is it a bad thing?

In some cases, it probably is. These are the repeat offenders. The ones who ask the same damn thing every other time they do it. Yet, it also tends to cluster around utilities and things they don’t like or don’t use on a constant basis. Word, Excel, et. al.

Yet, with my Aces (I don’t use this term lightly… And it has nothing to do with grades, etc.), I can get the advice or answer shot off and they have it nailed the first time. They never come back with the same question, they have the ability to pass it on and they build on the knowledge on their own. And, converse to the ‘bad’ cases, it does tend to cluster around fun programs like Photoshop, After Effects, even stuff like Flickr, Facebook, etc.

For example, the intro and ending credits to the video on the left was created by a particularly talented student colleague of mine. The only thing I showed her was how to move text around and a few examples in After Effects. I then let her play with AE and also gave some quick hints over the program, as AE operates in a 3D space as opposed to the 2D workbench of Photoshop. Also note that I absolutely suck at video editing and video-related stuff (doesn’t mean I don’t understand it).

Over the course of one weekend, she came back with what is indisputably a high quality product. Though she had a solid base in using most of the non-video parts of the Adobe Creative Suite, she was able to easily transfer her skills and knowledge to After Effects.

So, we’ve established that, like every single thing in the Universe, quick seeking isn’t always bad thing.

…

Hooray.

…

Well, in my opinion, the issue at hand of ‘question quality control’, so to speak, is a matter of tempering student judgment and empathy. For this view, you need to see education as a symbiotic or reciprocal process while also acknowledge that there is a limited amount of time in the Universe. As long as students don’t view a peer’s time as valuable (i.e. the ol’ respectful view that you don’t want to waste another person’s time), they’re not going to hesitate to ask questions no matter how superficial or easy to get it is. Googling is easy when you’re alone. Raising your hand is easier in a classroom, even when it’s full of computers.

Yet, it must be acknowledged that the there is the other component that you need a strong base of existing knowledge to make it so you can make the judgment. This is where I balk at the idea that ‘wikis and blogs and the Internet and the age of augmented memory has changed thinking’. No, that’s called ‘BSing my way out of studying’. No, you probably never, ever, ever use the exact date of the Potsdam Conference in your adult life. But yes, it’s probably not a bad thing to know it was near the end of World War II, it involved the Allies, it resulted in an ultimatum to Japan, and be able to find the date if you need to.  You should probably also frakkin’ know that you shouldn’t eat the yellow snow, know how to read a contract, know how to do long division, understand percentages, etc.

Maybe we do need to go back to a world where there are stupid questions. Making fun of the fat kid made it so there weren’t as many fat kids, right?

(That’s a solid, insensitive remark for the day.)

(No, I don’t mean it.)

(The fat kid remark, that is.)

(But I know Tony Bourdain did when he said it.)

(Talking in parentheses is fun.)

Facilitation is le olde worlde.

The word ‘facilitate’ is all about making things easier.

But it has roots in the word ‘facile’.

“…appearing neat and comprehensive only by ignoring the true complexities of an issue; superficial…”

Ah, gold.

Technology is not easy.

Making a book is not easy.

Making a video is not easy.

Photography is not easy.

Using a computer is not easy.

Making instant ramen is easy.

I’ve seen a lot of technology that makes things easier, sure.

But the issue is that the application of technology is predominantly facile, mostly via the retrofitting of technology onto old projects.

And it’s true that, as highlighted by Ewan Mcintosh, technology becomes interesting when it becomes invisible.

Yet, how do we apply that proactively in life?

More later, worth a thought.

No Guts, No Glory.

Seriously.

Keeping an eye on my Hiroshima students?
Big Check.

Supporting student problems in Takayama?
Check.

Helping with server install by phone?
Check.

Not stressed out?
BIGGEST Check.

This trip was a joy to administer and work on.
Next year, I hope to go on Takayama as a technical and creative adviser.
Already working on a proposal for that.
And a debrief on the Hiroshima trip and ideas how to enhance it.

Busy week ahead.

It’s viewable here… http://yishiroshima2008.prostudent.net.

The goal of the project is to produce enough material to eventually make a book of the things the students experience during the trip.

Their assignment has been to microblog and take pictures as much as possible.
Select students have been fed directly to that blog.
All assignment details are also available electronically.

Yet… that is not all…

There is a much larger goal that I will divulge at a later time.

But, in the mean time, allow me to beg for an audience.

I would be honored if some my teaching colleagues could spread this around to their students around the world.
The blog should begin to get a little more material from the various experiences in and around Hiroshima.
A lot of the themes are rooted in the Atomic Bomb, as well as the various cultural heritage locations in the region.

Please, do, check it out!

Three solid days of solid information inundation.

It was the first time in two years I got that experience, the last time being when I was still in college, still trying to get grades for game theory (boy, I bombed that one) and postwar Japanese history (slept through half the final, pulled out a 3.8).

Boy am I rusty.

Learning 2.008 was a lot of good stuff. Ranging from waves of cognitive dissonance to simple reinterpretations of common tools, the sheer amount of information was amazing. I’m still having trouble getting my head wrapped around it, and the worst part is that I’m starting to lose large swathes of it too.

Ewan McIntosh: Unleashing the Tribe

This was the first presentation I saw… And I just rewatched it.

Ewan’s presentation analyzed the trends and ideas in both the classroom and the rest of the Internet.

Some key points?

• “Tools don’t get socially interesting until they get technologically boring.”
  I’ve already used this for a presentation at Apple Japan (with appropriate citations, of course). But I’ve found that this quote is exceptionally powerful and true. Kids and people don’t use tools until they get to the point where the usage is pretty damn easy. Facebook, Bebo, YouTube, email, etc. have all hooked on because it’s easier than paper cuts to use them.
• On blogs in the classroom…
  An interesting anecdote was from a teacher who was having difficulty getting their students to blog for class. The teacher found that they were writing, but mostly on their social networking sites, like Bebo or Facebook. Ewan’s analysis was that this was due to the fact that the kids aren’t writing for class or teachers or parents, but mainly for their parents.
• On social activism on the Internet…
  Similarly, another interesting story was about two movements on social networking sites that actually had the same objective. One was mostly students on a social network called Bebo. The other was a body of teachers and others on Facebook. In other words, lots of people were, in a way, getting together to become socially active. But despite both being online with very similar, if not identical goals, they didn’t intermix.
• On easy tools, big results…
  Improv Everywhere’s big setups are very effective, such as the freezing stunt at Grand Central Station. But the interesting thing is that the entire movement is based on SNS text messaging with simple mission parameters and goals, not heavy, centralized planning on the web. Ewan wonders if this sort of approach would could be applied to the classroom.

Ewan’s presentation really set the tone for the morning, as it filled my head with even more questions. It also made me worry about the Hiroshima Project, but that’s another story. But for me, the analysis of Improv Everywhere was big. Talk about applying Occam’s Razor.

Jonathan Chambers: HARD COPY (SAS)

Jonathan Chambers’ presentation interested me because it seemed to have many parallels with my Hiroshima Project.

Interestingly, it was very much a strong work in progress at Shanghai American School.
Using wikis and on-demand publishers like Lulu, Jonathan’s goal is to create writings that will eventually published into a book.

Though I can’t remember all of the details, the jist is that the wikis are working as a platform for students to write, edit and collaborate on.

Though it’s not a finished product, I am interested to see how Jonathan’s projects go.

In the mean time, I plan to kick some butt with my Hiroshima project.

Genki Unno: The Heretic

So.

Fill up a room of administrators, technicians and facilitators of schools that have totally gone the way of one-to-one laptop.
Yeah, like fifty of them.
Now add me, ANTI-one-to-one extraordinare.
Yes, the Heretic.

Between conferences, I decided to participate in the Unconference that covered the spectrum of one-to-one computing.
Part of the theme was to look at implementation plans, but for the most part, that was really boring and there was little I didn’t already know.
It appeared that, in Shanghai, every school has gone on the ‘keeping up with the neighbors’ scheme and have gone screaming into one-to-one programs.

So, in this river that goes one way, I decide to take on the establishment.
Myself, being from the bleeding edge school that doesn’t do one-to-one, I decided to interrogate with a jackhammer and dental drill.

“Why did you go to one-to-one?”

“How do you assess your program?”

“What are the benefits?”

“How has your programs improved student learning?!?”

(Recognize the question?)

“The teachers wanted them and our computer labs were full.”

“Well, uh, the kids, they’re doing good things. Wonderful.”

“They’re totally engaged and it’s all about learning and smiles.”

“Uh, yeah, it’s hard to assess.”

Guys… Way to answer like Sarah Palin.

In this sea of complete blah, I decide to go with this.

“What can you teach with a computer that you can’t with a SPOON?!”

Obviously, I’m a little agitated with the non-answers.

That just gets some laughs out of a semi-tense situation and, eventually, we get back to implementation talking and the fact that you need heavy teaching/administration/IT coordination, but you could have had a penguin tell you that.

But for me, it was very frustrating to see so many schools that had few IT staff that truly knew what they were up to.
In fact, I wrote an entire article on it, somewhere on this blog.

No assessment results, no numerics, no detailed anecdotes, nothing.

Thankfully, later in the day, I ended up speaking with Martin from Western Academy of Beijing…
Where they’re one-to-one…
Since 1997.
Nineteen Ninety Seven.

Now that’s a program!

And I was able to glean some ideas from Martin’s long, long experience with such programs.

Then he made fun of my spoon rhetorical question.

Ewan McIntosh: Thinking out of the XBox

And yes, yet another Ewan McIntosh.

Unfortunately, after the bar fight in the previous session, I wasn’t able to concentrate much on Ewan’s speech.

But!

I was able to get the fact that some schools in Scotland were using Nintendogs to educate their students about responsibility.

And it also was similar to the debate my boss and I had over the possibilities of using game consoles and portable devices in the classroom.

Laptops?

Phbbt.

Mobile technology, folks.

Similar to the first session, it only reinforced one thing.

Don’t be afraid.

Alan Levine: What is on your Technology Horizon?

An informational about the Horizon Project, it was interesting to see all the toys and widgets out there that are getting developed.

Once I read the purple pamphlet, I’ll let you know what I think.

Nap Time

Though I participated in Tod Baker’s FinalSite and website deployment presentation, it was after I went to the “Organizing a Student Film Festival” presentation that put me to sleep.

So after Tod’s presentation… I took a nap.

Yes, a nap.

Sure, shot some wind with Josh from ASIJ and some others like Clint from UNIS, but I was totally out of gas.

So I took a nap.

Really, really helped.

Ewan McIntosh: Digital Photography

I don’t think I need to talk about this.

I can go 10 pages.

Basically… Camera doesn’t matter… Just go out and shoot.

Ewan McIntosh: Unconference

Now this one was worth it.

Originally about a group of four people, this one was totally fun due to the fact we stuck to a conversational format.

Why do we think our brains have changed due to 32 months of YouTube?

Will there be a time where Ewan’s daughter doesn’t want to be on Flickr?

METAPHYSICS! (I can’t remember exactly what we were talking about, but it was quite the mindfrak.)

How do the younger generation not mind the verbal abuse online, like the exceptionally rude YouTube ones?

It was all over the map and a lot of fun for sure.

Overall

A good time to be had, I have to say I was totally overwhelmed by the information.
But a lot of the information has already been used by me in many of my conversations, like the ideas Ewan presented in his Tribe presentation.

Wow. Lots of stuff.

It really is.

The most powerful question in education, through and through.

Recently, I got this version.

“How will the experiences of Learning 2.008 improve student learning?”

The sad part is, I can’t answer it.
Not in terms of technology.
Not in terms of systems.
Not in terms of widgets and goodies.

Actually, I do have an answer.

The answer?

There is no amount of technology that can improve student learning.
None, nada, zip, zero.
It’s all about learning and teaching and the reciprocity, if not symbiosis, of the two.

In this respect, I am an eternal learner and student.
This is something I don’t expect ever to change.

I hate teaching.
I can do it, but I hate it.
For me, it’s a very mind numbing experience.

(Actually, I don’t hate it very much.
I enjoy tutoring my yearbook kids in everything between economics, math, English and science.
But I don’t view it as teaching.
I consider it ‘personal remediation’ .)

In the greater sense of things, I prefer ‘growing’ with my students.
Yearbook, photo club, whatever.
All the activities I help with, I work on the team or as a part of it.

But I digress.

There are many ways to improve student learning through the lessons of Learning 2.008, but the biggest one for is to continue pursuing and promoting unorthodox ways of studying and learning that are only possible via both technology, and in worst cases, without it.
Being all student has its merits.
Being from the outside and finding more ideas from outside has its merits too.

My Hiroshima Project, to be unveiled here in greater detail soon, was already planned by Shanghai.
I’ve also worked on ways to get the Grade 11 Field Studies project off the ground, though I haven’t been involved in the assignment design process as much as I wish I could.
Also fiddling with an idea for Critical Thinking.
And maybe some class ideas for the IT plan.

Hmm…
I think I’m gonna be stuck in front of this computer this weekend.

Jonathan Medina’s Brain Rules is a great read I just finished and the biggest message I got out of it was… What in the name of Gorton’s fish sticks makes you think millions of years of evolution can be easily defeated by a few years of YouTube and Flickr?

Medina doesn’t necessarily tackle the issue head on as I suggest, but I think he would agree. Think about it, Medina urges many times, the human race began millions of years ago on the Serengeti when humanity was no more than a dream. It grew out of an evolutionary path that was threatened by everything between disease, elements, natural disasters and predatory animals. Humanity was on the plains of the Earth far, far, far longer than written history, let alone the Information Age or the Facebook Age.

Yet we proclaim, our kids are different! Digital natives! Digital imbeciles! Don’t trust anyone born after 1980! No, trust them, the brains are wired differently and they work like super fast! Mark Bauerlein! Ian Jukes! Facebook! Bebo! OMGGGGGGG!

Except… Regardless of whether or not you believe in Evolution, 30 years isn’t a lot of years out of 4 billion or 6000 years.

For instance… On the idea that multitasking is growing with kids writing essays, doing Facebook, instant messaging, blogging, Skyping, eating sandwiches and listening to music…

Now getting back to the topic on hand… Has the nature of learning really changed in the digital age or has education just become ossified? If I’m not getting my signals crossed (reading Dan Pink’s A Whole New Mind right now), Medina would probably lie more on the side of the latter. The way humans learn really hasn’t changed. But what has happened is that the classroom has become severely inefficient in its delivery of the learning experience. Bored brains don’t learn well. Sleep and low stress is important. Vision (EDIT: vision as in visual, not as in dreams) and exploration help learning big time. Or so argues Medina.

On my playing field, I think it’s quite obvious that the nature of learning hasn’t changed.

I recently lamented to an education colleague over some drinks after the iSummit, “Facebook changes its look, without changing its fundamental software, and a lot of users complain and can’t transfer their skills. I mean, one gajillion strong against new Facebook?”

“Yeah, but that’s not just limited to technology… It’s a problem in all education… It’s hard to get skills to transfer,” the teacher retorted.

It was something I had never really thought about since I’ve never really had any trouble transferring my random skills to random problems. In fact, I like a good challenge, whether it’s figuring out how to cook my chicken or finding a way to fix a printer. But, as Brian always likes to point out, I’m weird. And that’s probably true.

But how do we teach that? How do we change our institutions so I’m less of an anomaly, much less a novelty? Is it to reshape what has been taught around the ‘new skills’ of the 21st Century? Learning wikis, blogs, and computers. Or is it to reshape the pursuit of education so the students can not only cope with 21st Century tools, but also the off chance of getting sucked into a vortex and ending up in the 18th Century or half a universe away?

There are probably many ways we can change education as an institution. Jeff Utecht recently twitted this video, and it’s an interesting vision. I don’t particularly agree with parts of it (especially technology being like oxygen), but the idea and motivation behind the Science Leadership Academy is one of the more convincing ones I’ve seen, especially at the high school level. I know I’ve written a lot of questions and not a lot of answers, so to speak, but I really wonder. What can we do?

Back to the books for me…!

But the question became why?

Enthusiastically, I explain the ins and outs, many experiences from Learning 2.008 included.

Yet, I feel I was unable to get the entire jist of it across.

So here’s a few honest reasons why twitter may help you on your IT & Education equation.

1. IT and education people suck at connecting. Brutally honest? Maybe. Not necessarily true? Probably. But the truth is, a lot of us in IT don’t necessarily get the benefits and tiddlywinks that classroom teachers get with regard to things such as PD and conferences. And education-types are relatively sheltered compared to mass media, communications, finance and pretty much any other industry short of hermits and evil used car dealers (hyperbole, yes). Thus, when we do get our time in the sun, it’s a good opportunity to network. And twitter can help keep your garden green in the post-conference blues. Not as interpersonal as Facebook, over-professional like LinkedIn, embarrassingly direct like email or intrusive as spammy listservs, twitter has a charming balance of community, water cooler and timeliness of a blog.  Twitter is kind of like a big cafe (or bar… your choice). You sit around, listen to who you want to, and maybe jump in if you like the vibe.
2. It’s easier than wikis, blogs, SNSs, email and all them shishkabobs. Especially if you have twhirl (free, Adobe AIR crossplatform), twitterrific (not free), twitbin (Firefox plugin) or an iPhone with twitterrific. Twitter out of the box isn’t a great resource. Having a non-automatic refreshing window always open is a little cumbersome. But the little apps I’ve mentioned allow you to stay logged in and keep a relatively unobstructive window open for you. Like an RSS reader, you get to follow along when you want to. And all three will automatically refresh and even notify you of new messages and twits. If you suffer from ADD and are easily distracted, twitter may not be for you. But that comment is entirely in jest and I think most people can exploit these wonderful resources.
3. There are a lot of smart, active IT people out there for you to exploit collaborate with. Also in jest . But it’s true, there’s a lot of people out there that are worth listening and talking to. Some users that are worth the fare and more? Ewanmcintosh (Technology/Learning/Media guru), cogdog (Alan Levine, Vice President, NMC Community and CTO for the New Media Consortium), PresentationZen (Garr Reynolds, presenter extraordinare), Jutecht (Jeff Utecht, organizer of Learning 2.0 Shanghai & current Elementary Technology & Learning Coordinator at ISB), jennyluca (active IT librarian from Australia), jasonwelker (IT heavyweight economics teacher from Zurich International School), intrepidteacher (a progressive teacher in Doha), and many, many more. From the YIS family, we bring you BrianLockwood (Director of Information Technology), kurisuteen (Christine, MS/HS IT Facilitator), yislibrary (Brian Farrell, Librarian), AClarkYIS (Adam Clark, Student Life Counselor/Skate Revolutionary) and, of course, myself. In fact, we even tweet our meetings as minutes at yisitmeeting. I’m waiting for one of you to crash the meeting!

Still not convinced?
Just try it for a week. Make sure to get an account, get a client (twhirl, twitbin and TweetDeck are free and crossplatform) and follow some of the people mentioned.
And please, do jump in.

Blogs are the new filler paper notebooks and binders.
I think it’s great.

Anything to make my bag just a netbook or MacBook Air and my camera.
Can I has a wireless 3G modem too?

But Ewan McIntosh had a great point.

He told a story of a teacher.
Setup a student/class blog, but no one would write.

Where were the kids?
They were on Bebo, an SNS that seems to be major-popular in Europe.
What MySpace is to Facebook in Europe.

“Yeaaaa, awesome, the trip was crazy!”
The kids would write.
Write for their peers, their pals, their friends.
But not for the class blog.

“Quite obvious,” said Ewan, “the kids are writing for their peers, their small community.”

(well, maybe he didn’t, but it was along those lines.)

And it makes sense.
There are aspects of life that we all want to keep among friends, among ourselves.
There’s definitely something weird about opening up to parents and teachers.

But how do we change that?
Or is that worth changing?

I’m hoping Colin’s projects with the middle schoolers at our school will be able to answer those questions.
Brian has also been trying it with lower high school students for his classes.
Will the blog simply become an open portfolio, just full of school work?
Or will some students embrace openness and open up beyond the classroom?

It will definitely be something I keep tabs on.

But in the mean time, chew on this… I would absolutely kill for something like this in Kanto…

When StreetWars started on Sept. 7, each of the 250-plus contestants was handed a black envelope marked “Shadow Government,” with the name, home address, workplace, e-mail address, cellphone number and photograph of a player to kill by squirting. After each kill, the shooter acquires the dead rival’s target and begins stalking this new person, all the while looking over a shoulder for whoever is hunting him. It is permissible to shoot in self-defense.

Check it out…

A Shadowy, Wet World of Squirt-Gun Assassins

Bonus points for whoever can adapt it to the classroom.

Yet, I don’t just view it as a great communications tool.

Don’t get me wrong, microblogging is very cool and it’s sort of an extension of the Facebook status update.

But Twitter is great because it requires an element of eloquence. 140 characters is not a large chunk of language.

Though there are no ground rules for Twitting, there are a few I always like to keep in mind.

Rule # 1: No web language/contractions/acronyms.

Why? Because it makes it harder.
Really.
I have no objections to funny language. ICANHASCHEEZBURGER, EPIC FAIL and all the other more than dead or new net memes are fun.
And I totally agree with the idea that language is a living, breathing organism that evolves according to need.
But there’s always slang and proper usage.
Up through now, Internet language is totally slang.

(On a side note, I prefer to keep my written English in a clean and formal form. Spelling, capitalization, formatting, the whole nine yards up to spec. I won’t usually chat or write on peoples’ walls in a formal tone, but writing is serious my friends.)

Like I said earlier, 140 characters is not a whole lot of space.
Limiting your lexicon to a set that is not optimized for shorthand (i.e. plain, ol’ English) makes communicating something of a challenge.
There’s a lot of ways to describe the world, but doing it in a condensed and interesting fashion is difficult.
And I enjoy it.

Rule #2: Twits are one-offs.

No “To be continued…” or continuing Twits using ellipsises.
For the same reason as above, continuing a story simply doesn’t force you to refine your Twit.
Cherish the limitation.

Rule #3: Twit when it’s worth it.

I have about 10 different ways to Twit.
Okay, actually, I have three.
But for me, it’s all about capturing the moment.
From the computer, from the phone, I can Twit when the iron is still hot and the thought is still fresh.

Anyways, I was actually planning to write about Internet Lexicon and its effects or whatever, but this captures the essence of what I do.

Language is a skill.
Practice it.
Use it.

That’s my M.O.

Let’s start with this.

I am fairly anti-one-to-one. Enough to bring dissent into the one-to-one unconference at Learning 2.008.

But to give you a background, it’s not necessarily because I don’t think it works. I just don’t think it’s a panacea. It doesn’t solve the common cold. It doesn’t warm up my food (well… it probably could…). It doesn’t iron my shirts. And it sure as hell doesn’t make who I am. Though to a much lesser extent, I am also not particularly encouraged by the impact a one-to-one program could bring to my particular environment. With proper training and teamwork, I think there can be benefits. But a one-to-one laptop ballistic missile won’t do it and I would never go with it. Plan, share, project, and then we can start talking about the widgets.

Inundating every child with a computer is decadence. It’s flagrant bragging of affluence. It doesn’t automatically make teaching or learning better. It can make certain things better, yes, but the bigger issue is quality of instruction and quality of learning. A good teacher can teach a lesson with anything. Rocks, spoons, whatever.

And what frustrated me beyond all was the sheer fact that no one really answered whether computers made learning better, faster or easier. No one had stories, good or bad, of how increased computer contact and screen time improved or ruined classes. No one had any answers regarding assessment, data about increased learning or even ideas on how to assess the gains and losses. No one had any idea of their results beyond classical anecdotal stories of students making “good things”.

Hate to burst your bubble, but we’re not trying to be Martha Stewarts of the IT world.

Beyond that, for me, the main reasons I don’t believe is buried in economics and also my view on the human experience.

(If you’re an economist, some of the concepts may be familiar. A lot from William Easterly’s development economics book, The White Man’s Burden, along with a plethora of other economics books.)

Finding Demand, Meeting Needs

So, how do we order food for a group? Tripe soup? Soup dumplings? Fried chicken? Rice? If you’re like me, we’re checking with our friends (or clientele) and see if they don’t like guts, if they’re allergic to peanuts or if they can’t eat seafood. We look for needs and meet them.

In context, the one-to-one idea is similar to ordering tripe soup all the time, regardless of whether there’s someone to eat it. But this isn’t a one dollar bowl of soup. It’s on the order of thousands of dollars per miss. It’s a literal blind shot based on an assumption of a need, as opposed to finding needs to meet and meeting them.

Technology is not a one shot upgrade to education. You can spend 2000 dollars per head, but why spend it if your students or teachers can’t or don’t want to use it?

There is a lot of technolust out there, but it’s not a matter of what they want. It’s about what they need and we as technology experts need to understand when it’s cake frosting and when it’s cake. This isn’t about the demand from teachers and certainly not about computer labs being full or inaccessible. Teachers are the people who facilitate education, but they are by no means the people who do the learning and have needs for learning. No, those are the students. It is the job of the teachers to truly investigate, assess and address if their student constituency needs computers to learn the subject, if it’s a modular upgrade, or if it’s just icing on the cake (i.e. fluff). And this is very much a one-to-one assessment issue.

Incentive & Legitimacy

I don’t expect a bum who’s begging for change to be saving for college. He’s getting a beer.

Though some one-to-one schools are based on having parents pay for computers and like, there are still issues related to legitimacy, responsibility and incentive. In an environment that requires the computer as a part of curriculum, the computer becomes a disposable as opposed to a resource. Its value can be diminished by being too prevalent in the classroom. This can all be addressed by policy and discussion and culture, but at the end of the day, it’s the equivalent of giving away silver spoons to kids who were born with silver spoons, whisks, spatulas and tuning forks in their mouth/foot/hand/other regions.

Regardless of a future where we’re wired into the grid, getting chased by psychotic robots and having sex with them (fairly obvious Battlestar Galactica reference), it’s still important to emphasize that the computer is a tool that makes things easier, better or faster. By giving or requiring computers, it’s made into an absolute component to life. One-to-one programs jump over the fact that the computers are still there to address a need. A computer doesn’t do every single thing well or better. Web 2.0 and newer systems are increasing the breadth and width of possibilities, but some are still not cost effective and some are still just not effective. And you can make things a lot worse by misapplying technology to a lesson or a course of study.

But by having computers EVERYWHERE and ANYTIME, the mysticism of the computer is reduced to a smoldering wreck.

Diminishing Returns

But the computer can make things better. Though the starting costs are significantly higher, you can make things more accessible and easier to use. If your school doesn’t have a library or doesn’t have the space to have a video collection, the laptop is a cost effective. A laptop, along with the Internet, can replace a metric ton of equipment and resources.

Yet, the schools that do one-to-one are predominantly affluent and have all the money or resources in the world as it is.

As an mind exercise, let’s think of chefs in a kitchen. Let’s say your line works great at putting out fifty covers (meals served) a night with seven people. Now, let’s say we start putting in more and more chefs (but with ceteris paribus, all other things being equal). More sauté chefs, an extra grill chef, maybe another sous chef. At first, you’ll probably gain, go to a hundred covers or something. But eventually you’ll hit an invisible wall and lose performance, due to population, kitchen size or lack of tools. You’ll have everyone running into each other and sooner or later, it’ll be like one of those nightmare morning trains in Tokyo.

Now, that might sound like an odd analogy, since we’re not giving multiple laptops to the same kid. But we are giving computers to kids who have relatively full or expandable tool kits. Much like the kitchen, as you load up on tools (computers, books, tools), the returns from each tool is going to fall. In an affluent school setting, the inherent gains of a laptop are reduced. Why give something that makes making the world easier to see if you can actually afford to go to places around the world? Why use a computer to do every aspect of a science lab if you can afford the equipment to excecute it?

This area gets messy, since it starts getting into pedagological theory and concepts, of which I have little knowledge, but it’s sort of a question I always ask. And the basic root of this question is, what is the ROI on these computers and are they really worth it?

Skills Transfer

1,000,000 AGAINST THE NEW FACEBOOK LAYOUT!

My students are damn good. With yearbook, they’re practically my coworkers.

But like that anti-New-Facebook group, many of the ‘digital natives’ are having trouble moving to new systems even when the platform is predominantly the same.

This has happened about a billion times times on Facebook alone, line when it went from version 1 (pre-News Feed) to version 2 (News Feed). And it’s happening again.

What I like to say is that we want our kids to be like Scotty or McGuyver or any one of those resourceful people who are able to fix or make anything out of… well, anything.

Though this mini-rant is more off the top of my head, what is clearly indicated is the fact that many people are having difficulty transferring skills from one platform to another. I’ve always thought this was a result of there being a ‘dimensional rift’ between Real Life and the Internet, but it’s gotten worse as we’ve become more and more integrated with our systems and software.

If the ‘digital natives’ are so good with computers, why am I walking around school rewiring them most of the time?

Dystopian at Heart

I love dystopias. Battlestar Galactica. Brave New World. Star Trek: Deep Space Nine.

It’s all good.

In the end, it comes down to this. With books like Ray Kurzweil’s The Singularity is Near, it’s fairly obvious we’re going into brave new worlds that will bend our morals, realities and thinking in unthinkable ways. And this is a constant worry for me, despite being in IT and being proficient in using the computer.

What happens when we can’t disconnect?

I don’t want to find out.

Day 2: Nice.

Day 3: Okay… Cool.

Day 4: Let’s go home.

Took the 430 KPH maglev into town and a long taxi ride to the hotel.
Then some food in the hotel lounge, served by a funny rookie waitress.
I had a pile of green on top of a pile of noodles.
Not bad, not nearly as ominous as it looked, though not a single idea what it was.

Caught up on facebook, twitter, mail, it’s all good.
Then a short crasn n’ burn.

A bit later, it’s to Shanghai Community International School for registration and opening of Learning 2.008.
The campus is friggin’ nice.
Lots of new buildings, a nice turf, it feels like home, a shelter in the otherwise Chinese cityscape.
Chilling and chatting with the people, it was nice to talk and meet with people from all over.
A plate of food, a long chain of interesting talking heads, free wi-fi (facebook!).
What more is there to expect?

Well, a little more.

With the fellow YISers, dropped by the hotel bar afterwards.
Immediately, I’m attacked by a small, portly man in a white shirt and cummerbund.
An admittedly cute Chinese girl is in tow.

First, it’s incomprehensible, Chinese for sure.

“No, English,” I wave off.

The man comes back with some Japanese, along the lines of “Sir, welcome”.

“Yeah, whatever,” I say, “I’m with those two dudes.”

And that was that.

But persistant he was.

“Okyakusama, kochira…“, signaling yet another pretty face in a mini skirt.

I cut him off before he gets to the substantials, “Iidesukara.”

A gaggle of girls in white cocktail dresses scampers by, into the club next door.

But it’s quite obvious what he was dealing.
Maybe not quite for the extra services, but a companion, a way to get more cash out of me.

Sorry dude, I don’t kyabakura in Japan.
I’m not that old.

Though not really that shocked, it only confirmed what I had heard and read.
It’s only a matter of economics, for sure.
Nothing immoral, nothing dishonest.
Nothing to criticize, nothing to complain about.
Just an honest girl out to make an honest buck.

But at the same time… It gets you.
Not so much as it being a culture shock, but more as a confirmation of our world.

So it’s like a three hour plane ride and All Nippon Airways manages to sneak in a burnch.

Some of it is okay, others looking like it’s food from Star Trek.
You know, the sort of stuff Spock and Kirk played food hockey with while arguing the finer points of humanity.

Neon colored, odd shaped blocks, just plain… Weird.

And blinding! Chicken blocks in neon orange sauce over neon yellow rice (yea, yea, saffron) with neon red ratatouille. In neon colored containers, no less.

At least the utensils are metal.

No, I’m not being abducted. But I am going to Shanghai for the Learning 2.008 Conference.

But really, I’m more in it for the foreign land thing. And maybe a little bit of the food. Watching Tony Bourdain got me on that food bit. Well, to an extent. I’m still not eating anything not fried or burnt to death.

Regardless, I hope to travel, write and eat. Oh, yeah. And learn something too.

Tomorrow. 6AM bus to Narita. Urhg.

So, let’s get this out of the way. A LOT of school work is bullsh!t. There’s no way around it and no other way to call it. We’re in school for like 12 to 16 years (or beyond), and the biggest thing that people learn is how to polish a turd. Persuasive essays, science labs, art portfolios, whatever. Everything is way up there in the bullsh!t quotient, except maybe math. Math is probably one of the few things you can’t BS your way through. Regardless, we all learn how to eloquently pass off our thoughts as knowledge. And I’m not talkin’ Nobel Prize quality writings.

You know what it is. Empty, daft, pointless. But it looks sooo good and gets you that grade.

But WHY is it that way? Why is there so much waste, such applied inefficiency? Why is it that we learn how to fluff our knowledge to sound intelligent and not actually learn the difference between Leninist and Marxist communism? The difference between Keynsian and Neoclassical economics? (Okay, most of us probably do, but it’s all part of the BS spice rack when arguing about the political effects of polarization in planned economies.)

The why for us students is easy. It’s EASY. Simply put, it’s really easy to put in a lot of intellectual slog to get your point across. Five page essay? Easily two or three pages of pure, unadulterated, grade AAA turd polish. Sure, you could work harder to put in more content, but a lot of times, you get away with it. And that’s all that matters.

Now, it’s not all wham, blam fluff. Turd polishing is inherently easier if you know more. More books, more facts equals more cheese and more empty carbs for the recipe. The less you know, the less you can fluff or the fluff you come up won’t be up to spec. Maybe that’s what teachers grade: the grade of your turd polish.

Yet, when it all comes around, fluff and all, what’s sacrificed is not only knowledge, but also time. Fluffing, it takes time. Valuable time that can be used not only for wanton drinking, karaoke, video games, YouTube or whatever, but time that can actually be spent on actual intellectual stimulation. Real brain work.

Then why is it okay? Really, it probably shouldn’t be. Letting us youth out into the world with blunt intellect and unrefined problem-solving skills is a big mistake. That’s why they have things called remidiation. But why the heck would someone need remidiation after 4 years of high school and 2~4 years of post-secondary education? That only proves there’s some sort of disconnect between schoolwork and its objectives.

So, why so much BS? Why aren’t assignments and homework and projects refined? Why are they allowed to flap in the wind, allow for areas that can be circumvented, punctured and reduced to useless fluff?

Even in close work with teachers and talking with instructors, I still have no idea.

(Actually, I had one professor pole axe an essay, essentially calling it a pile of fluff and completely off base, but she was Hungarian and understood the inflated grades we get in America. I walked away with a 3.7 and a little bit more knowledge of how to make my fluff and stuff. Thus far, she’s the only professor I’ve ever had that literally went out of her way to cut the crap.)

Ideally, I imagine a good assignment would be less time consuming, more intensly flavored and have proper design process built in. I would have parameters negotiable, made so the student is forced to negotiate the assignment (there was never an assigment I’d not try to make easier on myself). At the same time, I’d hold firm limitations and barter, as opposed to firm requirements. Require five pages? No, no, no, maximum three pages. Movie or poster? Don’t bother presenting it, I want an accompanying portfolio. Don’t know how to make a portfolio? GO LOOK IT UP.

Anyways, it crossed my mind. What do I know? I’m just a student. A good one.

Because I know how to do what I just ripped on.

But it turns out he’s a pretty damn good writer too. Bourdain’s autobiography and kitchen exposé of sorts, Kitchen Confidential, is an excellent piece of writing. Well paced, well written, and just damn good.

Hey, I’ve said damn three times already.

Anyways, the book is a revelation, a trip, and a life story of the man himself, Anthony Bourdain. Beginning with his first adventures in food, namely vichyssoise and oysters, the book is a recount of Bourdain’s blunders and successes in the kitchen world. And by the end, you start seeing where the scruffy guy from a New York kitchen came from, the TV character and all. From cooking high on crack to cheating at the CIA to crashing around kitchens of abysmal failures and awful bosses, the book is tireless in its humor, revelations and story.

Those with easily bruised delicate sensibilities and a heroic or romantic images of the kitchen may want to stay away. But those who can weather the ride, accept the fact that the people in the kitchen aren’t necessarily surgically clean, that bread is occasionally recycled, the book is worth the faire and maybe some change. Hell, the chapter on a day at Les Halles, Bourdain’s brasserie in New York, actually succeeds in making you tired.

Of course, he does take you on a tour of the other type of kitchen, where the prim French guy just walks around calm, tasting things and makes sure all is right with the sauce… Which ends up being another total shocker by the time you’re trained to think cooks are a bunch of insane thugs high on meth.

A full course in humility, humanity, humor, and of course, food. Well worth it.

——-

Personally, the book was a colossal hunk of cognitive dissonance (read: mind****) that shed light on another world. Not just a world of cooking, but also a world of debauchery, drugs and deception. Worlds I can never imagine finding myself in.

Bourdain, for all his disdain or self-depreciation of his people skills, seems to be actually an astute observer and analyzer of the human soul. Qualities you see on his show, despite a chiffonade of smarmy sarcasm.

Entertaining like a twinkie, but hearty and wholesome as artisan bread.

And this is what I got out of the Bank Gothic decorated book…

1. The recent batch of Americans are dumb because they don’t read (their talkin bout what?).
2. They’re inexplicably proud of their illiteracy (”Books are old! GOOGLE BAY-BEH!”).
3. The Internet made information easier to get, but test scores are not going up (no word on how tests are composed).
4. The lower intellect is also creating a vicious circle, as the Internet is adaptive and responsive. In response to dumber kids, the Internet responds with content and interfaces that require less intellectual power.
5. The youth are overconfident of their skills for some bizarre reason (Yes, why yes I am!).
6. Teachers, professors, and parents have also bought into the hype that the kids are ’special’, refusing to invoke their responsibility to being old sages and fogies (Mark says it’s thanks to the youth activism during the Cold War), leading to…
7. An adolescent generation that knows no history, has little or no civic responsibility and are preoccupied by their own interests (”OMGGGG MIKA BROKE UP!!1!”).

After reading the book and letting it literally simmer in the mental back burner, I tend to agree with many of the points Bauerlein makes. Yes, we’re more pragmatic with regard to being part of the Union. Yes, we don’t know our Homer and Marx. Yes, there are lots of people who are wasting metric tons of neurons on YouTube and keeping track of every movement of their friends. Yes, many are dumb.

But that only tells me that there’s a lot of waste and not a lot of production. Is it really entirely the seductive Internet’s responsibility? Or could it be more insidious? Perhaps the failure of a culture that’s becoming more and more enamored with the idea that the world owes us a living, that we can do no wrong and we’ll be a-okay? Maybe the fact that the world works so well, even when I don’t read the Times or watch the news every day. I don’t know. But what Bauerlein illustrated was more or less the barebones issues with the sort of laissez-faire-type education that has taken place during my upbringing. I just hope I came through okay.

(On a tangent, I also think my generation has also become painfully unadaptive despite living in a relatively livable world, i.e. 5 TRILLION STRONG AGAINST THE NEW FACEBOOK. I mean, wtf. LEARN HOW TO USE THE NEW ONE. We brag our asses off about the fact that we can use computers more than our ancestors, yet you can’t adapt to one measly redesign? That’s not ability to use a computer, that’s being just like GERIATRICS who refuse to let go of their 8-tracks or something!)

But not just any trashy photons, but videos with lots of redeeming substance. One, a show that records a traveler who possesses the eloquence of both a heckler and a scholar. The other, a neomodern post-apocalyptic, dystopic sci-fi epic. Both cynical and unrelenting. Both intelligent and raw.

An Honest Meal

Anthony Bourdain – No Reservations. The show is hosted by namesake Anthony Bourdain, a ‘chef at large’ New Yorker who’s a straight shooting, calls-as-he-sees-it, food lovin’ Yankees fan. He’s also a profound literary talent who can drink, smoke, write and comment anyone under the table. Although he’s acerbic, cantankerous and cynical, the sum of it somehow multiplies out to a resounding plus. This man, who sounds like a total jerk wad, goes on trips with a film crew and goes on gastronomical adventures around the world that few could stomach. Natto, fermented fish, fermented burnt swallows, rotten tofu, cow testicles, whatever.

He travels. He writes. He eats.

I’ve been a fan of Anthony Bourdain since his days of hosting A Cook’s Tour on Food Network, but I had never followed his move to a different network. Years later, I catch up and find that the show has been on Travel Channel for five seasons and that No Reservations is rougher and grittier than the previous show. And so full of FCC mandated bleeps! But despite the profanity, Bourdain’s adventures around the world comes across honest and natural. The profanity and the character of Bourdain come across as genuine, rather than an irritating facade that is put on to merely make the subjects at hand more sensational. Through a combination of Bourdain’s ‘tude and simple dialogue, the show is able to retain freshness and create a story that is both intelligent and enjoyable.

Of particular note is the episode Anthony Bourdain in Beirut (iTunes Store Link). Filmed as a result of being in Beirut to shoot an episode of No Reservations when the Israeli-Lebanon War of 2006 began, Bourdain’s recount is a fascinating documentary regarding the modern conflict in the Middle East. Though not particularly detailed on the conflict itself, the episode presents the story on the ground through the eyes of an American. The contrast between Bourdain’s typical recalcitrant attitude and the Bourdain you see in Beirut creates a deeply profound and personal experience. Few hours of television are able to inform and impact so thoroughly as this one.

A Dystopia for the Masses

So, I’m an admitted Star Trek: Deep Space Nine fan. Though I don’t mind the other treks through the stars, Deep Space Nine’s darker interpretation of the future always felt much closer and realistic. A galactic war, a question of faith, and deep characters. It all fit together well. After all, Christopher Columbus probably didn’t go sailing in pajamas and encounter easily resolved deus ex machina problems, whilst finding friendlies in every corner of the world.

And then I somehow utterly missed the boat on Ron D. Moore’s reinterpretation of Battlestar Galactica. Nearly five years after it went on air, I’ve become addicted to watching this new dystopic space adventure. I watched every episode, mini-series to the newest of season 4, in two frakkin’ weeks.

The boatloads of praise for the show are definitely merited. Although the show dragged in a few places, it never got to the craptacularness of other sci-fi series. And the story. Oh, the story. I’m not going to explain it, but as far as sci-fi goes, no series has been nearly as deep in plots and subplots.

You can see that I’m not writing nearly as much as I wrote about Tony Bourdain, but it’s because it’s difficult to explain.

Something like… Humanity makes robots. Humans enslave robots. Robots get pissed. War. War ends. Forty years later. Robots strike back. Humanity nearly wiped out. People run away. Robots chase.

Add about a couple dozen plot twists and you have it. Maybe.

Regardless, it’s good action, profound story and intelligent characters in a neat package. The storytelling and character development are what drives the show. If you wanted to replace the setting with mini-vans and golf carts, you could probably get away with it. Each character has their charms, strengths and warts, making them lovable, despicable and all.

Like sci-fi? Like drama?

Just watch it.

So Where Am I Going?

Oh, yes. I remember the days in school.

“Don’t swear!”

“I’m hearing language I shouldn’t be hearing!”

“Swearing doesn’t help your purpose!”

“Swearing is only indicative of the lack of your vocabulary!”

(It helps I work at a school.)

But after watching hours of Tony shoving food in his face and non-stop space action, I found that both shows were profound while being equally profane. Bourdain’s commentary is intelligent and informative, while being laced with shades of four word expletives. Galactica goes as far to replace ‘fuck’ with ‘frak’ and uses it with no restraint, along with other ‘regular’ colorful metaphors. And despite all this, personally, I feel that both Bourdain and the crew of the Galactica are able to achieve a much higher level of reality.

Really, if you go to Italy or Laos or Seattle or whatever and encounter the Holy Grail in a bowl of food, is there really much going through your head than “that’s some fuckin’ good shit”? If you have a bomb go off, are you really going to eloquently phrase your chance encounter with death or peril much more than “it scared the shit out of me”?

(I sure as hell wasn’t thinking much more than that when lighting struck a near my house, though another story for another day.)

So what makes us fear profanity so much? Obviously, the traditional reason probably is due to profanity’s link to blasphemy. But in an age of relative secularism, I can’t find myself believing the church as being a major reason.

Overuse? True, as any overuse dilutes the the root content. Yet, it doesn’t really explain why profanity is profane.

Lack of intelligence? Well, yes, but only as a byproduct of overuse. We’ve seen here that both Bourdain and the script writers of Battlestar have been able to remain intelligent despite the profanity.

Lack of eloquence? Possibly, but the vast majority of people aren’t the most scrupulous in life, yet profanity retains its rancor.

No, many of those reasons are factors, but not necessarily deal makers.  After much contemplation, I think it’s either an irrational fear of primal expression or a conscious decision to blackball a portion of the English language.

The first, a fear of primal expression, may be a human reaction. Straight emotions are raw and unsophisticated. And these primal expressions are unattractive to be sure. Is there an innate fear of acknowledging that we are all just another bunch of animals that managed to conquer its planet?

The latter, only makes sense if it is to retain a portion of the language that remains emotionally charged, shocking or with intention of ‘keeping some powder dry’. But with the lack of heavilly restrained words in other languages like Japanese, the idea of a set of ‘unspeakable words’ loses its appeal. The Japanese language heavily emphasizes expressions on context and emotional accompaniment.

In any case, I don’t think I’ve really come up with any sort of answer. But for me, it’s been an interesting meandering of thought. Why do we consider something so close to our humanity a taboo?

YIS on Google Street View

Japan, including YIS, can now be seen on Google Maps Street View.

The kinds of skills Zachary has developed — locating information quickly and accurately, corroborating findings on multiple sites — may seem obvious to heavy Web users. But the skills can be cognitively demanding.

It’s interesting that the article mentions cognitive thinking as a need. But it makes complete sense in the economic context of the activities, though you could look at it in the context of physical or chemical sciences.

In fact, the article covers what I am trying to say it in the same section…

“It takes a long time to read a 400-page book,” said Mr. Spiro of Michigan State. “In a tenth of the time,” he said, the Internet allows a reader to “cover a lot more of the topic from different points of view.”

People don’t read books and do internet browsing/”reading” because it’s easier. You’re just connecting dots and not actually metabolizing the data. Interconnecting and analyzing information is more diffcult with a book, so it is only natural to infer that it take less cognitive power to execute. Thus, because it takes less thinking to absorb the data, the brain could get out of shape (or never even get into shape) and you can’t perform the mental marathon. And, as argued by Mark Bauerlein, because we are able to pick out the meat and cheese and spurn our spinach and brussel sprouts, the brain falls even further out of shape, not knowing what to think when an octopus falls out of the sky. The only reason why people have difficulty discerning false information like the mentioned Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus is because the brains are getting lazy.

(I hope to see if I’m right when I read John Medina’s Brain Rules.)

The article isn’t without it merits. As mentioned in later sections, it makes sense that the internet may strongly benefit those with learning disabilities like dyslexia. The internet’s inherent structure that allows for data parsing to be easier can only naturally augment those who lack similar skills naturally. It could possibly have a similar effect with kids who suffer from attention deficits.

But for the greater masses, it only affirms that many are using it as a crutch. An item that allows people to make excuses for lower cognitive skills.

In time, I’ll write a critique of Bauerlein’s book, but until them, I am lazy and it’s Summer Break. Woo.

Anyways…

A while back, I tripped on my friend’s blog post about a career guide gone manga. The book seemed interesting enough that I immediately picked up a copy.

Unfortunately, despite its 15 dollar price, an unthinkable sum for most mangas, it wasn’t a very long read. I finished the book in about the same time as a regular manga, making its entertainment time to money ratio quite bad.

Yet, as a book for career ideas and concepts, it was a good read. If you want to go cheap, just read this. But I definitely recommend the manga as well.

For those of you who want an even shorter short cut, Pink’s advice in Johnny Bunko is…

1. There is no plan.
2. Think strengths, not weaknesses
3. It’s not about you.
4. Persistence trumps talent.
5. Make excellent mistakes.
6. Leave an imprint.

Translated, that means…

1. Life is too complex to plan its entirety.
2. Concentrate on your strengths and what you enjoy.
3. Be selfless.
4. Do I have to rephrase “never give up”? Or is “I don’t believe in the no-win scenario” more your cup of tea?
5. Don’t make stupid screw ups. Like show up to work high on crack or something.
6. Don’t let history forget your name.

Anyways, even after spoiling the whole book, I’d still consider reading it. The story and manga make it an easy read and it’s advice worth considering. For me, it was all just acknowledgement on how I consider my career and life itself, but sometimes it’s nice to hear some confirmation too. We may have vivid dreams of becoming millionares and all, but that all needs to be in balance with the happiness we can attain during that pursuit.

2008 YIS End of the Year Video from Genki U. on Vimeo.

But, right now in Japan, you’ll be finding empty shelves, totally devoid of butterfats.

Why? Apparently, a bunch of dairy farmers jumped ship a few years back when milk consumption collapsed. According to various articles, this was due to some bad press on milk. I imagine the various food handling violations and scandals by dairy companies, namely Snow Brand, that occurred in the near past may have had an effect on consumers. Further, regardless of demand, Japan also deployed market protections to try to keep domestic dairy prices up when dairies suddenly overproduced in 2006.

As a result, in a show of long term economic market effects and price stickiness, the prices of dairy products has become volatile and butter has been affected most heavily. Demand for milk fell, suppliers reduced supply to return to equilibrium, suppliers cut a little too much or demand bounces or prices get stuck, prices for food, feed and other factors muck it all up, and I end up without my butter.

Recent news has been that butter is expected to rise 10% in price. But when I can’t find it, they might as well raise the price 500%, since I’m not getting it anyways. Makes cooking tough for sure.

Well… Enough of restarting the ol’ economics portion of the brain.

Reading has gone away! Our generation is of idiots!

I have wandered into Mark Bauerlein’s The Dumbest Generation.

American youth have stopped reading at a precipitous rate. Bauerlein argues that the digital natives have become complacent and are preoccupied by their social lives. Access to information has gotten easier and easier, thanks to the internet and the spread of information. Yet, despite the ease of access, grades and scores haven’t gotten any better. In fact, they’ve gotten worse with the increase in screen time that has taken place the last 15 years. In essence, the digital age has made people dumber. Or so is the premise.

Before we go on, I must admit that I am of Bauerlein’s born after 1980 idiot digital native. That Death by Black Hole was only the 3rd book I’ve read in my spare time since 2006 (the others being Moneyball and The Cheater’s Guide to Baseball). But I must also agree that some of the digital natives are, quite simply, idiots. Sure, we can multitask (I’m writing while watching an M’s game, listening to music, checking Facebook and reading Welker’s Economics), but there’s a big crowd out there that is awesome at using Facebook, iPods, and Google, yet are absolute numskulls.

So… Here I am reading this book. And so far, this is what I’ve felt.

- Sure, we’ve stopped reading and have gone over to watching YouTube videos and futzing on Facebook. But despite what is quite possibly the biggest change in data storage since the invention of the printing press, education itself has changed very little. Has technology weakened the intellect of students or has the education system failed to cope with a new breed of human neuroculture and congnitive thinking?

- Just as education systems haven’t change, the predominant models of examinations and assessment haven’t changed either. If we are to acknowledge that students have changed over from living hard drives to living search engines, does the classic exam culture remain relevant?

- I still can’t figure out what is ‘right’ in terms of education. Digital defenders are quick to say that because of search engines and instant knowledge, the human shell doesn’t need to retain as much information as in the past. But a person must be cultured and experienced to be able to do anything with information. Without a reasonable amount of preexisting knowledge for a person to refer to, the data immediately loses contextual meaning. With this in view, I completely agree with Bauerlein: educators that shirk and tip toe around the issue of illiteracy aren’t helping the situation.

Overall, despite all this thinking, I remain perplexed as to what Bauerlein is trying to convey. After 90 pages, I’ve read argument after argument, statistic after statistic showing how dumb we’ve become, but he hasn’t really talked about solutions and changes.

Regardless, it’s still a good read. Onward!

His tirade on Intelligent Design, called ‘Stupid Design‘ on YouTube is also quite well known.

All in all, he’s probably one of the better scientific speakers I’ve seen in a while. Enthusiastic, humorous and great at presenting.

Anyways, I just finished up reading his book, Death By Black Hole. And I wholly recommend it as a great introductory to the sciences beyond our own planet.

The book is a collection of  Tyson’s work from his days writing for Natural History, along side other greats like Steven Jay Gould. The book is essentially a well written idiot’s guide to the universe. Covering everything from the early forays of Ptolemy, Copernicus, Newton, Huygens and all the people who dared to look up to the newest (well, as of last year) in astrophysics. Tyson masterfully blends stories of the origin of physics, the universe and his perspectives on the art of science.

As a horribly amateur former scientist prospect (I ran away from Chemistry 6 years ago), but still an all-round enthusiast of the natural sciences, the book occasionally dragged because of its detailed explanations on scientific principals. But the impact of the book isn’t really the brief history and stories of the exploration of the cosmos. What stood out was Tyson’s explanations and ideas regarding the delicacy of the human nature and the importance of the Final Frontier in all aspects of life.

In one episode, Tyson refers to a debate he once had with a biologist on the possibilities of Martian life and the space rock ALH84001, the meteorite that contained possible evidence of Martian life. The account details how the biologist entirely ruled out Martian life based on Earth centric observations, while Tyson argues the fact that there could be life, but not as we know it. Despite the both being experts in the sciences, the differences in operating assumptions and observations easily changed how each reacted. In contrast to Tyson, the biologist never considered the implications of the greater universe on life. He concentrated on the dogma of his trade: life on Earth.

Black Hole really comes to its own when Tyson details the importance and intricacies of the omnipresent intersection between science, culture and faith. These sections truly express the importance of each portion and how they interact within human nature. Tyson refers to Newton, Galileo and Huygens to convincingly illustrate that science and faith have always been separated by the greatest scientists in history. Not that I need convincing, but it is both comforting and fascinating to see clearly that to the vast majority of scientists, science is the domain of the observable, while faith remains the domain of morals, beliefs and human nature. If only others would see it this way as well.

Many of the topics Tyson covers in the videos I’ve linked are also further elaborated in the book, and Tyson’s personality and charisma show through in the text. Much like his lectures, the writing is crisp, clear and fun. If you’re in the mood for some real star trekkin’, this book is worth a look.

So I’ve decided to occasionally write in different styles. For about 3.56 seconds, I considered making a new blog. But instead, I’ll write it here. You’ll know when it says ‘Alternate Universe’ in the subtitle/category.

The following is almost entirely fiction. Events as described are somewhat true, but as far as I know, I still work at Yokohama International School and am not a random salaryman in Tokyo. But Byron does work at Pasona in the Shin Marunouchi Building and I envy his office very, very much.

I hate the train. What the hell were they thinking when they decided that stuffing people in metal boxes is ethical. Today was a lot worse since I went out to Tokyo to meet up with an old friend from my Waseda days.

Ah, Waseda. Thanks for polluting my dreams with ideas of working in Japan.

Work was as usual. I slogged around and continued working on the development of our programs to somehow convince foreigners to work at our thoroughly Japanese and unattractive company. Salaryman blues bigtime. Afterward, I got stuck with my boss to get a beer. But I managed to slip out and escape to Tokyo and meet up with Byron.

It’s the first time I’ve met with Byron in about a year and a half. He’s working at a personnel company called Pasona, trying to develop a program that would allow JET alumnus. And he has a bad ass office. In friggin’ brand new Shin Maru Building.

The Shin Marunouchi Building is AMAZING. Now, my office isn’t too bad, as it looks down on the Shinjuku skyscraper district and, but his building isn’t just about looking down on Tokyo Station. It’s got an absolutely crazy, post-modern, Star Trekkin’ Death Star theme going. Glass walls, desks shaped like amoebas, aroma therapy massage rooms, free coffee, and an awesome view looking down on Tokyo Station. Seriously, I could make a scifi movie there. And it doesn’t stop there. They have a staff lounge, bar, gym and other little shared goodies. All that along with the regular amenities in the shopping floors of the building.

Envy. Yes, there is much.

But the talk was also interesting. It’s only been Byron’s 2nd month at Pasona, but it sounds like he has a fun project, similar to my own. He’s working on developing a framework that would allow former JETs to intern at Japanese companies and find long-term work in Japan. My company is also looking for more foreign workers, so maybe there’s a matchup. Yet, I think there is a disconnect on overseas hiring in Japanese companies. You can’t recruit organizational soldiers from overseas. It’s not working at all.

Yet, more devastatingly, it sounds like Byron’s explored half of Asia while I explored my Japanese deficiancy. Apparently, he toured a large part of western Japan on bike, learned sanshin in Okinawa, walked the Shikoku Hachijyukkasho pilgrimidge, visited Vietnam and Thailand over the course of 6 or so months.

Sometimes I wonder what would have happened if I worked at Yokohama. I’d have more breaks for sure.

No, I’m not saying the summit was bad. Aside from the obligatory and patented Apple Perpetual Plugging Machine (and I’m an Apple fan!), it was a relatively good time. It was nice to see what other schools were up to, but it ultimately felt like an empty gesture or, in better terms, a sign of things to come.

Aside from the plugging, three school leaders were featured: Julia Elliott of Crosshall Junior School, Annie Agnew of Canberra Grammar School and Patrick Newell of Tokyo International School. Each gave about a twenty minute presentation on their schools and their structural components. These were each fascinating and interesting highlights of various deployments. Canberra Grammar School was interesting in that they heavily featured a CMS/Student Information product called Studywiz and a deployment of iPod touch.

But Patrick’s presentation stood out most. Realistically, I’d almost say you’d have wanted it as a keynote for the summit, as he presented the concepts of the dichotomy of 20th and 21st century for both education and students. Also, his presentation was the most resonating thanks to some Presentation Zen.

Yet, it really was just some flashy showboating, whether it was Apple, Intel or the three schools.

And at the end, I was left with three things.

———

First, how many times are we going to declare that something is new? New technology, new ways of teaching, new Web 2.0 tools, new iLife, new tortillas, new Tully’s Black Seasame Kuro Goma Swirkle.

(It’s great, try it next time you’re near a Tully’s. A good thing I listened to the barista. Hmm… She was cute.)

The fact of the matter is everything is always new at some time. Yet, somehow, educators and suits keep getting caught with spaghetti on their shirts and pencils in their noses when it comes to technology integration/education/showboating/fishing/demanding/whatever. Seriously, have we not learned that things change very fast? You’d think we’d have figured it out with cave drawings, papyrus, paper, ink, printing press, telegraphs, typewriters, telephones, calculators, FedEx, printers, copy machines, computers, email, the Internet and Web 1.0 all in the bag. Yet many are stuck trying to figure out how to deal with digital natives that have been around since 1980.

So, I am only left to conclude that we are dealing with education systems that are not teaching the ability to adapt, process and problem solve. Although I have yet to read detailed brain related papers, I find it especially hard to believe that humans have fundamentally changed in 3 generations. Digital natives may be wired differently, like Ian Jukes suggests, but I am going to dare to speculate that the kid has not changed. It’s the environmental stimuli that changed (thank you Psych 101).

The reason we digital natives exist isn’t because 1980 is magical.

It’s because of Moore’s Law and the increasing technology and information accessibility.

———

Second, creativity is great and all but what the heck does that have to do with education and learning? Is it creativity that needs to be spread or is it education that needs a paradigm shift? Is it finding new ways to teach or is it adapting to a new way of learning? What the heck is graded? How is the creativity and learning assessed and is this result giving students the tools to succeed in college and beyond? And is creativity truly increasing the higher level thinking?

(I need to read Daniel Pink’s A Whole New Mind, as I don’t 100% understand the right brain argument.)

Regardless, the presentations today really never clarified whether the creativity was driving the course and just HOW the creativity was nurtured. What was graded? What incentive structures were constructed? How did you deal with dawdling students and students with learning problems?

Oh, iMacs and iMovie? Wait, I already knew that.

Right.

Yeah, confusing. I’m not a teacher, but I’d like to know the pedagogy. If I learn how I can be efficiently taught, I’ll find a way to efficiently learn. And in turn, I can teach that.

I bet that confused you more.

———

Third, while Brian and I spoke with Patrick after the show, it was interesting that we proceeded to criticize the IGCSEs and their nature similar to the No Child Left Behind type testing that has taken root in the United States (good ol’ EEUU). In Patrick’s words, it’s a 20th Century Education System that’s being forced on 21st Century Students.

Yet, Patrick ended with a remark that the “students were studying their butts off”, after I said off hand that the students really don’t care about their marks.

(Yes, I know they are working. Some of my best yearbook students are grade ten.)

(A shout out to Mai, Mei, Sara, Emily, Ann, Sang Mi! Ganbatte!)

But I wasn’t sure how to take Patrick’s remark. It’s sort of a defense of the students. Yet, at the same time, it sounded like an admission that they were studying.

And I end up thinking, who the hell cares if they’re studying something they have little or no legitimate attachment to? Personally, my absolute worst grades always came from classes I hated or had no reason to take, while my best were always parallel with interests and ambitions. And to this day, I retain this knowledge. It’s why I can tutor chemistry, math, physics, english, history, economics and others to varying levels of success.

But with next to zero content legitimacy, cramming for a test seems like a meaningless venture.  We’re wasting students time going towards the IB and college if we’re just teaching them to be hard drives and making them take tests that most of them have no legitimate need for. (I also think testing two years of material at the end of two years is also undue hurt for students, but that’s another topic for another day.)

So how do you create a curriculum that is plentiful not only on knowledge, but legitimacy?

———

Overall, it was a good time. Though some of it dragged, I came out of it with more questions and ideas. And I think that was probably the goal. It’ll be interesting to see how it resonates at YIS, as we had a very large convoy present.

And the after conference spread was a smorgasbord of some nice Japanese-Californian fusion. Sushi, hors d’oeuvres, cake. Mmm. This is what really made it worth it, haha.

Free dinner. Free Apple t-shirt and bag.

Oh, yes.

And this is how out of the boxers respond to surveys.

Is our diet completely wrong?
Bittman says yes.
Some food for thought. Literally.
Bittman can work on his presentation skills, but the content is some serious cognitive dissonance.
Now pass me the taters.

His blog is over in my links: Bitten

I never played it and I regret it now.
Ken Griffey Jr. was one of the few athletes I considered a hero.
Ichiro and Felix Hernandez just made it better the last few years.
So my attachment to the Seattle Mariners is strong, regardless of how much they suck.

Baseball remains the only sport that I keep an eye on, aside from a little F1 and Indy.

I’m even organizing a backyard baseball team for the less activity prone students.

Anyways, this awesome article just came up on ESPN.
It’s written by Jim Caple, one of the last good writers on ESPN.

(Incidentally, a UW alumni and former Seattle PI beat writer.)
(Yes, Seattle people rule.)
(Ha.)
(Yes I digress a lot.)

Anyways (again), this article is about Japanese-Iranian super pitcher and Nippon Ham Fighters Ace Yu Darvish, Japan’s Ace after Matsuzaka’s defection to the Red Sox.
Here’s some video of Darvish dealing some pure filth.

It also covers the state of the NPB and the impact of the exodus of Japanese players to The Show.
To sum it all up, the Japanese teams suck at business.

It’s one of the best reasonable length articles on the current state of the NPB, so check it out.
If you know a bit about Darvish or the NPB, it’s pretty much filler.
But it’s a great starter piece for NPB in the context of now.
The videos are real good too.

I still do.
Just not as much as in college.

Research paper due in two days?
Well, the research is done so what’s another day, eh?

For me, it’s the adrenaline and the attack of the deadline that got me going.
That and the fact that I could do it.
It’s what happens when you do it all the time and you still get a 3.9 or something.
No incentive to get better, since I’m already damn good, thank you.

———

So why talk about procrastination suddenly?

Slate is having an awesome feature on it this week.

Seth Stevenson points out a good concept: if you’re gonna procrastinate anyways, use that time effectively.
It’s kinda stupid, but it makes sense.
Why not read a book instead of watching Chocolate Rain?

(That was too easy.)

But then I read Emily Yoffe’s article, and I realize I score about a 3 on the 10 point procrastinator’s scale.
I tell ya, get the hell out my way when I’m working. I’m trying to get it done, dammit.

———

Anyways, it’s an interesting look.

My students procrastinate a lot, but the good ones get they’re junk together.
So why complain, eh?

Those who’ve written on Wikipedia define it as…

…a psychological state that describes the uncomfortable feeling when a person begins to understand that something the person believes to be true is, in fact, not true. Similar to ambivalence, the term cognitive dissonance describes conflicting thoughts or beliefs (cognitions) that occur at the same time, or when engaged in behaviors that conflict with one’s beliefs. In academic literature, the term refers to attempts to reduce the discomfort of conflicting thoughts, by performing actions that are opposite to one’s beliefs…

I’m sure there’s a better authority out there, but the almighty Wikipedia will do.

By the way, the New Oxford American Dictionary says…

the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, esp. as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change.

Interesting.

But why do I bring it up?

Basically, I like being an asshat and bring up points to stir the pot or something.
There’s a net word that combines mind and the crude word for copulate, but I won’t use that word.

More or less, I just like picking apart the world around me and see what falls out.

Cognitive dissonance is particularly interesting because it implies shaking up a deeply rooted belief or value that has been around.

So I’ve made a category called ‘Cognitive Dissonance’.

I’ll use it when I decide do essentially be a hesomagari and throw rocks at the stained glass.

And it starts today.

—

So it’s May.

Cinco de Mayo, May Day, Golden Week, Mother’s Day, Memorial Day…

Whatever floats your boat.

But for high school students, on comes the onslaught of exams.

IB.
AP.
IGCSE.

Whatever.

Basically, it’s giant attack on teenage cognition, probing the ins and outs of whether a 16 year old can tell the difference between Aluminum, matrices and Hitler.

Or something like that.
Regardless, the tests are heavy, wide and gianormous.

Them kids have to remember as many aspects of the Cold War or John Adams or Iron (III) Oxide, and then apply their memorized knowledge to some question some quack in Europe decided to use.

Sounds like college.
And I can smell the carnage and burning neurons already.

———

The ongoing theme in most exams breaks down into a few components.

1. Memorization of primary information of given topic (isomers of isopropanol, day of JFK’s assassination, the Undiscovered Country in MacBeth, etc.)
2. Memorization of secondary information of related topics (reaction rate of isopropanol, impact on the space race, the death as the Undiscovered Country, etc.)
3. Personal synthesis of 1 and 2 with a tertiary related topic that is typically the exam topic.

Typical, boring, blah blah.

But.

What is each component worth?

Let’s first get over the idea that 1 or 2 actually, in the greater scale of life, matter.
Yes, it matters if a person becomes an o-chemist or a tour guide at the JFK Presidential Library.
Yes, there’s no loss in knowing these things and we’re probably better off knowing than not.
But in the grand scheme of things, what you learned in school will probably lose out to the more lasting memory of the moment.
Losing place to more important things like Facebook passwords, the name of the cute girl at the Starbucks and the newest comedic gag.

But let this not be a declaration that knowledge is bunk.
Knowledge is king.

The more knowledge you have, the more accurate your shots will be.
Knowledge reigns because it gives you an edge over anyone who’s good at Googling or Wikipediaing.
You’re ahead if you already know, as opposed to knowing how to find out.

So, with all that out of the way, we end up at 3.
And as far as I can tell, that’s important.
It’s what makes people interesting, makes humanity itself unique.

———

So exactly what am I getting at?
My question of the day, is…

Does an exam need to have a memorization component?

i.e. Does it need to test whether you know what potassium iodide and lead nitrate do?
(It makes a disgusting, toxic yellow sludge, if you must know.)

At the same time, what value is there in testing memory in an age of memory augmentation?
And what keeps us from giving tests that have the needed information built into it?

(Hold on to the rocks, I’ll get back to debating the value of knowledge later.)

These questions stem from two concepts that I’ve stumbled across.

———

The first is the legend of the Infinite Exam from my dad.

A graduate of the University of Chicago, I had heard from him the stories of crazy workload and steep difficulty curve.
Something about heavily using primary sources and looking directly at historical material.

All that culminating in an exam with no time limit.
Apparently, you could have your pile of notes and books too.

I never made it to Chicago, so I never found out if it was real.
But the idea is fascinating.
Tests and exams that don’t question your memory, but your entire cognition.

The meaning of the test changes from a test of raw knowledge and application, to a test of raw application and processing.
But this is from 20+ years ago, in the early 1980s.
The age when computers were still glorified typewriters and the internet moved at the speed of I can walk faster.
And way before the age of ‘digital natives’.

To this day, it’s a type of exam I have never encountered.

———

The second component is the Internet and information ubiquity.

The human mind is a wondrous thing.
There are savants that can feel numbers.
People that can remember every single moment of their lives.
Conversely, there are people that can only remember the last hour of their lives.

Regardless, you know we can be damn smart when people walked around with memorized versions of the Odyssey.
Odysseus must have been a genius too.

Yet, in this age of computers and the internet, raw memorization is, to an extent, becoming a secondary need.

Again, it’s not a matter of memorized knowledge becoming worthless.

But it has become marginalized and depreciated.
And that dissolves the incentive to learn or memorize the boiling point of uranium.

When information is everywhere and accessible everywhere, it’s hard to value memorization.

As I’ve written in the past, I fundamentally believe people are driven by incentive.
Food, money, girls, ego.

With information ubiquity at a point where availability is nearly instantaneous, keeping knowledge becomes both a chore and a ‘waste of memory’.
This undermines the very value of the activity of memorizing and its related activities, such as typical education.
Regardless of the infinite nature of the brain’s capacity, there is little incentive to keep stuff on the ol’ brain.

Knowledge itself retains value, but with its intrinsic personal value undermined, not only is information retainment devalued, but people end up without a ‘rational’ reason to learn.

———

So after my 3 page digression, the question remains.

Is the classic exam structure still relevant?
The ol’ memorize and regurgitate.

I begin to question this with memory and knowledge becoming so evanescent. Is even forcing kids to memorize two years of materials like the IB truly good for them? This is especially big for me, considering I never memorized things more than 10 weeks at a time at college.

Or are there new ways to test and assess the new age of humanity that is fully dependent and assimilated by the tentacles of the information age?
If this next generation holds little value to retaining information, is that a problem with the way they learn or is it a problem with how the world has become setup?

Is it a paradigm shift in how humans work or is it merely a diversion that needs correcting?

Regardless, I think my students are enduring more pain than they really need to.

Good luck and godspeed to them all.

———

LATE EDIT: I just tweaked some of the wording and remembered that I found out about a new book called The Dumbest Generation while I worked on this blog post. For me, it’s interesting to see a book like this after meeting Ian Jukes late last year.

In my opinion, calling this generation the dumbest is very rash. Comparing this generation of people to the standards of the pre-Internet crowd is asking for trouble.

Regardless, I’ll probably get the book and take a look.

The entire hill up to YIS was blocked off for about an hour.

Here are some pics…

We really should have put something up, hahaha.

Or maybe some infrared signs that only cameras can see?

A new wave of protesting!

President Hu Jintao of the PRC is in Yokohama, visiting a Chinese school or something.

So Kanagawa Prefectural Police has closed the whole hill.

And there are cops everywhere.

The parking lot is full of cop cars too.

He has been director of the school ever since I left in 1996.

Though due to the fact that Paul was never my teacher, and only my ‘principal’ (titled ‘director’ or something) when I graduated the school, his departure was only significant in only that he had been director for a really long time.

But it made me look back.

I am a product of a hybrid private/public school career.

For most of my primary education, I went to a little private school in Bellevue.

It’s called The Little School for those of you scoring at home.

———

The Little School is tiny even compared to Yokohama International School.

According to their site, they currently have just under 150 students and around 25 full time faculty.

Tiny, tiny, tiny.

But to this day, I feel that my education backbone from this little school is what really keeps the rest of it afloat.

The base of the proverbial fortress.

———

The Little School’s core values are primarily set in letting students grow naturally while providing teachers that are nurturing and are able adapt to student needs.

Though that’s a mindnumbingly simplistic synopsis, I tend to believe that is how I learned. And it programmed me to enjoy learning for its own sake.

And at the same time, it’s a head-slappingly easy concept. What more do you want? An environment where kids learn at their own pace. An environment that carefully nurtures kids. An environment with quality, dedicated teachers. An environment where curriculum is reinforced with positive reinforcement.

Sure, it may not work for every kid. But it’s a fascinating concept.

———

Again, for me, it’s the keystone to my education.

To this day, even with the pile of secondary and tertiary education, I don’t feel I’ve really changed my studying and inqusistions since way back then.

All my life, I’ve played the studying game and jumped through the hoops. I gotten my slips of paper marked with credentials.

For sure, I’ve become more intense, more focused, but I truly cannot recall a moment in my life that I consider an ‘epiphany’ or turning point in my study habits.

I do. I finish. I win.

And I still do it now.

I study. I work. I get a salary.

———

What has changed is my social profile.

I’m 8th in studying harder on that Social Profile Facebook app, by the way.

Yet, for all intents and purposes, my social profile is what has changed the way I approach people, the way they approach me and the way I function in my life.

The information I have scrounged up through education has allowed me to analyze my situation, my personaity, my surroundings, but it has only affected my process through new data, new points of view.

But for me, though I make this distinction, I can’t decide where the line is drawn. Where personality,knowledge and personal history meet and end.

It probably isn’t a true trichotomy. Except for the fact its sensation endures.

But after all the recent hubbub, I remembered an interesting parallel and certain character moment from my senior year at Woodinville High School.

———

Science Club was one of the more enjoyable moments high school.

Not so much that I liked science, but more because I’m a pyro and I like mixing hazardous chemicals.

Our teacher, the venerable Dr. Larry Gulberg, was one who allowed us to work to the hazardous extremes of dry ice bombs, carbide canons, hydrox experiments and mixing up a batch of gunpowder. I’m proud to say I was the only one that got the carbon/sulfur/potassium nitrate intermix right (resulting in a rocket going off in my face). But a bit after I graduated, he got booted as a result of this controversy.

I just realized Doc Gulberg is another story I’ll have to write about.

Anyways, Science Club also resulted in competing in events such as Science Olympiad, Science Bowl, and a number of other contests. Thanks to a strong team of students, we all ended up with a nice pile of bonds and other prizes. It was a lot of fun.

———

Our science club was downright smart. The valedictorian of my class, complete with 4.0 GPA, 1580 SAT and straight 5s on AP tests was one notable member. Another underclass valedictorian would later become a member of the Princeton DARPA Grand Challenge 2005 team (the one with the automated cars in the desert). Many would go on to strong science or computer science programs around the nation.

And I was the middling Asian with an attitude that was along for the ride. Sure, I had my share of kicks and bullets in the gun, but I certainly wasn’t on par with some of the other members. For the most part, this wouldn’t be an issue. We’d each have our share of explosives and potato guns to have a jolly old time.

But for Science Bowl, the biggest, most prestigious event, this would become a key point.

———

Science Bowl required teams of five that would participate in a quiz show style tournament competition. And due to this, it would become a heated competition to be the best five to compete in the name of our school

Our school had taken regionals in the past, so the Doc Gulberg had experience in building teams.

Competition was fair and fierce, but simulated games would be our battlefield for Science Survivor.

This battle continued for weeks, but the end, the day we would leave for competition, the cuts were made.

And I ended up hitting sixth. I was named the de facto leader of the Second Team that would compete along side two other teams in Portland, Oregon.

———

Six years later, I find myself appaled by my juvenile antics. I had been beat and beat fair.

But at the time it did nothing to assuage the pain. I had lost what I felt was a possible ticket to some sort of fame and respect as a student.

I was already desperate since my B’s in PE (PE!!!) some how made what would be a 3.90 GPA into a 3.75. I had no sort of distinction, despite my ambitions to go to places like Chicago or Columbia.

And there was no doubt in my mind that the team would win. The winners of the Regional Science Bowl would go on to compete in the nationals in Washington D.C. or some other big city.

I had been bumped by the loser who would later take part in programing robots that will take over the world in our near future.

Incensed, I did what any sore loser would do.

I quit.

———

Quitting was easy.

“Sorry, I feel like I’m going to puke. Yeah, I was assembling that flux compensator for our rocket ship all happy and good, but yea, I’m sick.”

And I went home.

But home wasn’t any better.

Though I can’t really remember the details, I assume it came along in this fashion.

“Why the hell are you here? I thought you were going to the Science Bowl.”

Dad never really spoke up, but that wasn’t the case here.

“You quit because you were cut? Are you stupid?”

It’s okay dad, it’s just a dumb contest.

“You gave up because you didn’t have your way. You may not be on the strong team, but you quit on your teammates.”

Yeah, yeah. Whatever.

But it didn’t end there.

Despite the fact that my father worked long hours at night, he immediately dragged me onto the family van, packed my gear and drove my ass all the way down to Portland.

My home was a good 4 hours away.

———

I don’t particularly remember the details of the trip.

It was night and I ended up at the hotel the team was staying around nine or something.

Immediately upon arrival, I lost a chess match to one of my rivals. But they didn’t take me in as a loser or anything.

No, they seemed to have accepted my story that I was sick or whatever.

Dad drove back that night, essentially completing an 8 hour loop to drop off his delinquent son.

Realizing now, that was a blessing.

———

In the end, my B Team would lose on the last question of our last match in the round robin before tournament.

The answer was Cesium.

Something about atomic clocks.

The A Team would crush all of its opposition and, as predicted, went on to nationals.

I can’t remember how good they did beyond that, but I do remember we ended up with an LCD Projector when they were still worth a gajillion dollars.

And I ended up realizing the importance of fighting along even when you don’t get all of the cookies.

———

These days, I don’t accept a loss. I see it as an opportunity. I’ve learned to pick my battles, but I still fight for every single millimeter I feel worthy. I feel nothing but pleasure in advising students, despite the fact that it totally eats into what is otherwise an open schedule.

And I especially despise not finishing anything that I’ve started.

But the sudden and recent changes as an activities advisor has brought to me the realization that I was not always headstrong, not always accepting, not always a driven man. That came along after stepping on mines and getting torched by life.

I am now faced with other questions. Am I at the point where I can start flinging moral tales and other mumbo jumbo at students that are a mere five to eight years younger? Do I have the right to don the role of my father towards my students? I don’t have a teaching degree, but is there something still worth teaching?

I’m not sure. But some of the students seem to like to listen, converse and agree. So I guess that’s a sign.

As much as I think volunteering is a great thing, I can’t shake the idea that at the end of the day, everyone just does it for either themselves, their ego or or some sort of post-life destination complex.

And why do I see it in such a slanted way?

Economics.

Incentive, incentive, incentive.

To this day, I have yet to see anyone operate beyond a simple game of incentive. Cupcakes, pocket money, college applications, heaven, happiness, whatever. It all boils down to pleasing one’s own goals or character traits.

Even the most generous person is volunteering because at some level of consciousness, they are reaping some sort of pleasure via moral fortitude or character building.

But I’m not really here to debate or judge the conscience of morality.

———

Recently, I have hit several ruts running my student clubs at the school at work at (entirely another post that I will write one day). One club continuously got embroiled in conflict and finally collapsed around two months ago. Another saw the exodus of its leaders, though it is chugging along thanks to other students that have filled the void.

Though I think our students are excellently awesome, it really stuck to me that community service and self-sacrifice are items that are much more a result of environment rather than any sort of lecture or moral programing at the institutional or familial level. Regardless of whether or not we want students to learn social skills or body build or whatever, they take the path of least resistance. Face it, we’re all that way.

———

Our school is a compulsory IB Diploma Program school, which means it fully pushes its students through the giant potato ricer known as CAS – Creativity, Action, Service. It’s the social development arm of the IBDP. Though I am very sure those at the IBO are all trying to make sure kids are coming out as nice, round human beings, in my limited experience (i.e. at this school), I have only seen it become thrown under the proverbial bus as simply a chore that must be completed for the IBDP. At most, it ends up a nice hood ornament for college applications.

As a result, students are only involved in activities at a fleeting level. During ‘peacetime’, where studies are more relaxed and time is plentiful, the students are involved enthusiastically. Yet, once the peace is broken, the students quickly scrap all ‘non-essential’ activities and reallocate time to the items that are most essential: grades, SATs, applications, karaoke, parties. That is, it typically doesn’t include non-compulsory activities. Unfortunately, even in peacetime, students participate in a passing fashion, usually dedicating more time to the more entertaining components of life.

———

But in my opinion, for all my rankling and lower middle-class curmudgeoning, this isn’t a result of the fact that our school is mostly upper-middle class/upper class  Japanese.

It’s a case of failed incentive schemes and structures.

The school simply doesn’t have incentive structures that award participation or punishes the inverse. No punishment is held for non-participation in activities, while good results are often neglected or aren’t praised. As a result, the students take advantage of the situation and simply write their names on the dotted line and participate at the bottom line.

In essence, the kids are seeing the price floor and sticking right to it. Why produce more when it just eats into everything else?

I know I wouldn’t.