Spock vs. John Muir: The Case of the Cursive Letter

The creative person wants to be a know-it-all.

He wants to know about all kinds of things-ancient history, nineteenth century mathematics, current manufacturing techniques, hog futures.

Because he never knows when these ideas might come together to form a new idea.

It may happen six minutes later, or six months, or six years.

But he has faith that it will happen.

~ Carl Ally

The following is the third post in a series exploring the current debate over technology and its effects, if any, on social behavior. ~ MD

M

ost younger Americans apparently cannot.

Who knew cursive writing would become such a tempest in an inkwell?  The first I heard of it was Vignesh Ramachandran’s article on Mashable: “Has Technology Killed Cursive Handwriting?”  The article asks whether cursive writing is necessary in a world where everyone tweets, texts, and emails with Qwerty keyboards and touch screens.

Latin is a Dead Language. . .

On the anti-cursive side of the desk, we have Morgan Polikoff, who scoffs at cursive, and Kate Gladstone, who believes that handwriting is important, but not necessarily cursive handwriting. 

The first thing I noticed about both their articles in favor of killing cursive is the lack of scientific or professional tone.   Of course, they are opinion articles, so that may account for it.  But for instance, Kate Gladstone says

Cursive's cheerleaders sometimes allege that cursive makes you smarter, makes you graceful, or confers other blessings no more prevalent among cursive users than elsewhere. Some claim research support, citing studies that consistently prove to have been misquoted or otherwise misrepresented by the claimant.

Polikoff was equally vague:

there is little compelling research to suggest the teaching of cursive positively affects other student skills enough to merit its teaching.  

Neither cited or linked to the supposed study that was allegedly being misquoted or that not “compelling,” although to be fair, the other side didn’t either.  I can only assume all parties are referring to the College Board study from 2008 – Writing, Technology and Teens.         

While it’s true that this study doesn’t specifically talk about cursive handwriting, it does seem to draw a correlation between the use of technology and the effect it has on creative writing.  But since we are talking especially about cursive handwriting versus typing on a keyboard, we’ll leave that topic for a different Spock post.

As Dead As Can Be. . .

Polioff ~ again, not citing the research he’s referring to, said that  

while both research and common sense indicate students should be taught some form of penmanship, there is simply no need to teach students both print and cursive.

An archivist would beg to differ.

And that is the most compelling argument that I have read so far in this debate.   Katie Zezima in the NYT talked to Jimmy Bryant, Director of Archives and Special Collections at the University of Central Arkansas.   

While teaching last year, Mr. Bryant, on a whim, asked students to raise their hands if they wrote in cursive as a way to communicate. None did.

That cursive-challenged class included Alex Heck, 22, who said she barely remembered how to read or write cursive. Ms. Heck and a cousin leafed through their grandmother’s journal shortly after she died, but could barely read her cursive handwriting.

If students can’t read a family member’s handwriting, how can they be expected to read this?

The Constitution of the United States
© Onur Ersin

And if they can’t read the Constitution, will they be willing to fight to preserve the freedoms it represents?

It Killed Off the Romans. . .

Most of the arguments against cursive all have one thing in common: we are preparing our students to live in the 21^st century, not the 19^th.   But this argument itself is as old as the hills.  People have been decrying tradition since the Tower of Babel ~ and probably before that!  Not to mention that it just reeks of arrogance ~ everyone who came before was an imbecile trapped in the chains of a patriarchal society, araghargahgahrgah!

In psychology, we call this letting others dictate your actions, or, handing power over to one’s attacker.  Which, if I’m not mistaken, is exactly what the great creative minds of past centuries did NOT do.  They are considered great and their contributions to society lauded because they built on the past, lived in the present, and looked to the future ~ despite all odds.  Built on the past. 

Not trashed it because it didn’t make the budget cut.

And let’s be honest.  That is the real driver here.  Filthy lucre.  And I get it, I really do.  I budget.  I turn a blind eye to it when I see a vintage hat I just have to have, but I do know how to create and (generally) follow one.  Parents and teachers screamed for computers in every classroom and those nifty interactive white board thingies.  And those nifty techie gadgets cost more than paper and pencils.  So the schools bought them ~ by cutting other items out of the budget.  That’s how budgets work.  Rob Peter to pay Paul.

So now Dick and Jane can surf the net at school and research online.  Just don’t ask them to write a well-constructed sentence without using LOL, CUL8TR, or IMHO.  But hey!  Those computer skills will serve them well in finding good paying jobs in the future!

And Now It’s Killing Me.

Which brings me to my next question: what about the students who can’t afford a computer?  Or a laptop or tablet?  Teaching only typing because we now live IN THE AGE OF COMPUTERS (cue dramatic B-movie music) seems a little short-sighted and dismissive of those who cannot afford them.  And I should know.

When I was a liberal arts major, I cannot tell you how often I heard what a waste of time it was to study history, English, philosophy, and theology.  Yet in an unstable economy like we have today, even my business major friends are struggling to find work.  But I will always be able to write well and analyze data ~ skills honed from hours spent researching and writing my thesis and the countless papers from other classes.  Papers I wrote long-hand before typing them in the computer lab.

Yes, I am that old.  And yes, I was that poor. 

And for those of us who don’t have the luxury of owning a laptop or tablet, printing notes during class or a meeting is a recipe for disaster.  Unless you know shorthand (I really doubt that’s taught anymore!), cursive is faster.  Most people’s brains compute faster than their hands (or mouths) can keep up.  Cursive writing helps level the field.  You don't need a study to know that ~ it's a fact known through field work.

I think that to deny students access to knowledge of cursive writing is to do them a disservice ~ especially those who may be future novelists, poets, essayists, journalists, etc.  Some of my best ideas have come to me in a field surrounded by nature ~ no wifi and power cords.  Just me and my leather-bound journal.

Speaking of which, time to write another post in cursive in my paper notebook.

Oremus pro invicem,

~ Mikaela

What do you think?  Do you still write in cursive?

Spock vs. John Muir: Reconnecting Our Humanity

My daily use of technological communication has been shaping me into someone more likely to forget others. . . . The more distracted we become, and the more emphasis we place on speed at the expense of depth, the less likely and able we are to care.
~ Jonathan Safran Foer, novelist, Middlebury College Commencement Address 

This is the second in a series of posts exploring the current debate over technology and its effects, if any, on social behavior. ~ MD

D

oes our use of technology make it easier to connect? Or easier to remain isolated? 

As I mentioned last week, I recently  read three articles that sparked some thought on the tech vs. non-tech debate.  Or as I like to call it Spock vs. John Muir.  Last week’s post focused on the possible economic implications to technology ~ or more accurately, our dependence on it. 

This week, I want to look at the social implications. 

More Connected?

Author Jonathan Safran Foer’s commencement address to Middlebury College was excerpted in the New York Times on 9 June 2013 and he describes a personal encounter with an oft-cited result of our technological dependence. 

A couple of weeks ago, I saw a stranger crying in public….A girl, maybe 15 years old, was sitting on the bench opposite me, crying into her phone.

Such an encounter might not happen on a daily basis, but I know I’ve been in Foer’s situation before.  And I wondered ~ as he did ~ what I should do. 

I was faced with a choice: I could interject myself into her life, or I could respect the boundaries between us. Intervening might make her feel worse, or be inappropriate. But then, it might ease her pain, or be helpful in some straightforward logistical way.

And when faced with this choice, what do most of us modern men and women do?  We retreat into  a cocoon of apparent “busyness” with our tech gadgets which enable us  

to retreat into the scrolling names of one’s contact list, or whatever one’s favorite iDistraction happens to be. Technology celebrates connectedness, but encourages retreat. The phone didn’t make me avoid the human connection, but it did make ignoring her easier in that moment, and more likely, by comfortably encouraging me to forget my choice to do so.

The key here is that technology doesn’t make us do anything.  It’s inanimate.  What it does is enable isolation.  For instance, I have been known to take my smarty pants phone with me while standing in line at lunch or at the train station.  It functions as an insta-wall:  if my eyes are glued to the screen, reading emails, texts, or e-books, then I avoid eye contact with you.  And if I avoid eye contact with you, then I avoid making a connection with you.  If I avoid a connection with you, then I avoid the possibility of you rejecting me.  I know, sad but true.

I’m still a ninth grader inside.

Admit it.  You’ve done it too!  Maybe for different reasons.  Maybe not.  But if we’re honest, most of those reasons are rooted in fear, rash judgment, or plain old laziness.  As Foer says,  

Each step “forward” has made it easier, just a little, to avoid the emotional work of being present, to convey information rather than humanity.

But I wasn’t always like this.

When I Was Your Age. . .

Once upon a time, before wifi was invented…

No!

…and the internet was dial up

Ugh!

…there were telephones and snail mail.

Huh? 

Would you stop interrupting?  Can’t you just sit still and listen to me!?

Of cour…oh, wait, I just got a text…

You are either laughing or sighing.  Because you have all experienced this or done it yourselves.  I know  I’m guilty.  So guilty in fact, that when my girlfriends and I had our pictures taken professionally, they insisted on a shot of them glaring at me while I played on my phone.

Best. Picture. Ever.

But a couple of years ago, I would have been the one glaring.  I was a smarty pants phone hold out.  And to continue my story, when I was an underclassman, when I wanted to connect with my friends and loved ones, I either picked up the phone (a landline no less ~ I know ~ the horror!) or a pen.

And I have to say, I was better for it.

Not to toot my own horn, but bwaaamp! I was a good friend.  I stayed on the phone for hours (drove my mother nuts), and wrote sheets and sheets of letters with poetic prose that would make Emerson weep with joy (well maybe not Emerson.  More like, Anne Shirley?)  I was already well-read, and with the liberal arts education I was imbibing, I was becoming well-rounded in history, philosophy, and theology as well ~ and it showed in my letters and in my conversation.

Granted, nowadays, I don’t have the precious time I had back then to focus just on learning and relationships.  And although a full course load is nothing to sneeze at, it’s a lot different from making sure you have money to put food in your mouth, and keep a roof over your head.

 © Teerawut Masawat

Yet, when I unplug from technology, even if only for a day, I feel calmer.  I’m able to focus on the task at hand.  My thoughts don’t race like they’re in the Indy 500.  And if you ask those around me, they’ll tell you I’m not as short-tempered.  It’s not a magic formula of course ~ there are other factors at play in this temporary transformation.  But the silencing of technology is one of those factors.

Treating the Root Cause

Okay.  So unplugging for a while is a good thing.  But why do we plug in to begin with?  We need to stop treating this issue like we’re Western doctors (and I’m not completely knocking Western medicine here, so don’t start): healing the root cause and not just the symptom.

Let’s go back to something Foer said in his address: 

to avoid the emotional work of being present

And there it is.

Remember that one of my reasons for retreating into my cyber-shell is fear of rejection?  We all share it.  It’s part of what makes us human.  Relationships are difficult.  And messy.  And painful.  But they can also be affirming.  Healing.  Joyful. This isn’t a virtual world.  Things break, including hearts.  But that doesn’t mean the solution is to make your heart unbreakable.  

…most people are not crying in public, but everyone is always in need of something that another person can give, be it undivided attention, a kind word or deep empathy. There is no better use of a life than to be attentive to such needs.

And that means that sometimes we turn the phone off, we look our loved ones in the eye, and we give them our undivided attention. 

Oremus pro invicem,

~ Mikaela

Have you noticed a diminished attention span in either yourself or those around you?  Do you use technology as a defense?

Spock vs. John Muir: The Technology Debate

I’m not a Luddite completely I believe in refrigerators to cool my martinis, and washing machines because I hate to see women smacking their laundry against a rock. When I hear about hardware, I think of pots and pans, and when I hear about software, I think of sheets and towels.

~ Louis “Studs” Terkel

The following is the first in a series of posts exploring the current debate over technology and its effects, if any, on social behavior. ~ MD

T

echnology (and its effects) is hot.

Last week alone, I read three articles touching on what you could call the Spock vs. John Muir debate: those who think technology will save the world versus those who think that technology is harmful to nature (both human and the outside world).

It’s an interesting debate and one that warrants serious thought and research ~ even, as we shall see in future posts, for the artist and the gardener.  As such, one article isn’t enough to fully explore the implications of both the question itself and the answers and solutions proposed by all sides.  So this post will be one of a series of posts on the subject.

In the Friday June 14 edition of the NY Times, columnist Paul Krugman poses an important problem: “workers who are currently considered highly skilled, and who invested a lot of time and money in acquiring those skills” are in danger of those skills being devalued in a world of advanced technology and automation.

Krugman cites a report by the McKinsey Global Institute that suggests  

that we’re going to be seeing a lot of “automation of knowledge work,” with software doing things that used to require college graduates. Advanced robotics could further diminish employment in manufacturing, but it could also replace some medical professionals.

This is far from being a “The end is near!” narrative: it’s just a fact.

One only has to look at how something as simple as washing clothes was done before technology: either a maid or the woman of the house beating clothes against a rock in a nearby stream; and how it is done after technology: putting the clothes in a machine, pushing a button and 15 minutes later, clean clothes.  Even the old wringer washers were an advancement over beating the dirt out on a rock!

You will be assimilated!

© Kuhan, 123rf.com



But there are two ways to look at this progression.  On the negative side, the maid loses her job ~ and yes, we may think it was a poor job to have, but nevertheless at the end of the day, she had a task for which she was given room and board.  On the positive side, for those of us who wouldn’t be able to afford a maid, this is a vast improvement over hauling all those clothes to the river!  (The sustainable-green side of me would love to try out an old wringer washer, but knowing me, that fascination wouldn’t last very long!)

So what is a Luddite?

The Etymology Dictionary defines “luddite” as  

a name taken by an organized band of weavers who destroyed machinery in Midlands and northern England 1811-16 for fear it would deprive them of work.  Supposedly from Ned Ludd, a Leicestershire worker who in 1779 had done the same before through insanity (but that story first was told in 1847).  Applied to modern rejecters of automation and technology from at least 1961.   Used as an adjective from 1812.

So the debate has been going on for a long time ~ longer than one might think!

Krugman mentions those displaced workers from Leeds: 

“Who will maintain our families, whilst we undertake the arduous task” of learning a new trade? Also, they asked, what will happen if the new trade, in turn, gets devalued by further technological advance?

So the issue seems to be one of person vs. convenience (again, the washing machine example). 

But is that truly the case?



We’ve all felt this way…
© Ron Sumners, 123rf.com



False Premise

While a washer is a great invention, someone had to invent it.  Someone else had to build it.  Another person had to sell it.  And then someone has to be there to push the button.  So a lot of “someones” are still needed to complete the act of washing clothes.  In fact, more someones are needed then in the past.

So one could say that technology has not only improved the life of the washerwoman, but also that of the inventor, factory worker, store owner, and sales staff.

 

On the other, greener concerned hand, it uses electricity, which is in turn fueled by natural  and often non-renewable, resources, which is gathered in ways that are not always healthy or environmentally safe and sustainable.

And that is a whole other can of worms.

For now, it seems true to say that one can still have convenience without neglecting the human aspect.

And the answer is. . .

Krugman’s article, while doing a great job bringing up the issue, falls short by proposing a solution that is flawed and incomplete:  

...the only way we could have anything resembling a middle-class society — a society in which ordinary citizens have a reasonable assurance of maintaining a decent life as long as they work hard and play by the rules — would be by having a strong social safety net, one that guarantees not just health care but a minimum income, too. And with an ever-rising share of income going to capital rather than labor, that safety net would have to be paid for to an important extent via taxes on profits and/or investment income.

It sounds great, but it’s too easy.    

Especially considering that the whole point of the article is that technology is replacing both white collar and blue collar workers.  If that is the case, then who is going to pay for this social safety net?  He mentions taxes, but how are workers who are already suffering going to be able to afford these taxes?  This "solution" only creates more disparity and hardship for those it supposedly helps.  Krugman doesn’t explore the consequences of a tax-based solution, which is essentially just throwing money at a problem.  Unfortunately, this seems to be a fairly typical Western/American reaction: forget about finding the root cause, just take care of the symptom.

So the question still remains: what does the future hold for highly skilled workers whose skills may be taken over by technology?   

I’m glad that Krugman is raising the issue and I hope to see a series of articles ~ either by Krugman or others ~ addressing and truly debating different answers.

Oremus pro invicem,

~ Mikaela

Let's start the conversation!  What do you think?

My Favorite Apps: Blogathon Theme Day

It's supposed to be automatic, but actually you have to push this button.

~ John Brunner, Stand on Zanzibar

During the Blogathon there will be several “Theme Days.” Today’s post follows this week’s Favorite App theme. ~ MD

 

 

T

oday’s post is a little ironic after talking about getting back to nature yesterday.  But as with most things in life, I opt for a both/and mentality rather than either/or.

Having said that, I will say that I am as much of a techie as the Tenth Doctor: “it’s more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly, timey wimey…stuff.”

Yeah.  That.

However, I do own a smarty-pants phone.  And I do have some apps that I use.  Often.  Sort of.

Kindle App

Traitor!  Oh, the horror!  I know ~ I download e-books.  Gah!  Off with my head!  Hey! Don’t be an e-book hater!  I have a really good reason: my Goodreads Reading Challenge is 213 books by December 31 and so far I’m only 5 books behind in my goal!  I would actually be ahead of my goal, except that there are some books I’ve read that I hated so much I didn’t bother saying I’d read them.  (I’ve mentioned their type before.)

But I digress.

The Kindle App is awesome!  I’m a Gen Xer, and while not nearly as insane as my younger Gen Y siblings, I do admit to struggling with instant gratification.  “Download, darn you!”  So when I was blessed enough to find authors (mostly these lovely ladies!) I love, my Kindle App lets me buy the next book in the series without wasting gas money, killing a tree, emitting noxious car fumes, or contributing to a traffic jam.

The book-books I own are almost all used.  And my dears, you remember the last scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark where they’re putting the Ark in a warehouse?  That would be my library: boxes and boxes of books.  Too bad there’s not an app for building bookshelves.

Doctor Who App

This one speaks for itself.  Literally.  Allons-y!

MRIS Homes App

A realtor showed me this one.  Great little tool for finding homes for sale or rent wherever you are.  The app looks at where your phone is “standing” and gives you surrounding area sale and rental info.  The only downside?  It’s a pain if you want to look at homes in your town, while you’re on vacation in Boro Boro.  You can change the geo search parameters, but it’s crashed on me a couple of times when I tried that.

Ebay App

Let’s just keep this app between the two of us, shall we?  No telling my friend Tika.  It’s her fault I even downloaded the thing.  It totally supports my vintage hat habit.  Wait…need to check my last bid….

Oremus pro invicem,

~ Mikaela

What are your favorite apps?  Have they helped you or made it easier to procrastinate?

The Discovery of Awe

He who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead; his eyes are closed.

~ Albert Einstein

Y

 esterday,  I stood gazing up at the sky with about a thousand other people on the National Mall, waiting for a glimpse of the Discovery.  It was a perfect day ~ sun-drenched, temperatures in the low 70s, and a flirty breeze.  I walked around with my smarty-pants phone at the ready, talking to chatty strangers and an occasional co-worker.  We were all excited, wondering when and where the shuttle would appear, and whether we would be able to see it without binoculars.



And then someone shouted, “There it is!”  And we turned as one towards the Washington Monument and saw it ~ this giant 747 with Discovery riding on its back like a large bug.  It quickly disappeared behind the trees; some people started running towards the Smithsonian Hirshorn Museum to see if they could catch another glimpse; others looked a little confused and disappointed. What that it?  That’s as much as we’re going to see?



The Discovery shuttle flies over Washington, DC (C) 2012, M D'Eigh



The seers in the group [those with short wave radios, or WTOP playing on their phones] assured us that it was just flying over National Harbor and would be back.  To just be patient.  Wait for it. It would appear again.



And then there it was ~ flying over the Capitol rotunda, over the White House, and back around the Washington Monument and over the Hirshorn.  It made this circle three times.  And each time, I snapped blindly away, the sun was in my eyes.  As well as tears.  Because Discovery was saying goodbye. 

And I hate goodbyes.

But the tears were also because of awe.  Awe that we, mankind, had gazed at the stars for a long time, and dreamed of reaching them.  And then we did.  How amazing is that?!  We imagined what it would be like and then we did it.

Last Saturday, I attended a lecture co-hosted by The Saint Cecilia Group and the John Paul II Fellowship.  It was the first in a series of talks that explores the relationship between art and faith.

During Saturday’s lecture titled The Healing Power of Art: The Role of Art in Reaching the Wounded, Dr. Andre Leyva, the President of Montgomery Clinical Services in Gaithersburg, Maryland, mentioned that we have become immune to beauty, even blind to it.  We walk around with our heads bent over our smarty-pants phones, and never see the beauty that surrounds us. 

We are unmoved.

And thinking about the exhilarating rush of seeing the Discovery fly overhead, the tears stinging my eyes as its retirement brought to mind loved ones who were also growing older, I wondered. Is it really as bad as that?  Have the majority of us lost the ability to lost our breath at brilliant sunrise or sunset?  Do we no longer feel anything when a parade goes by?  Does the thought of a Puccini opera make our eyes glaze over?

Have we forgotten how to be in awe?

There is no doubt that a crisis is brewing.  Certainly, it is a challenge to reach a generation who has never known what is like to live without the constant hum of technology. 

But standing amidst that crowd of excited Discovery watchers, and seeing all the subsequent Facebook statuses and tweets about it, I have reason to hope.  Yes, we had our smarty-pants phones out, but it was because we were aware of being part of something historic.  Something amazing.  Something awe-inspiring.

Beauty is not dead yet, and neither is our sensitivity to her.

Oremus pro invicem,

~ Mikaela

Did you see Discovery with your own eyes yesterday?  How did it make you feel?  Do you think it is more difficult to be sensitive to beauty with all the technology we have?  Or does the technology put us more in touch with beauty?