Internet: the Great Leveler?

I was out of my usual haunts recently to speak at a young adults’ fellowship in what we call around here “The Cities.” Some of the conversation there had to do with SharperIron and, afterward, discussion with a few lingerers went to a familiar point. One young man observed that the trouble with Internet discussions goes beyond questions of the use of technology. The medium itself is a problem. It is inherently hostile to leadership because it erases distinctions and puts everyone on the same level.

A result, he said, is that “bad conversation crowds out good conversation.” A related thought from someone in the group was that so much of the dynamic of persuasive speaking and writing relates to who is saying it and not simply what is being said, and the Internet forum medium tends to neutralize the who factor.

These are thoughtful critiques of the medium and worthy of prolonged attention. I want to make a small down payment here toward that prolonged attention.

The question

The big question seems to be this: Is the easy-access discussion technology of the Internet (more precisely, the World Wide Web) inherently prone to an unhelpful or wrongful leveling effect?

I’m aware that many quickly react to that question in the negative. “Of course it doesn’t! Only elitists think that giving everyone even footing in a discussion is a bad thing.” But I’m sympathetic to views of the alleged elitists. It’s not immediately obvious to me that it’s a good idea to take a random sampling of a population, put them in an auditorium, give them all microphones and announce that the goal of the session is, say, to develop a good policy for peace in the Middle East. If the group consists of a hundred people, there might be two or three at most who could be expected to have the knowledge of history, politics, government and foreign policy to supply high quality ideas. (If peace in the Middle East doesn’t work for you, try brain surgery or rocket science.)

And if the question concerns theology (whether practical theology or the “impractical” kind), is the matter less important or less complex than peace in the Middle East? It is certainly not less weighty. And at least some questions in theology are as complex as the practical and sociopolitical complexities of the Middle East.

So we might as well face it: I’m probably an elitist. I’m fully persuaded that not all people are equally entitled to have opinions on every subject or equally likely to have thoughtful opinions that can be helpful to others.

In any conversation about football defensive strategies, Chinese calligraphy or quantum entanglement, I hope I’d have the sense to keep my mouth shut—or just ask questions and listen. I’m clearly unqualified to hold opinions about any of those things. And in a conversation where people just as ignorant presume to opine, I’d be on the side of those saying, “Shut up and let the smart people talk!”

Still, I hope all of you populists and semi-egalitarians (a large majority, I’m pretty sure) will keep reading. You’ll be in a better position to combat elitism if you better understand how we elitists see the problem.

Questions beneath the question

To return to the big question, is the easy-access, open-discussion technology of the Internet inherently prone to an unhelpful, or even wrongful, leveling effect? To answer that question, we have to consider some others. What exactly is being leveled, in what way is it being leveled and what are the real results? To put it another way, whose views are being improperly lifted and whose are being improperly lowered? And is this leveling improper because of the kind of leveling that is happening, or because of the way it’s happening, or because of the results of its happening—or some combination of the above?

What is being leveled?

If you put three theology PhDs and twenty eighth-graders in a Web forum and have them discuss some sensitive question, like whether eighth-graders are still children who must honor and obey their parents, the results are pretty predictable. The twenty eighth-graders are absolutely going to dominate. The PhDs will have trouble keeping up; they’ll be out-posted something like ten posts to one! And if the participants are actually interacting, the conversation will tend to focus on who is disrespecting whom, who is being rude and who is being arrogant, rather than on the matter of honoring and obeying parents. (In defense of the eighth-graders I know, several of them would be shouting at the rest to shut up and listen to the PhDs. But that doesn’t really detract from my point.)

The scenario probably turns out a bit better if everyone knows who the PhDs are and all the eighth-graders post using their real names. But the gravitation in the situation is still the same: the pull is toward bad conversation. Bad conversation tends to crowd out good conversation, and most of the participants in this example would not be capable of (or willing to produce) good conversation on the topic.

This gravitation toward fruitless talk happens because, to use the auditorium analogy, everyone’s got a microphone and there is no platform. Everyone has equal opportunity to communicate, and the sheer number of uninformed people tends to determine the course of the conversation. What is leveled, then, is control of the conversation.

But more than that is leveled. In this scenario, Sam the eighth-grader can tell the three PhDs that they don’t have a clue what they’re talking about. And, in my experience, PhDs don’t generally like being talked to that way. (Hey, they’ve spent more hours learning and thinking than the average eighth-grader has spent eating, texting and video gaming combined—and that’s saying something!) Two out of three PhDs would probably contribute to the decay of the conversation by scolding Sam the eighth-grader, rather than disproving his assertions or patiently helping him understand why an attitude of deference would be more wise and good. (I appreciate the PhDs, but let’s be realistic. They’re human, and sometimes they’re touchy about their knowledge because they’ve devoted their lives and fortunes to acquiring it. Even if the eighth-grader has a point, it just doesn’t seem fair!)

So in addition to leveling control of the conversation, the open forum also tends to level the ethos of the participants. It tends to reduce the authority of experts to declare something to be true and expect others to defer to their expertise. To a lesser degree, the environment also tends to reduce the authority of a person of character and wisdom to express sound judgment and expect others to honor it. This second side of the ethos coin is far more serious, but, for reasons I hope to make clear eventually—it is also less inherently threatened by the open forum medium.

How, and with what result?

If the medium of the open Internet forum tends to result in this kind of leveling, should we move away from it as “bad technology”? I believe that conclusion is premature. We have not yet considered the mechanics of how this leveling occurs or what the results are over time. Nor have we considered what is not leveled by this medium or how its strengths and weaknesses compare to other mediums such as spoken conversation and old fashioned ink-and-paper publication. Doing so may well reveal mitigating factors or optional features of the medium that can be altered to maximize its strengths and minimize its weaknesses.

I’m open to the idea that there can be such things as “bad technologies.” I’m not yet persuaded that the Internet forum is one of them.

Aaron Blumer Bio

Aaron Blumer, SharperIron’s second publisher, is a Michigan native and graduate of Bob Jones University (Greenville, SC) and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He and his family live in a small town in western Wisconsin, not far from where he pastored Grace Baptist Church for thirteen years. He is employed in customer service for UnitedHealth Group and teaches high school rhetoric (and sometimes logic and government) at Baldwin Christian School.

Discussion

Overall, I think the internet has a positive leveling effect. Everything that happens is public. Many years ago I came to the conclusion that ‘internet privacy’ is THE oxymoron to end all oxymorons.

Here’s a thought- a sneaky guy comes into your church and starts sowing seeds of discord, heresy, etc… it may be weeks or months before you are aware of it, or it is addressed by a mature member of the congregation. But on the net, a wolf can be quickly and publicly confronted and corrected. Those that have ears to hear will do so.

I agree with Bro. Barnhart. You read what you are interested in, listen to whom you choose, internalize what resonates or rings true. You can immediately do whatever fact-checking is needed.

Those who choose to remain uninformed, uneducated, immature, or apostate would do so whether the internet existed or not. Case in point- Absalom, who managed to stage a rebellion and overthrow his father’s kingdom simply by standing in the gate and schmoozing the folks. Nothing really new under the sun.

I think some of the concern about leveling is that of authority. Even here at SI, the ‘authority’ is Aaron Blumer the site owner, The Awesome, Wise, and Noble Forum Director Jim Peet, and to some extent, the moderators. But what is it that we do that’s ‘authoritative’? We approve registrations, enforce the Comment Policy and Doctrinal Statement, post articles for Filings… Some seem to have a desire to turn forums into churches where there is a pastor and deacons and designated teachers… to exert control over what is said, but that isn’t Scriptural or even possible.

So- if forums such as SI are more like internet coffee shops- isn’t the local Starbucks also a leveler then? I don’t know ‘who’ I am talking to there sometimes any more than I do here. At least here I can examine ‘credentials’, or go back and read a person’s previous posts to fully examine their position, or search for a particular phrase or topic… where else do you get to do that?

I think the internet holds our feet to the fire much more than IRL, because in a very real sense everything we do online is documented. Is that bad leveling or good leveling? Or just hair-raisingly scary?

What this article fails to address (and I suspect the author intends to address later) is that the PhD can and should be able to offer arguments that are clear and sound. As they did so, they would gain respect based on their demonstrated love for truth and ability to discern it and argue for it well. If they cannot, or will not, do this, then they will fail to garner respect. In other words, the forum technology levels the playing field for ideas. If an eighth grader can offer better arguments than the PhD, he will and should gain respect. After all, he has demonstrated commitment to, and skill with, a reasoned pursuit of truth.

Jason, this is a good point though there are limits on how well it works. Respect is an expression of the values of the respecter. For example, in some of the street gangs of Chicago or LA, you get respect by being the first to kill somebody at random. … an extreme example to show what I mean.

So those who value sound reasoning, clear thinking, etc., will respect people who demonstrate those skills/habits. Those who don’t value them will not be impressed.

And in the completely open forum environment, there is often going to be a dominance by people who do not value clear thinking—especially if the issue is an emotional one by nature.

The positive side is that forums don’t have to be completely open… and there are the factors of “invisible/silent audience” and time. This keeps the posts of a person (PhD or otherwise) who posts thoughtfully from being a complete waste even in discussions where foolishness seems to be dominating. I’m hoping to be more clear about the silent-audience and time factors in a follow up post soon.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

Aaron,

I tend to disagree with your points for several reasons.

First, while there certainly are those who are highly educated that have important and valuable things to say/teach those of us among the ignorant and uneducated ranks. Biblically there is a distinction between knowledge and wisdom. Far too often it seems the educated have a piece of paper which tells them they have achieved the status of a learned person, which in fact means they completed the required course work for some institution, and that person is ignorant of reality. “Professing themselves wise they became fools.” Or as Paul told Timothy
2 Timothy 3:7

Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
Second, these educated people have a haughty and superior attitude, assuming that because they have a sheepskin from Uncle Joe’s School of Bible Learning, that they are an authority on every subject known to man, including interplanetary travel, and cooking with gas. Thus they act on internet forums as though their degree in Christian Education means that they have accumulated all available knowledge on eschatology.

Thirdly, You down play the leading of the Holy Spirit in the lives of those who are “uneducated”. Since the “uneducated” do not have a sheepskin as proof of their “learning”, they become easy targets to accuse of being ignorant of the truth, or of being unable to understand the “deeper” concepts of thought. Never mind the fact that with the Holy Spirit”s filling and a deep commitment to the study of the Word of Truth, it is very possible that the “uneducated” may have been lead of the Spirit to the exact same Truth, as the educated person learned after hours of being spoon fed it in a classroom.

BTW, I not some rabid charismatic here, claiming that someone can achieve all knowledge simply by a gust of wind from the Spirit. But, having a small amount of education, followed by years of personal study in the Word and and study from other “learned” men, it is possible to have “Knowledge of the Truth”, even without the sheepskin.

Maybe a better solution to your conundrum would be a reliance on objective Truth, rather than trying to ascertain rightness or wrongness on an issue based on the commenter’s “education” history.

I know several people who have multiple degrees, who I would not ride in a car with if they were driving, and I certainly would not let them advise me about how to fix a flat tire. Education is a very broad word. Sometimes life experience and actual hands on knowledge are superior to book learning.

It’s a bit hard to follow your reasoning, Tom.
  • Some educated people are not wise.
  • Some educated people are haughty.
  • Some educated people are yucky to ride in a car with.
What does this prove about the rest of the educated people or education in general?

The reason I ask as that the following statements are also manifestly true:
  • Some educated people are not wise.
  • Some educated people are haughty.
  • Some educated people are yucky to ride in a car with.
Even if we replace all the “somes” with “manys” these descriptions are true of people at all levels of education and lack thereof.

(But I do think your odds are better with one group than the other)

It’s also not clear in what way I’ve downplayed the leading of the Spirit. Uneducated believers can follow the leading of the Spirit. Educated believers can follow the leading of the Spirit. What am I missing?

As for the sheepskin…
[Aaron] The analogy isn’t intended to say that you can’t have an informed opinion unless you have x amount of education. It’s intended to show that differences in education do tend to correlate to real knowledge. The correlation isn’t absolute—and I don’t think anybody claims that zero non PhDs have the same expertise as PhDs. And nobody claims that 100% of PhDs are wise or worth listening too.

But the fact that there is a high correlation between educational level and real knowledge is pretty obvious: none of us would look for an 8th grader to draw up our estate plan or work on our teeth or give us marital counseling.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

Aaron - I think that I can pretty much agree with the concept that there is a world of difference between 8th graders and PhD (post hole diggers) in terms of knowledge. PhD’s unfortunately are sometimes considered to be intelligent on so many matters because they are in the top 1% of the world educationally and having the PhD is the highest academic degree one can achieve. Nevertheless, a PhD simply assures that the person knows A LOT about the narrow field of study in which they spent several years. A PhD has completed doctoral exams and a dissertation that contributed to the research base of the discipline in which they studied. A PhD doesn’t necessarily give someone a pass to be exalted as more intelligent than those without a PhD or that the PhD is knowledgable on every subject. Nevertheless, I think that we are in agreement that there is a high correlation between educational level and real knowledge.

What I find surprising is that the seminal work, THE WORLD IS FLAT, has not been mentioned in this conversation. He proposes that there are 10 forces that have flattened the world. By flattening, he means that countries, which formerly were fairly obscure in the world market, like India, are now able to compete for global knowledge work as never before (p. 7).

The first flattener (leveling the playing field) was the advent of windows and the reunion of Europe (the wall came down) in 11/9/89. The second flattener was the advent of the WWW and Netscape became public in 8/9/95. The the third was work flow software (causing work flowing within and between companies continents faster than ever). The 4th flattener was the ability of ANYONE with an internet connection to upload information to the WWW (think Wikipedia, you tube, open source software, etc). There are more, but interestingly, the first four all revolve around the internet.

So, current 8th graders may not be able to compete with PhD’s, however, they have access and opportunity to the same data to which a PhD has access. The future of knowledge and the dissemination of accurate knowledge will greatly change as the WWW continues to “level the playing field.” However, I wonder if theology and philosophy will be two areas in which there will never be a leveling as it takes an element of emotional maturity to ponder the greatness of God and the world in which He has placed us.

Pedid por la paz de Jerusalén.

The book sounds like a good read, but I haven’t had that opportunity yet.

I think your point is solid about the PhD being a representation of specialized knowledge, for the most part. There’s the interdisciplinary stuff and language learning in pretty much any PhD program, though. And by the time you do all that and read a dump truck load of books… you pick up more than just your specialty.

(If anybody didn’t know, I don’t have a PhD. If somebody wants to pay for it, I’m game though! :D … and if they can “dilate time” to fit about 20 hrs more into my week. But it’s also nice being an advocate for the degree even though I don’t have one.)

… and I do know some idiot PhDs. (Don’t ask. I’ll never name one. ;) )

About 8th grader access to the same info as PhDs. I think some of the flatness celebrators may be overly optimistic on that score. What does “access” mean? They can get the books, articles, etc. But can they read them? If they can read them, can they assimilate them, relate them to a larger body of knowledge, etc.? Without that ability, is there real access?

Sometimes the access the Internet provides is like giving me access to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider] Large Hadron Collider .

I could start pressing buttons and just really make a mess.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

Aaron - You wrote, “What does “access” mean? They can get the books, articles, etc. But can they read them? If they can read them, can they assimilate them, relate them to a larger body of knowledge, etc.? Without that ability, is there real access?”

Can 8th graders assimilate information like a PhD? Not now, that’s true. However, as the WWW becomes more prevalent and information is more readily passed around I think that we will have smarter 8th graders.

I see that you work in a school on the side. I would encourage you to sit in on an 8th grade mathematics course and tell me how much you really know. Students are learning at a faster rate than ever before and it is not uncommon to have our prodigy progeny accepted into college at younger ages. With uploading information to the internet, we are having young people discovered for their talent that would never have been discovered 50 years ago. With all the world’s information at their fingertips, I think that we will see more assimilation of information, discipline crossover and more correlation of previously divergent concepts. We are having people provide intellectual property from areas of the world that have previously gone unnoticed. There is much potential with having so much information readily available.

You wrote, “I think some of the flatness celebrators may be overly optimistic on that score.” I didn’t share much about the book I referenced. However, I think that you would find it quite interesting. I think there is a sequel but I haven’t read it yet.

However, I have strayed from your topic.

Pedid por la paz de Jerusalén.

drwayman… it’s “close enough” to topic… and interesting.

I believe it’s true, at least in some places, that the average 8th grader is more sophisticated and possessed of “more information” than in the past.

The challenge, though, in world of ever increasing data, is to develop wisdom and good judgment to with it. As the data mountain grows, the need for skill in sifting and separating the important from the urgent and/or trivial grows.

… and I’m not very optimistic so far that these skills are growing at the same rate.

Another downside is that the ‘Net has an information bias toward the new. What I see is a trend toward more and more ignorance of history. My own generation barely learned any history it seems, and in my (very unscientific) sampling of younger generations, this trend seems to have accelerated. So we seem to be adding lots of info to the front edge without the background necessary to evaluate it thoroughly.

I suspect, for example, that if you ask the average youngish “man on the street” to briefly summarize basic beliefs on human nature, economics and morality, he will not reference anything before the 20th century (many would not reference anything before the 21st century… or before last week.)

On the other hand, there’s no question that it’s easier than ever to track down even historical info you are personally interested in. In both sermon prep and teaching prep I’m often amazed at what I can find just by keying a few keywords into Google. Not all junk info by any means.

Yesterday, I had this humongous dictionary I was using to finger random topics for student impromptu speeches. Later, someone raised the question, “How do you pronounce gyro—as in the sandwich?” Started to look it up in this monster dictionary then remembered my laptop was two feet away powered up and connected… a few keystrokes and we’re hearing the word pronounced aloud.

That sort of easy access to info has to have a cumulative effect that is positive.

But there are trade offs. The near-messianic hope some place in the society-transforming power of the I’net is definitely a vain hope.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

Technological aptitude is often mistaken for ‘intelligence’. IOW, raise your hand if you have one of your kids program the DVD player or debug your computer? Uh-huh, I see that. OK- now raise your hand if you have your kids make financial decisions for the family? Right.

There are different kinds of intelligence. The problem IMO is one of mutual respect and civility. Length of days and even brilliance are never license to be a pompous jerk, and youth is not permission to be condescending because the gray head can’t figure out the GPS on their smartphone.

Access used to be determined by socio-economic factors. Since the dawn of compulsory public education and public libraries, those boundaries have been consistently eroded. It seems that the internet has come along like a bulldozer to finish the job. But access has never determined who will actually dive into the pool of knowledge- most are content to sit on the side and splash a little with their feet. So IMO it still holds true that an older person can be as dumb as a box of dog hair, and a young person can be knowledgeable and wise, because learning, internalizing, and applying knowledge is still dependent on the learner, not just the availability of information.

Aaron - We are talking about something that is so new and has so taken the world by storm, that I don’t think we (the world) presently understand the impact of the WWW. It reminds me of this quote, “If the television craze continues with the present level of programs, we are destined to have a nation of morons. - Daniel Marsh, 1950” and this by Bill Gates from the early 1980’s, “640K ought to be enough for anybody.”

Then we have these interesting facts regarding the internet: One in five couples blame Facebook for their divorce; 69% of parents are friends with their children on social media; and Lady Gaga, Justin Bieber and Britney Spears have more Twitter followers than the entire populations of Sweden, Israel, Greece, Chile, North Korea and Australia.

Every minute 24 hours of video is uploaded to youtube. Wikipedia, if it was in print form would be 2.25 million pages long and would take the average reader 123 years to read it. However, before the reader even got 18 months into reading, the information in wikipedia would have doubled.

Social media has overtaken porn as the number one activity on the internet. Information is the fastest growing element on the world and grows 10 times faster than physical production http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2006/02/the_speed_of_in.php

The US military established a whole separate command with its own General just to control information and cyberattacks that affect the security of our country and our allies.

So, I state all this to say that we don’t know what the effect of the WWW will be on the world. Nor do we know what the WWW will do to those individuals who have taken time to selectively concentrate their studies so as to have a niche in the job market. I suspect, that over time, academic degrees will go by the wayside or become meaningless and the PhD’s of the new age will be those individuals who know how to manage this huge load of information that is at our fingertips.

You wrote, “I suspect, for example, that if you ask the average youngish “man on the street” to briefly summarize basic beliefs on human nature…”

I believe if you ask, you will find not a personal conviction on basic beliefs but you will find that he is able to give you a quick synopsis from a google search, quoting the expert. Expert is defined as the web site that has the most hits and/or has the flashiest, hippest-looking website. I’m afraid that the WWW is advancing pluralism.

—I blame Bush— LOL

I could go on and on about this subject and find it extremely interesting as well. Your last statement is true that there is a messianic hope for the WWW but we know that Jesus is the only way to have true hope. Fortunately, with all the foibles and dark side that there are regarding the WWW, this is also the greatest opportunity that Christianity has ever experienced to disseminate the Gospel. I’m grateful for such online opportunities as Sharper Iron where there can be meaningful, irenic discussions that can show the world that Christians can get along. And if Christians can get along, maybe there is something real there…

I’m really glad that Al Gore invented the internet. LOL

Pedid por la paz de Jerusalén.

Dr. Wayman, your posts themselves illustrate some of the issues at hand. They are indeed full of information, and moreover, they are fun to read. I think I could listen to you for hours. And that is, in itself, part of the problem with the internet, no? Raw information does not equal productive learning. I can get sucked into cracked.com (language disclaimer) or Mentalfloss and learn all kinds of things, but most of the time, they don’t actually help me achieve my objectives.

I see the internet as similar to demolition explosives. They are incredibly powerful; people with them can do things that might be well nigh impossible for people without them. But not just anybody can use them without creating a horrible mess. Training, experience, judgment, and clearly defined objectives are vital for success. The internet is similar.

I use the internet often for my scholarship. Without it, I could not get access to many foreign-language journals and ancient-language primary sources. I could not easily collaborate with others in my field who live far away. It would take me much longer to find certain very useful public domain resources. But, this is the key. The internet only facilitates me in doing the things I’m already trained to do. I already read Greek and Latin, thus Perseus Project and TLG are useful to me. I already know how to sift through better and worse secondary literature, thus databases such as ProQuest and JSTOR help me. I already have a solid education, so I can evaluate what I find on Wikipedia.

Someone who does not already possess a solid educational background and developed research skills is not going to be able to use the internet in a truly helpful way. They will drown in the data rather than cross the ocean on it.

On the other hand, I am most favorably inclined toward the internet just for the “pluralistic” nature that you mentioned. Twenty years ago, a Christian could think that the church he or she was raised in was the normative church. Surely, all Christian churches (or at least all good ones) are like mine, and my pastor speaks for Christendom. Today, that’s hardly possible. Authoritarian leaders can’t control the flow of information anymore. Curious people will be able to break out of narrowness and irrationality.

My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com

Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin

Charlie - I really appreciate your kind words. I’m just about spent on this subject so I don’t think you will be able to listen to me for hours :-)

You made an interesting comment, “Training, experience, judgment, and clearly defined objectives are vital for success. The internet is similar.” I don’t know enough about this subject to know if I am speaking intelligently or not but your comment spurred a thought. I wonder if the future academic degrees of influence will be those individuals who are trained in the use of the WWW. I’m not talking about IT jobs or internet project management but those who are trained how to influence our culture in meaningful ways with “defined objectives” I would think that these academicians would know how to ingest, organize, and disseminate the plethora of information found on the WWW. The question is, “who is going to teach others how to do it?” It seems that there needs to be an educational innovator who will blaze the trail.

The WWW may lead to a flattening of culture as well. Universities are rethinking what it means to plagiarize. For example, here is an article out of Ball State University that addresses culture and intellectual property: http://cicsworld.centerforics.org/?p=946 It appears that education is taking on a new face due to the many cultures being represented on the WWW.

Before I get too wordy, I work for an educational innovator and make a good living by working on line. Over the last seven years of working for this institution, I was also able to secure a contract with the DOD, live in Europe for three years and maintain my online presence even while visiting four continents all the while interacting with a nearly global student population. I’m not saying that to brag but rather to relay how the world is changing. It used to be if you had a business in a couple of neighboring cities you were outstanding. It was predicted that the generation behind us (I’m 49) would be an multinational community in regard to business. However, it appears that our generation is already doing international business and even further, we are doing global business. So, that makes me wonder what future generations will experience when they have always had the internet, global business, etc.

I’ll stop with this quote from Friedman (p. 213), “What we are witnessing is a mad dash - born of fifty years of pent-up aspiration in places like India, China, and the former Soviet Empire, where for five decades young people were educated, but not given an outlet at home to really fulfill their potential.” and (p. 214), “these new players are often stepping onto the playing field, legacy free, meaning that many of them were so far behind they can leap right into the new technologies without having to worry about all the sunken costs of old systems. It means that they can move very fast to adopt new, state-of-the-art technologies…”

Here is a real live example: http://www.geekologie.com/2011/10/internet-for-everyone-indias-35-compu…

Pedid por la paz de Jerusalén.

[drwayman]

I’ll stop with this quote from Friedman (p. 213), “What we are witnessing is a mad dash - born of fifty years of pent-up aspiration in places like India, China, and the former Soviet Empire, where for five decades young people were educated, but not given an outlet at home to really fulfill their potential.” and (p. 214), “these new players are often stepping onto the playing field, legacy free, meaning that many of them were so far behind they can leap right into the new technologies without having to worry about all the sunken costs of old systems. It means that they can move very fast to adopt new, state-of-the-art technologies…”
Emphasis in above quote mine.

Your quote here illustrates Charlie’s point very well — the ones that are really taking advantage of this new playing field are already educated.

Along those lines, I think we are on the brink of a sea change in education, and the internet may well be a part of that. College education costs are increasing so fast (and faster than their relative worth in the degree holder being able to use that education in the job market), that education may well move partly (or even completely) on line in order to keep costs down and still be able to pay for good professors. I know that online educations in the past have suffered from being shady and worthless (and in many cases, deservedly so), but the idea that we have to be present in a classroom to learn as well is simply not true. Even personal interaction with a professor would be able to be done with a computer, microphone, camera, and a fast internet connection. This would allow the student and teacher to speak with one another, the teacher to examine the student’s work in real time (of course assignments can also easily be submitted by email or other online transfer, like being moved to cloud storage). Workgroup software, already used in corporations, would allow students to complete projects as a group, do experiments together, etc. While today’s webcams, internet speed, software, and other resources may seem too primitive to do what we want them to do, they are improving almost as quickly as the internet, since increased speed and access to data allows even better tools.

In short, good online access would give me just as much access to teachers and classroom/library resources as I in reality had when I was attending class and waiting for office hours. No one has yet done a really good job of being able to educate using the new resources and have it be “the same” as a regular on-site college education, but I have no doubt it’s coming, and I believe it will be here sooner than we can imagine.

Of course, education does not equal wisdom, any more than being able to manipulate and sift through large amounts of data does. Wisdom will still come mostly through training, starting with “the fear of the Lord” as Proverbs puts it. But the ability of the education elite to keep knowledge locked up and accessible only to those of their class is quickly decreasing, and for those who have the willpower to dig in, they will be able to learn as much and work as well as PhDs, so in the future it may be necessary to have other ways to evaluate one’s fitness to serve in a particular capacity. I’m fairly certain that just being able to use the available data will still not be the same as being wise enough to know when and how to use it, any more than it is now, but the internet itself may not just be responsible for increasing data access, but in facilitating good learning as well.

Dave Barnhart