A Look Back in Time

If any of you have ever read Aristophanes' Clouds, you know that it's a little satirical and the main character is kind of a joke. Strepsiades is so steeped in tradition that he is essentially incapable of learning from Socrates, the master philosopher. Nevermind that Aristophanes has beef with Socrates and makes him out to be a bit of a lunatic in the play. The point is, I used to be Strepsiades. I was so concerned with my grade and with conventional methods of education that I was incapable of taking full advantage of the opportunities presented to me in this class. Looking back, however, I do think I'v changed. It was a long and difficult process, I really think this class has enabled me to grow beyond what I would have thought possible.

That said, I suppose it's time now to take a look back at my progress throughout the class, and evaluate how I met each of the learning outcomes.

1. Historical Concepts

One of my favorites. This
one really got the ball
rolling for me.

I really enjoyed studying the periods of history from the 16th century on. Within the last year or so I've discovered that I have sort of a passion for reading historical novels (both fiction and non-fiction). In the past, I've been rather indifferent. I did well in history classes in high school, but it never particularly sparked my interest. When I started reading about history on my own, however, I realized that history outside of the context of a textbook is amazing! When you have the opportunity to explore your own interests and find personal connections, it opens up this whole new world of understanding. I think that's why I enjoyed our methods of studying history so much. I loved the way we all brought different ideas to the table according to what we decided was interesting, rather than basing our curriculum on a hard a fast list of topics to cover. I did struggle initially with connecting historical concepts to the digital concepts that we were studying. It was like a mental puzzle that I had never even thought to attempt before. I did try to make connections however, some of which I ended up being pretty happy with. Here's a list of relevant blog posts:

• Pushing the Envelope
• Too Much of a Good Thing
• Jamestown: Cultures Collide for Better or Worse
• Finding a Balance
• Give Me Liberty

2./ 3. Core Concepts and Digital Literacy

I think in some ways our generation is lucky to have grown up with that technology that we have; in other ways though, I can see advantages to having grown up without it and having to learn to adapt. Mostly because I've always taken it for granted. Before this class, I never even considered the four tenants to digital literacy: control, information, openness, and participation. After our class segment of group presentations focused on these concepts, I feel like I have grasped a real understanding of them, and I find myself evaluating things I encounter online in terms of these concepts. Furthermore, before this class, I never would have thought to consciously evaluate my digital literacy or think in terms of creating, connecting, and consuming.I think I've really grown in that regard. In particular, after attending the event and hearing the many things we can do to be a part of the digital revolution, I feel like I am constantly thinking in those terms. 

• Create

• This sumer I'll be studying at Cambridge University, and I am already thinking about what I will create and contribute to the digital world as a result of my experiences. I'm wondering whether I should journal or blog (or both), whether I should tweet (that might be a stretch), and whether I should deactivate my facebook account (so as to avoid distractions) or keep it up and update my friends and family about my travels. Furthermore, I'll be doing a supervision, which means I'll be meeting weekly with a Cambridge professor who will help me develop a thesis over the term. The thing is, I'm not in the honors program, and don't really need to develop a thesis, so will I just write it and let it go to waste. Of course not. I'll have to find a way to make it authentic and useful. 
• Relevant post: 
• Go About Doing Good
• Create something worthwhile.
• Consume
• For my digital concept group presentation, we decided to talk about responsible consumption of information. Preparing the presentation was pretty enlightening. We noted the natural propensity to believe whatever aligns with our own inclinations, and accordingly presented a few ridiculous notions to the class as fact during our presentation. It was amusing, but also thought provoking. Thanks to that presentation I have been much more conscious of this tendency and have been trying (rather successfully I might add) to avoid it.
• Relevant post:
• Are You Sure About That?
• Avoid the temptation!
• Connect
• I think our use of Google+ has been a huge factor in my perception of what it means to connect with people online. I have never really used the Internet as a means to facilitate intellectual discussion with my peers, much less with people I don't know at all. I also never would have attempted to contact big name authors and professors about ideas that I have. Remember that supervision I mentioned? Well I'm thinking about doing it on changes in the non-profit industry that have resulted from the Digital Revolution. My parents recently attended a philanthropy conference in San Antonio, where they met a prominent figure in the industry who is very well informed about those digital changes. My mom got his email address and I'm planning to send him an email and hopefully bounce some ideas off of him that will help me refine my proposal for my supervision. Honestly, I think our ability to connect with anybody across the globe has been the most poignant realization for me from this class.
• Relevant post:
• Overcoming the Fool's Ultimatum
• Connect with others and employ synergistic thinking

4. Self-Directed Learning

I think my success in self-directed learning correlates to what I mentioned in the historical concepts section. I have found it so invigorating to learn for the sake of learning, just because it interests me. I have loved trying to find out more about things that I'm interested in. Furthermore, my awareness of responsible consumption of information has helped guide my learning quite a bit. 

I think the most important thing about being able to guide my own learning this semester has been that it has instilled in me a love of learning, self-directed or not. For example, the classes that I'll be taking at Cambridge (The Development of the City from 1890 to 1990, and Spooks and Spies: a history of U.S. and British Intelligence since 1909) have absolutely nothing to do with my major (Information Systems). I'm just taking them because they sound interesting! 

5. Collaboration

Wow, this class has been collaboration central. I don't even know where to begin. Between our historical groups, our digital groups, and our eBook/ presentation groups, I have learned so much about collaborating to create something meaningful. Right from the get go, our presentations were not meant to be typical. Our history group spent many hours collaborating in person, on google+, over google docs and over email trying to develop an idea that would resonate with the class. Likewise, our digital group used all the same tools to create the presentation that I mentioned in the "consume" section. Finally, our eBook/ presentation team went through many iterations of ideas trying to find the right product. I definitely learned a lot about what it means to collectively produce something great. I think the fact that we weren't all fighting for a grade, but instead focusing on the product, made the group experience much more authentic. I really think the skills I've learned from these projects will be incredibly helpful to me throughout my life.

Alright, I think it's time to bring this thing to a close. This class has been a real struggle, mentally, physically, emotionally and just about every other way possible. It was downright difficult to adapt. But I think I got there, and I feel so much the better for it. I think the most important thing that I learned (in particular from our eBook "failure"), is that it doesn't end here. The lessons I learned from this class are authentic, and I will continue to build on them. Even if it kills me, I will continue to adapt. 

Event Report

Alright, I'll admit it--I thought the event was going to be a bust. At least, I thought that at first. But that was before I actually started inviting people and getting excited about the things we were going to be talking about. I think I was just feeling stubborn. Anyway once I let myself feel a little more invested in the event, and once I started to put in a real effort to invite people, I got pretty excited. I definitely think that excitement paid off because the event was awesome! We had a pretty good turn out- both physical and online, and I thought all of the presentations were interesting, engaging, and thought provoking. So hats off to everyone!

As for my contribution to our audience, here's the report:

Word of Mouth/ Flyers

Not surprisingly, I started by inviting my parents. They showed interest both in the business presentations (biased I guess) and the science presentation, so they said they would tune in online. Next, I invited my Sara Plater, who is currently studying biology and may switch over to biological education, so she was interested in the science and education groups. She came to the event and thought it was great. I then invited David Gabrielsen, a biochemistry major who has actually shown interest in taking the class in the future. He wasn't able to attend in person, but he said he would check it out online. Next, I invited Davi Johnson and her brother Dalton Johnson, both of whom love TED talks. Davi caught the end of the event and her brother saw the webcast. Finally, I invited my co-worker, Alicia Pixton, a bioinformatics major, and my employer, Dr. Jessica Purcell, a professor in the math department. Alicia was unable to attend, but Dr. Purcell said she and her husband would try to check it out. 

Facebook Event

I invited most of my Provo area friends to attend the event. This wasn't particularly successful, as the only people the RSVP'd were in the class, and the only other person that responded at all declined immediately. 

Email... to friends

Marty, Jeanette, and Rachel Brooks, a family from my home ward recently moved out to Utah, so I invited them to attend the event in person. They have a thriving business and they expressed interest in some of the ideas that we would be talking talking about in our presentation. Unfortunately they had family in town and weren't able to attend, but they said they would watch the live stream. Next, I emailed each of the five people that I interviewed for our chapter - Chris Harris, Ken Clark, Kim Lake, Mimi Knudsen, and Maggie Wirtanen - and sent them both a draft of our chapter asking for feedback and an invitation to watch the event online. I haven't heard back from all of them yet, but those who have responded expressed interest in watching the event and said they would check out the chapter.

Email... to big shots

After hearing the many social proof success stories, I decided to try my hand at it. Well, I am here to tell you it doesn't always work. That's ok though, it was worth a shot. I emailed two of the thought leaders/ authors we listed at the end of our chapter. Vijay Govindarajan, a professor at Dartmouth and the 3rd most prominent thinker in the business industry right now (according Thinkers50), did actually respond to my email, which was pretty cool. Unfortunately though, he responded only by pointing me toward another one of his books. It's fine though. Scott Anthony, author of The Silver Lining: an Innovation Playbook for Uncertain Times, didn't respond. That's fine too I suppose, it still felt pretty liberating to try. 

During the event, I sat in mortal terror until I presented. Haha I'm sort of kidding, but mostly serious when I say that I was too nervous to distract myself with twitter. Lame? Probably, but I feel like running through the presentation in my head for an hour should probably count as some sort of participation. 

In all, I'm very happy with the turnout and with the execution of the event. I think it's really amazing that we pulled something like that off, and I hope I'll be able to have more authentic learning experiences in the future. 

Business Presentation Plan

For our presentation we're planning on exciting the crowd about the major changes taking place as a result of the digital revolution, and then dial it back down to what they can do as individuals. We thought since we're talking about the digital revolution it would be funny to give our presentation without the use of technology, so we'll be using poster boards, and making it as cheesy as possible. 

• Thesis: Similar to the industrial revolution in the 19th century, the current digital revolution appears to be closing doors, but in reality, is creating a net increase in economic opportunities.
• Changing economy
• Changing business models
• amazon 
• drove borders out of business
• pandora and netflix 
• blockbuster out of business: streaming is the future
• Facebook
• -"social readers" - we no longer have to look for the news, news comes to us
• newspapers going out of business
• Action: Managing your online identity 
• prevention
• privacy
• settings on facebook, etc.
• managing who sees certain pictures
• google plus has circles, facebook has groups, lists, networks
• projection
• LinkedIn
• blogging
• "like" your favorite businesses and politicians
• get special deals and find out about promotional events
• link your profiles, blogs, websites
• Bing and Google show which of your friends like certain things when you run a search 
• people trust friends more than ads

Business: An Annotated Bibliography

Thesis: Similar to industrial revolution in the nineteenth century, the current digital revolution appears to be closing doors, but in reality, is creating a net increase in economic opportunities.


Further Reading:

Collins, David & Mike Ryan (The Strategic Implications of Technology on Job Loss. CBS Business Library, 2007) This article very closely mirrors the argument that we are setting forth in our chapter. It argues that technology will create job loss, but there will be opportunities for reallocation of jobs across the economy. Furthermore, firms willing to adapt can turn a difficult situation in to an opportunity for improvement. [I found this article in an attempt to find arguments that technology is damaging to the economy because it creates job loss, but I ended finding this and found it very applicable.]

Evans, Nicholas (Business Innovation and Disruptive Technology. London: Financial Times Press, 2002)  This book discusses methods and strategies to take full advantage of disruptive innovation to gain a competitive advantage in the workplace. This is very applicable to our exploration of the effects of technology on the average individual, and how those individuals can adapt. [Found on Google Books]

Phaal, Robert & Clare Farrukh & David Probert (Technology Roadmapping--A Planning Framework for Evolution and Revolution. University of Cambridge, 2003) This article presents a unique perspective on technological forecasting and social change as presented form the University of Cambridge engineering department. Their model is often used in industries to analyze business plans, the impact of new technologies on marketing, and threats and opportunities for stakeholders in particular technological areas. This article applies to our investigation of changing business models that have been brought to fruition by the digital revolution. [Found on Google Scholar]

Thought Leaders:


Anthony, Scott (The Silver Lining: an Innovation Playbook for Uncertain Times. Harvard Business Press, 2009) In this book, Anthony addresses the need to carry on with innovation in the midst of tough economic times. It will be important to look at the effects of the recession in addition to effects of technological advancements on certain shrinking industries. This book will strengthen our idea that technological innovation advances opportunities even during uncertain times. [Anthony's book came up  as a related book to Govindarajan's, and I felt that his ideas fit well with ours.]

Christensen, Clayton (Managing the Threat of Disruptive Technology. Stanford CA: Stanford Video, 2000) This video is an excellent perspective on the value of disruptive technology and the need to embrace and adapt to change. Clayton Christensen's views on the benefit of technological innovation aligns with our argument that the digital revolution will create a net benefit for the global economy, and for individuals who are willing to adapt. [Found on HBLL website]


Govindarajan, Vijay (The Other Side of Innovation. Harvard Business Press, 2010) For our chapter we have been looking at the effects of innovation on industries and individuals, but we don't really address what it takes to become the innovator. VG introduces best practices for innovation, and emphasizes that innovation is not just ideas, but ideas plus execution. [I knew that Clayton Christensen had been awarded the number 1 spot on the Thinkers50 list of business thought leaders, so I decided to look at other leading thinkers in business. VG is number 3]

Changing Tides

Having recently joined the business team, I've been trying to do a bit of research about the shift in the job market thanks to technology. Actually though, I just came across this article by happenstance, which was reviewing the weeks new tech announcements but had just the information I had been looking for. Namely, this graph:

The job market has always and will always shift as a result of technological advancements, so I've not been terribly concerned that people in shrinking industries will be out of the job and out of luck for the rest of their lives. They will adapt. What does interest me then, is the kinds of jobs we're losing, and the possible effect that will have in the shaping of the next generation. As the above graph indicates, many of the industries that are losing steam traditionally require a lesser degree of expertise. Many of these jobs appeal to those who do not have an opportunity to pursue higher education, or do not wish to do so (there are obvious exceptions to this generalization - banking, newspapers, pharmaceuticals, etc.). Anyway, what will happen when the demographic that is attracted to these jobs is forced to adapt to a level that requires more training, education, etc. What will happen to the high school students, the empty-nesters with a bit too much time on their hands, the young men who can't go to school because they have to support their family? I suppose my question here is, will we really all adapt to the tech era? When tablets take over the role of restaurant servers and kiosks take over the role of grocers, will people be willing to make the jump to jobs like information technology or online publishing?

Really though, this is not nearly as black and white as I'm making it out to be. Of course there will always be a broad range of jobs, but I can't help but wonder if this shift might have real implications on the way we educate and bring up the next generation. Maybe for those already in the workforce it will be difficult to bridge the gap, but perhaps more of our children will be able to fit into the mold of the emerging job market. Further then, might this indicate the possibility of a future generation that is more motivated to excel academically, knowing that menial jobs will be fewer and far between? Might America become more seriously competitive on a global scale? Lots of questions here, not a lot of answers, but I'm looking forward to pursuing the topic it further.

Technology and Legislation

As a member of the government group, I'm excited to start looking at some of the effects of technology growth on government. Having just read an article about the need for more regulatory laws restricting the ability of corporations to use technology to gather private information about their customers, I want to focus for now on the legislative branch. I'd like to look at where we've been, where we are now, and where we're headed.

Yep, that's the one.
Note the Walkman capabilities.

As I read the article, a thought struck me about something that my ISys 201 teacher told us last semester. I don't remember the exact statistic, but the point was that if transportation technology were improving as fast as information technology, we'd be able to travel around the world... well, a heck of a lot faster than we can now. Really though, everybody knows technology is improving fast. In fact, just last night I was thinking about my little Sony Ericsson that I had not to long ago, and how I always felt like the internet on that phone was a joke, and I wondered why anyone would ever need internet on their phone. Obviously times change. The reason this concerns me though, is that our government was not designed to be a fast moving entity. On the contrary, it was designed to take quite some time and a fair amount of hassle to get anything done, mostly to prevent rash decisions. It seems, however, that this does not coincide well with the ever adapting world of information technology.

For the next few posts then I'll begin outlining the life and works of three congressional subcommittees:

• Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology & the Law (which I'll likely have to abbreviate from now on as PTL, for obvious reasons)
•  Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet (CTI)
• House Science, Space, and Technology Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation (TI... admit it, "whatever you like" is now stuck in your head). 

For each subcommittee I'll be focusing on the following areas:

• History
• Foundation, development, past legislation
• Recent and ongoing activity
• Growth
• Ability to adapt to rapidly changing technological environment
• Jurisdiction
• Areas of expertise 
• Members
• Representation according to political party - impact on legislation

I'm looking forward to focusing in on this area, and hopefully I'll be able to find some insights about the short and long term effects of technological growth with respect to congressional legislation. 

Hindsight is 20-20

I was really dreading the moment that I would have to look through the muddled waters of my blog posts and try to extract some sort of coherent tweethis, but I mustered up the courage and did it. I'll begin by summarizing the main points of past posts:

Pushing the Envelope - keeping up with and taking advantage of digital resources

Go About Doing Good - being willing to take risks and develop ideas that will have a positive effect on the world

Too Much of a Good Thing & Overcoming the Fool's Ultimatum - battling stifling societal polarity and argumentative thinking

Jamestown: Cultures Collide for Better or Worse - evidence of positive and negative effects of cultural convergence in the past and present

Promoting Self Reliance - a higher form of philanthropy

Finding a Balance - noting the need for harmony and civil order, and finding a place for "civil disobedience" in productive societies

Open Government: Hope for the Future of Campaign Season - potential of open government to encourage a return to fundamental issues during campaigns

Let's Make This Fun - fun theory applied to voter education

Are you sure about that? - responsible use of internet information

Give Me Liberty - account of troubling governmental invasions and attacks on personal liberties

So You Want to Write the Next SOPA? - examination of current forms of open government

What I found after reading through these posts didn't surprise me (although I was surprised that I found anything at all). There are undertones in each post of a psychological principle that I have found to be very poignant throughout my studies of civilizations past and present: Maslow's Hierarchy. In 1943, Abraham Maslow first introduced his idea of human motivation, which includes 5 levels of social growth that humans progress through, beginning with basic survival needs, and ending with self-actualization.

This triangle is not the traditional 5-teired representation of the hierarchy, but I chose to include it because it makes note of an even higher level of human progression: transcendence, or the need to help others reach a state of self-actualization. And so, thanks to Maslow, I have determined what I'm all about. We can see examples of social progression up the pyramid from the beginning of time. In the 17th century, for example, society was not yet at the self-actualization phase. More likely, they were somewhere in the cognitive needs phase, developing more complex ideas about science, religion, and political thought. Since then society has increased at an exponential rate, and a great deal of the world's population is currently self-actualizing. But we aren't all there yet.

Tweethis: Digital resources should be employed for the continued advancement of individuals and societies to a higher level of human motivation and development. 

One of the great blessings of technology is that it enables us to do better. We are in a constant state of progression, and contrary to Professor Umbridge's counsel, we should continue to strive for social progress.

"progress for the sake of
progress must be discouraged"

It is important to remember that the Internet is a blessing, and Heavenly Father most likely had a very good reason for giving it us. I would submit that we should use the Internet to foster as much good as possible, progressing where progress can be made, helping others to reach their full potential, and transcending the levels of societal development that we inherited from those that came before us.

So You Want to Write the Next SOPA?

In some of the conversations that we've had about open government, we've discussed the possibility of creating a platform that will facilitate a more direct democracy, using digital tools. Essentially, we've brainstormed a forum for representatives to post working drafts of upcoming bills, giving their constituents the opportunity to submit comments and suggestions. Last night, I found out that this is already happening. While sifting through my Flipboard for the night (so cool), I came across an article posted by The Atlantic, which talks about a new platform called Madison. Co-creater of the platform Congressman Darrel Issa (R-CA) (along with Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR)), calls the project "an ongoing experiment in direct digital democracy." Madison was so named because of a quote that the congressmen found particularly inspiring:


"Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives"
                                                                             -James Madison


The two congressmen created the platform as way to introduce a bill called the OPEN Act, a follow-up to the SOPA and PIPA bills, that would be drafted in part by everyday citizens. So far, the draft of the bill has seen participation by about 150 people, and the congressmen are pleased with the outcome. Issa went on to say that Madison is "proof that crowdsourcing can deliver better bills and a more accountable government." 


Madison still has some issues. There are a few minor barriers to entry, including signing up for an account, and it is not yet widespread enough to garner the desired level of participation, but it is certainly a step in the right direction. 


The benefits of a program like this are numerous and compelling. The most apparent benefit to me is that this may be an effective tool to eliminate, or at least minimize, some of the corruption and self interest that goes on in congress. If people across the country have the opportunity to review a bill, they will probably object to some of the outrageous earmarks and pork barrel projects. On that note, some congressmen may be concerned about proving their loyalty to their constituents without engaging in pork barrel spending, but I would submit that an open process like this would do even more to convey the loyalty and devotion to the public interest of congresspersons across the nation. 

For every good idea though, there are drawbacks. For Madison, I fear the problem will come in the form of chaos. When everybody gets a say, and everybody is gunning for their own agendas, things can get muddled very quickly. As improvements and new editions of Madison emerge, I hope there will be some way to manage this chaos, and ensure that the focus stays on the issue at hand. 


Needless to say, there are a lot of issues circulating around this idea, and whether or not we decide to create a project that aligns with open government, we should all be aware of the changes that are happening at the ground level as we speak.

Give me Liberty

In my Western Political Heritage class we've been talking all semester about justice - what it is, why it's important, etc. In order to find the answer to these questions, we've been studying Plato's Republic, and yesterday we finally finished it. At the conclusion, *spoiler alert* Plato delineates 5 major types of regimes:

1. Aristocracy
2. Timocracy
3. Oligarchy
4. Democracy
5. Tyranny

Believe it or not, this list is ordered from best to worst. What's more, each regime leads cleanly to the next with the natural decline of society. That's right, I just said that democracy naturally devolves into tyranny. We could easily wake up one day and have a tyrant on our hands. How? Because America has problems, and we want someone who will be champion of the people - someone who will make America great again. And maybe they really will, but maybe once they do they won't want to hand power back over to the other guys who messed us up in the first place. So maybe they'll tinker with a few laws and hold on to power just a little longer. And a little longer. Until a little longer becomes an indefinite stay in the White House. Now I'm not saying this is going to happen. I still have a little bit of faith in the system that our Forefathers established, but I do want to take some time to examine the changes that our taking place in our democratic society right now.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
                   - Benjamin Franklin


Let's start with the Patriot Act. Let me begin by saying I felt a little nervous googling anything negative about this piece of legislation. I tried to steer clear of any inflammatory words or phrases so as not to be put on the No-Fly List (this happens more often than you might think - my aunt was put on the list not too long ago. I can assure you she isn't a threat to national security). Honestly though, I don't think the Patriot Act is ever going to affect me personally, and that's probably why we let it happen. As long as we all get to stay in our comforts zones, and as long we're not going to be the ones that are detained by the TSA, then why would we care? It keeps the terrorists at bay for heaven's sake! But isn't it kind of a slippery slope? I'm just not sure I'm comfortable with the overwhelming power of the government in this case to squelch the liberty of the individual. So is it worth it? I don't think so. People die every day - and sometimes it's at the hands of really malicious people - but if we continue to go down this path, bad things will still happen, we'll just have fewer civil liberties when those bad things happen. Now by no means do I think there shouldn't be any government control of national security, I just think it would be prudent to make sure that we won't be at risk for continued degradation of personal liberties.  


Unfortunately, the injustice doesn't end with the Patriot Act. If you heard about the North Carolina preschooler that had her home-made lunch of turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, and potato chips revoked and replaced with cafeteria chicken nuggets, you know what I mean. This is just ridiculous, and it isn't an isolated incident. My aunt (not the no-fly aunt), is a teacher in central California, and her entire school district was instructed to monitor children's lunches and confiscate unhealthy items as necessary. Are you kidding me? When did we decide that this level of government interference is okay? Not to mention, anybody who has ever eaten from a school cafeteria knows how completely insane it is to replace a homemade meal with that mystery meat on the basis of health. 


The early manifestations of these issues were very prominent in the 19th century. There were many different schools of thought on the role of the federal government, and how large we should allow it to grow. Despite ever-present concerns about a government that is too large and too powerful, ours has continued to grow. In fact, it would be fair to say that no president has ever left the office weaker than when he entered it. So what would our 19th century counterparts think of us now? What would all of the men who have fought and died for our country and our freedoms think of us now? Because quite frankly, I'm not sure this is what they had in mind. 

Are you sure about that?

We all want to hear what we want to hear. Regardless of our purpose in looking for information - be it personal edification, a research assignment, or trying to find something to prove somebody else wrong - we always gravitate toward the side of the issue that we most closely align with. But there's a problem here: how do you know the information you're getting is correct? 

I tried an experiment tonight: I typed in to my search bar "abortion is evil." Now obviously I expected to get some seriously biased information here, but there was a point to my experiment, just wait for it. The first result was the site for an organization called TFP Student Action, a project of The American Society for the protection of Tradition, Family, and Property, which works with college students on over 700 campuses across the nation to take a stance on prevalent issues. This organization had compiled a list of 10 reasons why abortion is evil. Some of these reasons are theology based, but there are also a good deal of precise statistics. Initially I thought, "well, how do I know these stats aren't incredibly skewed?" I knew, though, that the article at least had some sources to back up the information, so I was momentarily reassured. When I scrolled down to check out the sources, however, my doubts came flooding back. It looked a lot like TFP Student Action had done exactly what I did: they looked for some of the most convincing arguments that abortion is evil, from some very biased sources. I find this disconcerting. 

How am I supposed to find decent information if everybody that's compiling the information is just as biased as I am, and they're getting their information from sources that are just as biased as they are? This sounds like a vicious cycle. Of course, we all know about google scholar, and that's usually a good source for accurate studies and findings, but those reports are often very difficult to muddle through, and can get a bit dry. What am I supposed to do when I don't want to spend the time that I would researching for paper, but I want some solid information for my own benefit? I think one way to do this is to seek out information on both sides of an issue, and somehow try to reconcile the information to the most reasonable conclusion. It's not foolproof, but it's not doing us any good to constantly yield to our desires to read things we agree with. 

The fact is there are a lot of issues that are hotly debated, and it's not always good enough to do a google search and take the first hit on their word. Like David Perkins pointed out in his post, sometimes you have to take the path of most resistance. Sometimes you have to go the extra mile to uncover a bit of truth from the muddled and distorted information pool that we love so much. 

Let's Make This Fun

I think we had some really good ideas come out of our crowd-sourcing experiment today, and I wanted to record some initial thoughts. First, I think some of the apps that were discussed were very cool, and have the potential to be really great resources, but they also don't excite me very much. To be quite honest, I am feeling a little burnt out on technology and the endless flow of apps. I already have to spend so much time on my computer and on my phone, that it just isn't likely that I would download and use an informational app like that. If I were already planning on voting and just needed a source of aggregated information, it would be perfect, but it wouldn't do anything to get me excited about voting in and of itself.

One of the ideas that we talked about was putting wack-a-candidate game in the Wilk. We haven't really ironed out the details yet, so more to come on that, but I wanted to lay out some of the reasoning behind our decision.

First off, the machine will be attractive. It will be placed in a key location with a lot of foot traffic, and will probably have a certain degree of exciting music/ flashing lights/ etc. Once we have people lured in, we will take advantage of their fun-loving and competitive natures, and have them play a game that doesn't have a prize per se, but generates unbiased, informative, bite-size pieces of information about the whole field of candidates. We felt that the main hurdle would be making it fun for people to gather information, and once we've succeeded in doing that, we can trust the sense of "civic duty" to take over.

Word of a project like this will quickly spread across campus, and we wouldn't need advertising much or produce incentives to try our product. It will be self-perpetuating. Why? Because it will be fun - fun to create and fun to use. It will be uplifting, informative, and will add a little more depth to the political understanding of BYU students.

Some additional thoughts:


In an effort to go get some social proof, I floated this idea to a few friends, and they all seemed quite interested. Everybody I talked to agreed that having a physical game in the Wilk that didn't require a lot of time or effort to play is something they would be interested in. When I talked to my roommate about generating the facts, we discussed the possibility of printing out "tickets" that would have information about various candidates and their platforms, and then those tickets could be redeemable for some sort of prize.

A few people pointed out skepticism about our ability to build a legitimate game worth playing, but honestly, I think it can be done. We have a pretty diverse field of specialties in our class, and I think we would have the necessary skills to get it done. Plus, the whack-a-candidate machine probably wouldn't require as much specialty on the technical side as other games would. That's it for now, but I'll probably be putting out another post with more information or insight as it comes. If anybody has any thoughts to add to this potential idea please do!

Open-Government: Hope for the Future of Campaign Season?

While we were talking in class today about open-government, I had a thought about the impact open-government policies might have on the nature of elections and campaigning. The way the system is set up now, we all have issues that matter to us, and ideas about what kind of policies we think would help correct those issues, but we never get very accurate feedback on exactly what policies are actually being put in place, or what effects those policies actually have. Instead, we are being force fed a load of contrarian media nonsense that does nothing to promote the evolution of successful political ideas. Essentially, we elect a present because he (or, hypothetically, she) stands on our side of the fence, and then we spend four years in the dark, until we try to blindly defend (or tear down) the policies of the president come the next election. We do this based only on what we think might have happened, and our perception is, of course, based on our consumption of news media outlets such as Fox or CNN.

So with this in mind, the campaign trail becomes more a trial of character and integrity than anything else. This is because we understand that we won't have much of a clue about the policies that are put in place, so at the very least we want a president that seems like they'll conduct themselves honestly and uprightly during their four-year term. But what if we went in to election season with a different frame of mind?

If we are confident that our president (and other elected representatives) will operate within a framework of transparency and openness, might we be more concerned with the details of a candidate's political platform than we are now? I think we would. And this is nothing new; if people feel involved and informed, they care more. It's as simple as that.

Certainly there are plenty of setbacks with open-government, but I think the idea is definitely one to consider in greater detail. This kind of fundamental shift in the way our government functions could potentially change the outlook and mindset of an entire country.

Finding a Balance

Today my group talked a bit about the balance between obedience and disruptive ideas/ questions, but I wanted to continue thinking about some of the pros and cons of each. Like I mentioned in class, John Locke promoted the value of both. Originally, he asserted that it was the duty of citizens to passively obey political authority, so long as that authority didn't threaten fundamental religious beliefs. Later in his life his point of view evolved to include the right of resistance in the face of unjust political authority. So where do we find a balance between the two?

The first question that I want to address is how authority hindered the flow of new ideas in the 17th century:

• When John Locke attended Oxford, he was largely dissatisfied with the curriculum. He felt that the University was focusing too much on the outdated views of Aristotle, and ignoring the important questions that were being raised by such natural philosophers as Francis Bacon and Rene Descartes. One reason that the University was so slow to change may be that political and religious leaders felt threatened by the onslaught of new ideas that may have affected their credibility.
• When Locke and one of his good friends, the Earl of Shaftesbury, launched a campaign to exclude the right of the King to pass the throne to his brother, they were forced to leave the country in exile. This is a painfully obvious example of authority trying to control the opposition for unjust reasons.

Do we still have figures that represent "the man" today? Sure. But I'm not so sure the problems we see with authority today are as black and white as they were in the 17th century. So who is "the man" today?

• The government
• State & Local, National, International
• Corporations
• Note Dr. Zapalla's blog post on patents
• The public
• Extremist factions resist progress of those championing opposing views

So today we're seeing a shift to a system where anybody can gain power and authority (someone mentioned the ability of any entrepreneur to secure authority just by building a successful business) and with the easy flow of information, people have to work as hard as ever to maintain that authority. But is this bad? Not necessarily. Let's look at some of the positive results we can see from a just and legitimate framework of authoritative figures:

• Guidance and direction
• Without a social/ political/ informational hierarchy, there is just no way to muddle through all the information and resources available to us. Garret Bassett mentions this in his post, and Open-Access Dilemma.
• Structure
• Anarchy is just not good.
• All the usual refrains
• Prosperity, freedom, etc. 

So why would you question the system and disrupt harmony and civil order? Because these authoritative figures are inherently bad? No way! You question for the sake of the betterment of mankind, because you believe in what you're saying. Take for example Galileo: he didn't want to upset the Catholic Church. On the contrary, he had the Church's best interests in mind when he decided to set out to give people better, more accurate information. The same could be said for most, if not all, of the great thinkers of the enlightenment and the scientific revolution. And so the same should be said for us. The ability to question authority is both a right and a duty, but it shouldn't be done with the intent to disrupt the harmony of society, it should be done with righteous passions and just convictions that will generate a positive and constructive outcome.

Promoting Self-Reliance

When I was growing up, it wasn't uncommon for my family to spend a spare afternoon at the nursing home, where we would visit one of my dad's favorite clients. Dorothy Towne was a kind, warm lady, and we considered her to be a dear family friend. She led a very successful life, and had quite a bit of money and assets to her name. When she passed away she appointed my dad to be the trustee of her estate. In the years since, in accordance with her wishes, my parents have created a thriving charitable foundation that does a lot of good for the people of Reno.

Given this background, I'm considering minoring in non-profit management, and going on to play a part in the growth and management of the Dorothy Towne Foundation. Something that my parents and I are very concerned with is the focus (or lack thereof) on promoting self-reliance when doing charitable or philanthropic work. It seems that all too often charity is a fleeting and temporary solution to a permanent problem. Fortunately though, we can look to the Church for a prime example of philanthropy in its most ideal form. I recently read an article in the Deseret News that highlights the influence of the Church's work on philanthropic organizations around the world.

The ability to work for something is a blessing often overlooked. As the above article noted, people can't always pay for the materials to build a well, but they can mix the cement and dig the hole, and that's enough to promote a sense of pride and accomplishment that can inspire future growth.

When Europeans began colonizing the Americas in the 17th century, their friends back home saw a perfect opportunity for philanthropy in its truest sense. They saw the opportunity to give resources to the struggling pioneers, so that they could create a whole new world. Today we have opportunities to reach a new generation of struggling pioneers. There are a whole lot of people out there looking to build a better life for their families and countrymen, but lack the resources to do so. By engaging in a tried and true method of self-reliance based philanthropy, we can give a leg up to those modern pioneers who, like so many before them, are looking to create a whole new world.

Jamestown: Cultures Collide for Better or Worse

I've been trying to look into life at Jamestown a bit, and I watched this video on the History Channel's website:

Anybody else feeling a little LOST de ja vu?  I mean these settlers get to this strange new world, land on the beach, and get attacked by a totally bizarre group of people that live in the forest. But that's not really the point. In fact, I'm not sure I've come to a conclusion of where I want to go with this yet, but here are some ideas:

First of all, there is clearly a foundation of antagonism between cultures that's being laid here. But what about the befits they'll reap from learning from each other's peculiar practices? I'm still looking for some solid connections, but I think the Internet is a nice medium for culture convergence today. Like Hannah Stebar mentioned, widespread information creates a number of opportunities for students in underdeveloped countries. I'll be interested to see though whether there have been any negative effects on relationships between cultures and nations as a whole.

Perhaps one example would be public perception of Muslim-Americans due to media coverage of international relations with Middle Eastern countries. I also wonder if anyone that has had any experience outside of the U.S. has seen any examples of the "American Elitist" attitude spreading over to the Internet. This really has no basis. I'm just spitballing. I'll keep looking in to it and if anybody has any input it would be much appreciated! 

Overcoming the Fool's Ultimatum

In my last post, I talked a bit about the crippling polarity we see in our culture today. Thanks to some ideas from a couple of books that have been on my radar lately (Crucial Conversations by Kerry Patterson, and The 3rd Alternative by Stephen R. Covey), this idea has been on my mind for a couple of weeks now.

First of all, I need to explain exactly what I mean by the fool's ultimatum. I'm referring to the plague of 2-way thinking that is instilled in all of us from the time we start kindergarten. Take for example the classic classroom debates. You take a group of kids, divide them up according to position on a particular issue, and have them adamantly and passionately defend their point. In these forums, there's no such thing as compromise. Now don't get me wrong, debating skills are a great thing to develop, but they also instill a deep sense of 2-way thinking during the most formative years. In my experience I have found that compromise and innovation are becoming increasingly hard to come by. This can be seen in the public school systems, in the political arena, and even in personal relationships. Take for example a couple that is having relationship issues. They might each be thinking that there are only two options: either suck it up, or talk about their issues and hurt their partner. But maybe that isn't always the case. Maybe that's a fool's ultimatum. Maybe there is another way.

During his college years, Martin Luther King Jr. was known for his aptitude for "3rd alternative" thinking. His teachers noted that he had an uncanny ability to develop a thesis, counter it with an antithesis, come to a synthesis, further counter that synthesis with an antithesis, and so on until he reached an entirely new conclusion. This willingness to stray from the conventional, and understand the opposition enabled King to become one of the most influential figures of the 20th century. This kind of thinking produces a kind of synergistic result that rises above the standard solutions presented by unoriginal and unyielding minds.

Right now, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is sponsoring a project that embodies this synergistic thinking, and is working a product that will change millions of lives. The project is made up of a coalition of specialists in a number varied and diverse fields, who came together to come up with a solution to a big problem: malaria. As the group began to brainstorm ideas, one of the rocket scientists in the group playfully suggested that they shoot infested mosquitos out of the sky with lasers. But what began as a laughable suggestion became the crux of the project. The team combined their specialties to design a laser that can literally shoot the mosquitos out of the sky. If these lasers were to be mounted on fences, they could line the perimeters of villages across Africa, saving countless lives. Surely this is something to strive for. The idea was an unconventional and almost humorous one, but this unique group of individuals gave it serious consideration, and made it work.

So what does this mean for us? Well, aren't we all a group of diverse individuals using digital tools to convene and build on each other's unique ideas? We have the power to attain this synergy. We can release early and release often; we can develop thesis, antithesis, and synthesis for as long as it takes to come up with something sound and worthwhile. We can share information at no personal cost, and, better yet, we can acquire information at no personal cost. So I'd like to suggest that we try to tackle the urge to stand by the same old ideas, and instead try to create something new using the tools and the power that have been given to us by the synergistic thinkers that came before us.

Too Much of a Good Thing

In 1682, John Locke went in to exile in Holland after expressing views regarding freedom of religion and the rights of citizens, which were contrary to the beliefs and aims of the King. A number of more prominent revolutionaries were executed for similar, yet admittedly more outspoken, views. The idea of exile and execution for expressing views contrary to authority is something that is quite foreign to us. In fact, it's downright troubling.

Over 300 years later, we have run in to a different problem. As a junior in high school, I remember being openly mocked by a few unsavory classmates for faithfully standing and saying the Pledge of Allegiance each morning. What's worse, defense of and loyalty to then-president George W. Bush was often met with a great deal of scorn. Fast forward a few years and I find myself doing the same thing to the Democrats. Of course I think I have a bit more tact, and I try to focus more on policy differences than personal attacks, but I still have a hard time accepting the ideas of those on the other side of the debate.

Let me clarify: by no means do I think the right to question our political leaders is a bad thing. On the contrary, it's what makes America work. However, I fear that we may be taking a good thing too far. Since the 17th century, civilization has gradually allowed more freedom to share ideas that extend farther and farther toward the end of the spectrum. There has become little or no grey area; instead we have all been compelled to chose between black and white, right or left. What's more, people are passionate and unyielding. The paradoxical and hypocritical nature of our culture is staggering and frightening. Extremist groups such as the Tea-Party and the Occupy Wall Street movements are garnering more and more support from those who once stood on neutral or moderate ground. The art of compromise is quickly dying, but the art of war is heating up.

So what do I suggest? Well, maybe we should censor the Internet. I don't know. Or maybe we just need to regain a little bit of our humanity. Although we can't compel others to follow our lead, we can at least set the example by putting Christ first in our lives and remembering to love everyone (even those who express views contrary to our own). Our freedom of speech and thought is precious; let's not abuse it.

Go About Doing Good

In church yesterday we had a high councilman and his wife visit our ward. Their topic: going about doing good. Sister Thueson spoke about service success stories and the like, but Brother Thueson took a slightly different approach. For the majority of his talk he outlined the history of smallpox. Smallpox was once one of the deadliest diseases on the earth. It called almost everyone it came in contact with, but if you were lucky enough to survive it, you almost always went blind. The disease became a problem in the western hemisphere in the beginning of the 17th century, and early treatments left quite a bit to be desired. Noted English doctor Thomas Sydenham developed a treatment for the disease that one of his patients, Thomas Dover, describes in shocking detail:

“Whilst I lived in Dr Sydenham’s house, I had myself the Small Pox, and fell ill on the Twelfth Day. In the beginning I lost twenty two Ounces of Blood [from bloodletting]. He gave me a Vomit, but I find by Experience Purging much better. I went abroad, by his Direction, till I was blind, and then took to my Bed. I had no Fire allowed in my Room, my Windows were constantly open, my Bed-Clothes were ordered to be laid no higher than my Waste. He made me take twelve Bottles of Small Beer, acidulated with Spirit of Vitriol, every twenty Four hours. I had of this Anomalous Kind [of smallpox] to a very great Degree, yet never lost my Senses one Moment.”

So the best they could do was make the patients uncomfortable and give them beer to dull the pain. Fortunately, the practice of variolation eventually took hold. In early 18th century Turkey, the practice was already in full swing. Lady Mary Wortley Mantague wrote to a friend about the practice after having her six-year-old son variolated:

 

“…I am going to tell you a thing that I am sure will make you wish yourself here. The small-pox, so fatal, and so general amongst us, is here entirely harmless by the invention of ingrafting, which is the term they give it. There is a set of old women who make it their business to perform the operation every autumn…. The old woman comes with a nut-shell full of the matter of the best sort of smallpox, and asks what veins you please to have opened…. She immediately rips open that you offer her with a large needle … and puts into the vein as much venom as can lie upon the head of her needle…. Every year thousands undergo this operation…. There is no example of any one that has died in it; and you may believe I am well satisfied of the safety of the experiment…. I am patriot enough to take pains to bring this useful invention into fashion in England; and I should not fail to write to some of our doctors very particularly about it, if I knew any one of them that I thought had virtue enough to destroy such a considerable branch of their revenue for the good of mankind.”

Throughout the 18th century the practice began to spread and take hold in the colonies, and eventually the disease was entirely eradicated from the earth. The point of the story? Somebody did good. Somebody had a crazy idea, and saved a whole bunch of lives.

Well, even though small pox is gone, the world still has problems, just like it always has. The thing is, we are already so advanced that it seems like there isn't a lot of room for improvement. But we can't get discouraged. It's on us to do something good. Maybe someday people will look back on us and have a laugh about the way we treated cancer, or the way we dealt with natural disasters. Who knows what will happen in the future. But let's make it good. 

Pushing the Envelope

The 16th and 17th centuries made up a time of discovery and exploration. Philosophers became scientists, astrologists became astronomists, and quite a few Europeans took the first steps toward becoming Americans. That kind of change takes courage, no question, and aren't we all the better for it? Right now we are in the digital age and it is changing rapidly. So I guess my question is: what will I become? Will I adapt and survive? Taking advantage of digital resources can be intimidating. Even more intimidating--the idea that our world is forever changing right before our eyes.

The digital concepts and practices that are emerging have the capacity to make quite an impact on the way our economy and our society functions, and it makes me wonder if there won't be a form of digital darwinism that spreads beyond the business world and into the lives of everyday people. All it takes is a moment of indifference and you've already fallen behind. Keeping up with the digital world will be challenging, especially for our generation, but won't we all be better for it?

How digitally civilized am I?

I've never been very technology oriented, but I've taken a couple of computer science classes at BYU and I'm applying to the ISys program, so I guess that makes me relatively civilized. As far as social media goes, I pretty much stick to facebook. I'm pretty new to blogging and google+, but I bet they'll be good tools to have for this class. It seems like this class will be a good way to broaden my digital range and depth, so I'm looking forward to it!