Skip to main content

Home/ Critical Thinking/ Group items tagged downes

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
BTerres

Stephen Downes: Things You Really Need To Learn - 1 views

www.huffingtonpost.com/...u-really-need-to_b_788989.html

downes learn

shared by BTerres on 03 Dec 10 - No Cached
  • to educators, I ask, if you are not teaching these things in your classes, why are you not?
  • 1. How to predict consequences
  • The prediction of consequences is part science, part mathematics, and part visualization. It is essentially the ability to create a mental model imaging the sequence of events that would follow, "what would likely happen if...?"
  • ...18 more annotations...
  • 2. How to read
  • how to look at some text and to understand, in a deep way, what is being asserted (this also applies to audio and video, but grounding yourself in text will transfer relatively easily, if incompletely, to other domains).
  • 3. How to distinguish truth from fiction
  • Do not simply accept what you are told. Always ask, how can you know that this is true? What evidence would lead you to believe that it is false?
  • 4. How to empathize
  • this will allow other people to become a surprising source of new knowledge and insight.
  • 5. How to be creative
  • Sometimes people think that creative ideas spring out of nothing (like the proverbial 'blank page' staring back at the writer) but creativity is in fact the result of using and manipulating your knowledge in certain ways.
  • creativity involves a transfer of knowledge from one domain to another domain, and sometimes a manipulation of that knowledge.
  • pattern recognition can be learned
  • 6. How to communicate clearly
  • 7. How to Learn
  • Learning to learn is the same as learning anything else. It takes practice.
  • 8. How to stay healthy
  • 9. How to value yourself
  • You can have all the knowledge and skills in the world, but they are meaningless if you do not feel personally empowered to use them; it's like owning a Lamborghini and not having a driver's license.
  • 10. How to live meaningfully
  • When you realize you have the power to choose what you are doing, you realize you have the power to choose the consequences. Which means that consequences -- even bad consequences -- are for the most part a matter of choice
David McGavock

Twitter Literacy (I refuse to make up a Twittery name for it) : Howard Rheingold : City... - 2 views

www.sfgate.com/...detail

twitter literacy rheingold socialmedia

shared by David McGavock on 02 Jan 11 - Cached
  • It's about knowing how and knowing who and knowing who knows who knows what.
  • use of media to be productive and to foster authentic interpersonal connection, rather than waste of time and attention on phony, banal, alienated pseudo-communication. Know-how is where the difference lies.
  • successful use of Twitter means knowing how to tune the network of people you follow, and how to feed the network of people who follow you.
  • ...17 more annotations...
  • Twitter is one of a growing breed of part-technological, part-social communication media that require some skills to use productively.
  • The difference between seeing Twitter as a waste of time or as a powerful new community amplifier depends entirely on how you look at it - on knowing how to look at it.
  • My reasons: Openness - anyone can join, and anyone can follow anyone else
  • Immediacy - it is a rolling present. You won't get the sense of Twitter if you just check in once a week. You need to hang out for minutes and hours, every day, to get in the groove.
  • I don't have to listen to noise, but filtering it out requires attention. You are responsible for whoever else's babble you are going to direct into your awareness.
  • Reciprocity - people give and ask freely for information they need
  • A channel to multiple publics - I'm a communicator and have a following that I want to grow and feed. I can get the word out about a new book or vlog post in seconds - and each of the people who follow me might also feed my memes to their own networks.
  • Asymmetry - very interesting, because nobody sees the same sample of the Twitter population. Few people follow exactly the same people who follow them.
  • A way to meet new people - it happens every day. Connecting with people who share interests has been the most powerful social driver of the Internet since day one. I follow people I don't know otherwise but who share enthusiasm
  • A window on what is happening in multiple worlds
  • Community-forming - Twitter is not a community, but it's an ecology in which communities can emerge.
  • A platform for mass collaboration:
  • Searchability - the ability to follow searches for phrases like "swine flu" or "Howard Rheingold" in real time provides a kind of ambient information radar on topics that interest me.
  • successful use of Twitter comes down to tuning and feeding.
  • If it isn't fun, it won't be useful. If you don't put out, you don't get back. But you have to spend some time tuning and feeding if Twitter is going to be more than an idle amusement to you
  • Twitter is a flow, not a queue like your email inbox, to be sampled judiciously is only one part of the attention literacy
  • My students who learn about the presentation of self and construction of identity in the psychology and sociology literature see the theories they are reading come to life on the Twitter
  • David McGavock on 02 Jan 11
     
    "Twitter Literacy (I refuse to make up a Twittery name for it) Post-Oprah and apres-Ashton, Twittermania is definitely sliding down the backlash slope of the hype cycle. It's not just the predictable wave of naysaying after the predictable waves of sliced-breadism and bandwagon-chasing. We're beginning to see some data. Nielsen, the same people who do TV ratings, recently noted that more than 60% of new Twitter users fail to return the following month. To me, this represents a perfect example of a media literacy issue: Twitter is one of a growing breed of part-technological, part-social communication media that require some skills to use productively. Sure, Twitter is banal and trivial, full of self-promotion and outright spam. So is the Internet. The difference between seeing Twitter as a waste of time or as a powerful new community amplifier depends entirely on how you look at it - on knowing how to look at it. "
  • David McGavock on 02 Jan 11
     
    Using twitter effectively is a critical thinking skill. Howard describes this in detail.
David McGavock

Kathryn Schulz: On being wrong | Video on TED.com - 1 views

www.ted.com/...ryn_schulz_on_being_wrong.html

behavior critical_thinking wrong failure TED wonder

shared by David McGavock on 28 Dec 12 - No Cached
  • So what I want to do today is, first of all, talk about why we get stuck inside this feeling of being right. And second, why it's such a problem. And finally, I want to convince you that it is possible to step outside of that feeling and that if you can do so, it is the single greatest moral, intellectual and creative leap you can make.
  • Augustine understood that our capacity to screw up, it's not some kind of embarrassing defect in the human system, something we can eradicate or overcome.
  • This attachment to our own rightness keeps us from preventing mistakes when we absolutely need to and causes us to treat each other terribly.
  • ...14 more annotations...
  • But when it comes down to me, right now, to all the beliefs I hold, here in the present tense, suddenly all of this abstract appreciation of fallibility goes out the window -- and I can't actually think of anything I'm wrong about.
  • You know, we're already wrong, we're already in trouble, but we feel like we're on solid ground. So I should actually correct something I said a moment ago. It does feel like something to be wrong; it feels like being right.
  • according to this, getting something wrong means there's something wrong with us. So we just insist that we're right, because it makes us feel smart and responsible and virtuous and safe.
  • The miracle of your mind isn't that you can see the world as it is. It's that you can see the world as it isn't.
  • when it turns out that people who disagree with us have all the same facts we do and are actually pretty smart, then we move on to a third assumption: they know the truth, and they are deliberately distorting it for their own malevolent purposes.
  • trusting too much in the feeling of being on the correct side of anything can be very dangerous.
  • most of us do everything we can to avoid thinking about being wrong, or at least to avoid thinking about the possibility that we ourselves are wrong.
  • So by the time you are nine years old, you've already learned, first of all, that people who get stuff wrong are lazy, irresponsible dimwits -- and second of all, that the way to succeed in life is to never make any mistakes.
  • The first thing we usually do when someone disagrees with us is we just assume they're ignorant. They don't have access to the same information that we do, and when we generously share that information with them, they're going to see the light and come on over to our team.
  • And to me, if you really want to rediscover wonder, you need to step outside of that tiny, terrified space of rightness and look around at each other and look out at the vastness and complexity and mystery of the universe and be able to say, "Wow, I don't know. Maybe I'm wrong."
  • And the thing is," says Ira Glass, "we need this. We need these moments of surprise and reversal and wrongness to make these stories work." And for the rest of us, audience members, as listeners, as readers, we eat this stuff up. We love things like plot twists and red herrings and surprise endings. When it comes to our stories, we love being wrong.
  • This internal sense of rightness that we all experience so often is not a reliable guide to what is actually going on in the external world. And when we act like it is, and we stop entertaining the possibility that we could be wrong, well that's when we end up doing things like dumping 200 million gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, or torpedoing the global economy.
  • I've spent the last five years thinking about being wrong.
  • When that doesn't work, when it turns out those people have all the same facts that we do and they still disagree with us, then we move on to a second assumption, which is that they're idiots.
  • David McGavock on 28 Dec 12
     
     if you really want to rediscover wonder, you need to step outside of that tiny, terrified space of rightness and look around at each other and look out at the vastness and complexity and mystery of the universe and be able to say, "Wow, I don't know. Maybe I'm wrong."
David McGavock

As We May Think - Magazine - The Atlantic - 1 views

www.theatlantic.com/...4

thinking evaluate resources information_literacy skills thought_tool

shared by David McGavock on 16 Jan 11 - Cached
  • Our ineptitude in getting at the record is largely caused by the artificiality of systems of indexing. When data of any sort are placed in storage, they are filed alphabetically or numerically, and information is found (when it is) by tracing it down from subclass to subclass. It can be in only one place, unless duplicates are used; one has to have rules as to which path will locate it, and the rules are cumbersome.
  • human mind
  • operates by association
  • ...9 more annotations...
  • trails that are not frequently followed are prone to fade, items are not fully permanent, memory is transitory. Yet the speed of action, the intricacy of trails, the detail of mental pictures, is awe-inspiring beyond all else in nature.
  • Selection by association, rather than indexing, may yet be mechanized
  • memex is a device in which an individual stores all his books, records, and communications, and which is mechanized so that it may be consulted with exceeding speed and flexibility. It is an enlarged intimate supplement to his memory.
  • "memex"
  • It affords an immediate step, however, to associative indexing, the basic idea of which is a provision whereby any item may be caused at will to select immediately and automatically another.
  • It is exactly as though the physical items had been gathered together from widely separated sources and bound together to form a new book
  • And his trails do not fade.
  • photographs the whole trail out, and passes it to his friend for insertion in his own memex, there to be linked into the more general trail.
  • Wholly new forms of encyclopedias will appear, ready made with a mesh of associative trails running through them, ready to be dropped into the memex and there amplified.
  • David McGavock on 16 Jan 11
     
    All of this sounds a lot like social bookmarking - Diigo, Delicious, others.
  • David McGavock on 16 Jan 11
     
    Wikipedia
David McGavock

Users for Sale: Has Digital Illiteracy Turned Us Into Social Commodities? - 1 views

mashable.com/...users-products-rushkoff

information_literacy evaluate critical_thinking digitalliteracy programmed markets

shared by David McGavock on 09 Jul 11 - No Cached
  • “The dot com boom failed because people didn’t want to buy shit online. They were just talking to each other,” said Douglas Rushkoff in a recent keynote speech at the WebVisions conference in Portland. “Content was never king. Contact was always king.”
  • We spoke to Rushkoff about the current state of web culture and his crusade to encourage programming literacy.
  • You argue that users are not the true customers of social networks like Facebook. What are the ramifications of this?
  • ...17 more annotations...
  • We understand that the job of the person working in the Gap is to sell us clothes.“Usually, the people paying are the customers. So on Facebook, the people paying are marketers.”But we don’t apply this same very basic logic to online spaces. The easiest way to figure out who the customer is in an online space is to figure out who is paying for the thing. Usually, the people paying are the customers.
  • We are more likely to use our Facebook profile as a mirror, chalking up its deficiencies to the technology itself. We don’t consider that the ways in which Facebook screws with the way we see ourselves is its function, rather than some random artifact of social networking.
  • s this different from TV networks selling commercials against popular shows that they deliver over the airwaves for free?
  • But imagine what it would be like if you didn’t know that the evening news was funded primarily by Big Pharma. You would actually believe the stuff that they’re saying. You might even think those are the stories that matter.
  • When (if ever) are these free technologies worth trading a bit of privacy for?
  • The only thing standing between you and total surveillance is the fact that they don’t yet have the processing capability to mine their data effectively.
  • In answer to your question, engaging with people costs us privacy. It always has. I think the only way to behave is as if nothing is private. And then fight to make what you care about legal and acceptable.
  • You warn against the dangers of “selling our friends” by connecting our social graphs to various networks and apps. How does this damage our relationships, even if we’re doing it unwittingly?
  • Unwittingly, well, it’s more like when your friends keep inviting you to FarmVille or LinkedIn. When they unwittingly turn over their address book to one of these companies that’s really just in the business of swelling their subscriptions so that they can go have an IPO.
  • You advocate “programming literacy” in the online platforms we use every day. How much can the average web user be expected to understand?
  • I don’t think the average web users of this century will achieve basic programming literacy.
  • If they don’t know how to make the programs, then I’d at least want them to know what the programs they are using are for. It makes it so much more purposeful. You get much more predictable results using the right technologies for the right jobs.
  • I want people to be able to ask themselves, “What does this website want me to do? Who owns it? What is it for?”
  • You note how our traditional social contracts (e.g. I can steal anything I want, but I won’t do it out of shame, fear, etc.) break down due to the anonymity and distance of the web. How can we change this and still maintain an open online culture?
  • We have an economic operating system based in scarcity — that’s how we create markets — so we don’t have a great way yet of sharing abundant resources.
  • It’s a problem of imagination, not reality. We have imaginary boundaries.
  • rather than getting people to use the web responsibly and intelligently, it may be easier to build networks that treat the humans more responsibly and intelligently. Those of us who do build stuff, those of us who are responsible for how these technologies are deployed, we have the opportunity and obligation to build technologies that are intrinsically liberating — programs that reveal their intentions, and that submit to the intentions of their users.
  • David McGavock on 09 Jul 11
     
    We've finally figured out how to monetize social interaction, and Rushkoff, an award-winning author and media theorist who writes and speaks regularly on these topics, has reservations.
1 - 5 of 5
Showing 20▼ items per page