Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

4. "Libraries are obsolete." Everywhere in the country librarians report that they have never had so many patrons. At Harvard, our reading rooms are full. The 85 branch libraries of the New York Public Library system are crammed with people.

5. "The future is digital." True enough, but misleading. In 10, 20, or 50 years, the information environment will be overwhelmingly digital, but the prevalence of electronic communication does not mean that printed material will cease to be important. Research in the relatively new discipline of book history has demonstrated that new modes of communication do not displace old ones, at least not in the short run.

Last year the sale of e-books (digitized texts designed for hand-held readers) doubled, accounting for 10 percent of sales in the trade-book market. This year they are expected to reach 15 or even 20 percent. But there are indications that the sale of printed books has increased at the same time.

Many of us worry about a decline in deep, reflective, cover-to-cover reading. We deplore the shift to blogs, snippets, and tweets. In the case of research, we might concede that word searches have advantages, but we refuse to believe that they can lead to the kind of understanding that comes with the continuous study of an entire book. Is it true, however, that deep reading has declined, or even that it always prevailed?

Writing looks as bad as reading to those who see nothing but decline in the advent of the Internet. As one lament puts it: Books used to be written for the general reader; now they are written by the general reader. The Internet certainly has stimulated self-publishing, but why should that be deplored? Many writers with important things to say had not been able to break into print, and anyone who finds little value in their work can ignore it.

Common Core, by forcing children to master the same curriculum, essentially discriminates against talents that are not consistent with their prescribed knowledge and skills.

A well organized, tightly controlled, and well-executed education system can transmit the prescribed content much more effectively than one that is less organized, loosely monitored, and less unified. In the meantime, the latter allows for exceptions with more room for individual exploration and experimentation

In “developed” societies, we are so accustomed to centralized control over learning that it has become functionally invisible to us, and most people accept it as natural, inevitable, and consistent with the principles of freedom and democracy.   We assume that this central authority, because it is associated with something that seems like an unequivocal good – “education” – must itself be fundamentally good, a sort of benevolent dictatorship of the intellect. 

We endorse strict legal codes which render this process compulsory, and in a truly Orwellian twist, many of us now view it as a fundamental human right to be legally compelled to learn what a higher authority tells us to learn.

And yet the idea of centrally-controlled education is as problematic as the idea of centrally-controlled media – and for exactly the same reasons.

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was designed to protect all forms of communication, information-sharing, knowledge, opinion and belief – what the Supreme Court has termed “the sphere of intellect and spirit” – from government control.

by the mid-19th century, with Indians still to conquer and waves of immigrants to assimilate, the temptation to find a way to manage the minds of an increasingly diverse and independent-minded population became too great to resist, and the idea of the Common School was born.

We would keep our freedom of speech and press, but first we would all be well-schooled by those in power.

A deeply democratic idea — the free and equal education of every child — was wedded to a deeply anti-democratic idea — that this education would be controlled from the top down by state-appointed educrats.

The fundamental point of the Occupy Wall Street movement is that the apparatus of democratic government has been completely bought and paid for by a tiny number of grotesquely wealthy individuals, corporations, and lobbying groups.  Our votes no longer matter.  Our wishes no longer count.  Our power as citizens has been sold to the highest bidder.

Our kids are so drowned in disconnected information that it becomes quite random what they do and don’t remember, and they’re so overburdened with endless homework and tests that they have little time or energy to pay attention to what’s happening in the world around them.

If in ten years we can create Wikipedia out of thin air, what could we create if we trusted our children, our teachers, our parents, our neighbors, to generate community learning webs that are open, alive, and responsive to individual needs and aspirations?  What could we create if instead of trying to “scale up” every innovation into a monolithic bureaucracy we “scaled down” to allow local and individual control, freedom, experimentation, and diversity?

The most academically “gifted” students excel at obedience, instinctively shaping their thinking to the prescribed curriculum and unconsciously framing out of their awareness ideas that won’t earn the praise of their superiors.  Those who resist sitting still for this process are marginalized, labeled as less intelligent or even as mildly brain-damaged, and, increasingly, drugged into compliance.

the very root, the very essence, of any theory of democratic liberty is a basic trust in the fundamental intelligence of the ordinary person.   Democracy rests on the premise that the ordinary person — the waitress, the carpenter, the shopkeeper — is competent to make her own judgments about matters of domestic policy, international affairs, taxes, justice, peace, and war, and that the government must abide by the decisions of ordinary people, not vice versa.  Of course that’s not the way our system really works, and never has been.   But most of us recall at some deep level of our beings that any vision of a just world relies on this fundamental respect for the common sense of the ordinary human being.

This is what we spend our childhood in school unlearning. 

If before we reach the age of majority we must submit our brains for twelve years of evaluation and control by government experts, are we then truly free to exercise our vote according to the dictates of our own common sense and conscience?  Do we even know what our own common sense is anymore?

We live in a country where a serious candidate for the Presidency is unaware that China has nuclear weapons, where half the population does not understand that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11, where nobody pays attention as Congress dismantles the securities regulations that limit the power of the banks, where 45% of American high school students graduate without knowing that the First Amendment of the Constitution guarantees freedom of the press.   At what point do we begin to ask ourselves if we are trying to control quality in the wrong way?

Human beings, collaborating with one another in voluntary relationships, communicating and checking and counter-checking and elaborating and expanding on one another’s knowledge and intelligence, have created a collective public resource more vast and more alive than anything that has ever existed on the planet.

But this is not a paeon to technology; this is about what human intelligence is capable of when people are free to interact in open, horizontal, non-hierarchical networks of communication and collaboration.

Positive social change has occurred not through top-down, hierarchically controlled organizations, but through what the Berkana Institute calls “emergence,” where people begin networking and forming voluntary communities of practice. When the goal is to maximize the functioning of human intelligence, you need to activate the unique skills, talents, and knowledge bases of diverse individuals, not put everybody through a uniform mill to produce uniform results. 

You need a non-punitive structure that encourages collaboration rather than competition, risk-taking rather than mistake-avoidance, and innovation rather than repetition of known quantities.

if we really want to return power to the 99% in a lasting, stable, sustainable way, we need to begin the work of creating open, egalitarian, horizontal networks of learning in our communities.

They are taught to focus on competing with each other and gaming the system rather than on gaining a deep understanding of the way power flows through their world.

And what could we create, what ecological problems could we solve, what despair might we alleviate, if instead of imposing our rigid curriculum and the destructive economy it serves on the entire world, we embraced as part of our vast collective intelligence the wisdom and knowledge of the world’s thousands of sustainable indigenous cultures?

They knew this about their situation: nobody was on their side.  Certainly not the moneyed classes and the economic system, and not the government, either.  So if they were going to change anything, it had to come out of themselves.

As our climate heats up, as mountaintops are removed from Orissa to West Virginia, as the oceans fill with plastic and soils become too contaminated to grow food, as the economy crumbles and children go hungry and the 0.001% grows so concentrated, so powerful, so wealthy that democracy becomes impossible, it’s time to ask ourselves; who’s educating us?  To what end?  The Adivasis are occupying their forests and mountains as our children are occupying our cities and parks.  But they understand that the first thing they must take back is their common sense. 

They must occupy their brains.

Isn’t it time for us to do the same?

did notreturn any recent studies investigating the effec-tiveness of a purely cognitive intervention in thetreatment of MPA; consequently, research inthis particular area is needed

Past re-search has focused on combined interventions;however, often these programs run for over 6weeks and it is unknown which aspects of theintervention are most effective (e.g., Nagel,Himle, & Papsdorf, 1989)

State–Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI).The STAI is widely used in anxiety researchand is considered to be a valid and reliable scale(Kenny, 2006).

The PAI (Nagel, Himle, & Papsdorf, 1981) isbased on the STAI and is a music inventoryassessing the three-systems model of anxiety

heart rate at 10 min, 5

Signs of anxiety included trem-bling knees, lifting shoulders, stiff back and/orneck, trembling hands, stiff arms, face deadpan,shaking head, moistening and/or biting lips, dis-tressed facial expressions, and sweating.

Nagel et al.reported that the average preintervention scorewas 55 and the average postintervention scorewas 38, with a score of 39 or less indicating a

person has few problems with performance anx-iety

Researchers have found that MPA af-fects instrumentalists and vocalists of all agesand abilities, including students, professionals,amateurs, and children (Brotons, 1994; Kenny,2006; Liston, Frost, & Mohr, 2003)

Few studies have investigated whether a cog-nitive intervention can reduce anxiety and en-hance performance in musicians (Lehrer, 1987;Steptoe & Fidler, 1987)

Few studies have investigated whether a cog-nitive intervention can reduce anxiety and en-hance performance in musicians (Lehrer, 1987;Steptoe & Fidler, 1987

The cognitive intervention had no significanteffect on anxiety levels. Sweeney and Horan’s(1982) study indicated that a cognitive restruc-turing program may be helpful in the treatmentof MPA; their program, featuring cognitive re-structuring, significantly reduced anxiety.

d it is unknown which aspects of theintervention are most effective (e.g., Nagel,Himle, & Papsdorf, 1989)

The STAI is widely used in anxiety researchand is considered to be a valid and reliable scale

Performance Anxiety Inventory (PAI)

cognitive, behavioral, and physiological fac

and has beenwidely used in treatment outcome research

Behavioral Anxiety Index (BAI)

igns of anxiety included trem-bling knees, lifting shoulders, stiff back and/orneck, trembling hands, stiff arms, face deadpan,shaking head, moistening and/or biting lips, dis-tressed facial expressions, and sweating

Participants were then taught howthoughts, behaviors, and feelings interact andinfluence performance

practical exercise, how people waste their en-ergy trying to control uncontrollable factors,thereby impairing performance

This exercise wasdesigned to demonstrate how thoughts cansometimes be irrational and can be changed inlight of new evidence

how to use self-talk effectively and how touse cues

Participants practiced how to identify negativethoughts, stop the thoughts, and use cues to helpthem overcome the negative thoughts.

Imagery is a mentalexercise that can help athletes maintain concen-tration, decrease anxiety, and improve confi-dence; thus, it may also be helpful for somemusicians (Gregg & Clark, 2007).

Participants in the wait-list controlgroup waited 3 weeks until their second perfor-mance, which was on the same night as theirfirst worksho

MPA is a pervasive problem affecting musi-cians of all ages and abilities. As compared withthe research on mental skills training in athletes,relatively little is known about the assessment,treatment, and theoretical underpinnings ofMPA

Kenny (2006) suggested that improving perfor-mance quality will have a positive, self-reinforcing effect on the musician and enhanceconfidence in future performances.

We predicted that anxiety levels would de-crease in the treatment group from pre- to post-test. This hypothesis was partially supported.Specifically, there was a significant reductionon the PAI in the treatment group. Although theparticipants improved after the intervention,they were still not within the optimal rangeaccording to Nagel et al. (1981

Although the decrease in anxiety was notas large in our study, our participants droppedfrom the high performance anxiety category tothe moderate performance anxiety category