Things are busy for me this fall as I am starting teachers' college. This has left me with less time to read the books I would like to read. Still, I am slowly working my way through a book called What Is Your Dangerous Idea? It is a compilation of short essays by many of today's top thinkers.
To more narrowly define the question, these thinkers were asked to describe an idea, not necessarily their own original idea, but one they think about a lot. The key is that the idea should be "dangerous" not because it is assumed to be false but because it might actually be true (John Brockman).
I do not wish to talk about any of their ideas in this post. Instead, here's one candidate idea for most dangerous that I often think about:
The Asian approach to education is actually superior to the Western approach.
Given that I'm now taking a program to become a teacher in Western society, this is certainly a dangerous idea.
I might be dead wrong. There is plenty to criticize about the style of education they dole out in countries like Japan, Korea, and China. Kids in those Far East nations spend crazy hours devoted to study. Without any statistics at hand to back this up, the suicide rate amongst students is said to be much higher in those countries. Many kids are sent to Western countries to study in the belief that they will receive a better education. And of course, we shouldn't forget the primary criticism that Asian schools focus on rote learning, while their Western counterparts nurture creative thinking.
But as I discussed in a previous post, intuition isn't all it's cracked up to be. Our intuition that our education system is better just might be wrong. In case you doubt that, here are a few quotes from the news recently:
"An evaluation by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development ranked the United States 18th among 36 countries in secondary education. Almost 25 percent of U.S. students fail to graduate from high school on time; in South Korea, it’s 7 percent." (New York Times, August 23, 2009)
The National Education Association (in America) reported recently that results from testing found: "The fourth and eight graders who tested in mathematics improved their average scores compared to European students, however, fail to compete with Asian students from China, Hong Kong, Japan, Korea and Singapore." (September 8, 2009)
"Asian American students achieved best scores in the 2009 U.S. SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test) college entrance exam in mathematics and writing, according to a report by the U.S. College Board." (August 27, 2009) How about that -- Asian-American students even beat the rest of America's students at their own game.
As a former English teacher in Korea, I'm well aware of the perception amongst many of my foreign colleagues that we Westerners are lucky to have been educated in North America. But what is the basis of such an assertion in the face of statistical evidence that says otherwise?
Whether or not the Asian methodology is better than the Western, what it really boils down to is effort. Asians take education more seriously. They are willing (as a general rule) to put more time and effort into their studies. U.S. President Barack Obama even felt it necessary to lecture America's youth on their responsibility to themselves to be better students. How many kids will heed his advice?
Given the population difference between Asia and the West, the new century will soon become the Asian Century. I'm not here to criticize that; I just think that we Westerners will have to pull our collective head out of the sand and consider which parts of the Asian approach to education we should adopt.
It would be dangerous not to do so.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Friday, August 21, 2009
The 21st Century and Creativity
One of the thought experiments I have done often over the years is to imagine what the world will be like at specific points in the future: 10 years from now, 50 years, 100, 1000, and so on. What inspires me to think along these lines is the knowledge of how much life changed in the western world from 1900 to 2000. At the beginning of the century, when the horse (and buggy) served as the mode of transportation for a majority of people, I seriously doubt that much thought was given to space travel. Also, only the keenest of imaginations might have considered the possibility of air travel, the ability to send images over invisible airwaves into a box later to be called a TV, or the development of a global network we would call the Internet.
But as we know, civilization marches forward at a seemingly exponential rate. Why does it grow so quickly? How do we (as the human race) continue to raise our level of knowledge to greater and greater capacities? Is that capacity infinite?
It is my belief that the advances of the 21st century will dwarf those of the previous one hundred years. The primary reasons are globalization and the Internet, which will lead to one overall factor: the rise in human creativity.
Whatever one thinks about globalization on a moral level, an inescapable outcome is that more and more people on Earth are getting the sorts of high level education that only elites (particularly western European or North American elites) used to receive. As Thomas Friedman makes clear with his "flat world" analogy, the percentage of people earning graduate degrees is skyrocketing in the world's two most populous nations, China and India. Factor in places like Japan, South Korea, Russia, and hopefully someday Latin America, and the overall percentage of the human population with significant knowledge will reach unprecedented levels.
As Friedman points out, the rise of engineers in cheap-labour places like India and China has resulted in an outsourcing of certain types of jobs to those countries. What is left for many in North America and western Europe is whatever they create for themselves -- which is to say that so much intellectual talent in the first world is now devoted to creative processes. People are developing new types of work or designing new methods for building and distributing their products and services. The less interesting work is being handled (so far, happily) by the newly educated in Asia; the West's best hope is to work on new ideas that advance our civilization.
(If the previous paragraph isn't clear, take just one of the examples in Friedman's book The World is Flat. In America, when you take your income taxes to an accountant, there's a very good chance that they are actually being calculated by a person in Mumbai who has been educated in whichever specific state's tax codes you happen to belong to. Meanwhile, the American accountant you are paying to handle your taxes will be engaged in international negotiations to expand his/her business, or finding loopholes to serve you better, etc. All of this is done in lightning fast time because of the Internet, which of course enables nearly real-time business operation on a global scale.)
But what happens after a few decades when all of these highly educated people around the world begin to get bored with the "easy" work? It's simple. They will also turn to the creative side of the ledger. The engineering talent that is coming in the next two-three generations, from all over the world, will devise new systems, machines, computers, and probably other things we haven't thought of yet. Combined with the continued accumulation of information on the Internet thanks to Google, Wikipedia, or some other as-yet invented global repository, one can see that the digital world consciousness will begin to take us places we've never dreamed about. About the only thing that can stop this march is some kind of catastrophe (man-made or natural) that would cut a significant swath of the population from this equation.
So what will the world look like?
In 10-20 years, the World Wide Web will be much more advanced than now, allowing for easier-to-access information (much easier than now), and the ability to communicate with others as if they were in the same room as you (better video conferencing, for example). There will be virtually no barrier to information accumulation or sharing. In education, advances in brain theory and learning style theory (already well developed) will cause an increase in knowledge in the general population. This will push the next wave of human consciousness.
In 50 years, our modes of transportation will be different, but recognizable. I think hydrogen-powered vehicles will become common. Our environment will be better off for our efforts, and maybe we will have turned the tide back on global warming to some extent.
In 100 years, I'm not sure how recognizable our world will be. Perhaps we will all live in eco-sustainable housing. So many jobs will have been invented that we can't predict what our economy will look like. Wars will have taken place, certain cultures will rise and fall. Maybe robots will have become standard members of the family. Our knowledge of science will take great leaps forward to make such achievements possible. Organized religion will be on its deathbed. That's my personal hope, anyway.
And in 1000 years? Your guess is as good as mine.
But as we know, civilization marches forward at a seemingly exponential rate. Why does it grow so quickly? How do we (as the human race) continue to raise our level of knowledge to greater and greater capacities? Is that capacity infinite?
It is my belief that the advances of the 21st century will dwarf those of the previous one hundred years. The primary reasons are globalization and the Internet, which will lead to one overall factor: the rise in human creativity.
Whatever one thinks about globalization on a moral level, an inescapable outcome is that more and more people on Earth are getting the sorts of high level education that only elites (particularly western European or North American elites) used to receive. As Thomas Friedman makes clear with his "flat world" analogy, the percentage of people earning graduate degrees is skyrocketing in the world's two most populous nations, China and India. Factor in places like Japan, South Korea, Russia, and hopefully someday Latin America, and the overall percentage of the human population with significant knowledge will reach unprecedented levels.
As Friedman points out, the rise of engineers in cheap-labour places like India and China has resulted in an outsourcing of certain types of jobs to those countries. What is left for many in North America and western Europe is whatever they create for themselves -- which is to say that so much intellectual talent in the first world is now devoted to creative processes. People are developing new types of work or designing new methods for building and distributing their products and services. The less interesting work is being handled (so far, happily) by the newly educated in Asia; the West's best hope is to work on new ideas that advance our civilization.
(If the previous paragraph isn't clear, take just one of the examples in Friedman's book The World is Flat. In America, when you take your income taxes to an accountant, there's a very good chance that they are actually being calculated by a person in Mumbai who has been educated in whichever specific state's tax codes you happen to belong to. Meanwhile, the American accountant you are paying to handle your taxes will be engaged in international negotiations to expand his/her business, or finding loopholes to serve you better, etc. All of this is done in lightning fast time because of the Internet, which of course enables nearly real-time business operation on a global scale.)
But what happens after a few decades when all of these highly educated people around the world begin to get bored with the "easy" work? It's simple. They will also turn to the creative side of the ledger. The engineering talent that is coming in the next two-three generations, from all over the world, will devise new systems, machines, computers, and probably other things we haven't thought of yet. Combined with the continued accumulation of information on the Internet thanks to Google, Wikipedia, or some other as-yet invented global repository, one can see that the digital world consciousness will begin to take us places we've never dreamed about. About the only thing that can stop this march is some kind of catastrophe (man-made or natural) that would cut a significant swath of the population from this equation.
So what will the world look like?
In 10-20 years, the World Wide Web will be much more advanced than now, allowing for easier-to-access information (much easier than now), and the ability to communicate with others as if they were in the same room as you (better video conferencing, for example). There will be virtually no barrier to information accumulation or sharing. In education, advances in brain theory and learning style theory (already well developed) will cause an increase in knowledge in the general population. This will push the next wave of human consciousness.
In 50 years, our modes of transportation will be different, but recognizable. I think hydrogen-powered vehicles will become common. Our environment will be better off for our efforts, and maybe we will have turned the tide back on global warming to some extent.
In 100 years, I'm not sure how recognizable our world will be. Perhaps we will all live in eco-sustainable housing. So many jobs will have been invented that we can't predict what our economy will look like. Wars will have taken place, certain cultures will rise and fall. Maybe robots will have become standard members of the family. Our knowledge of science will take great leaps forward to make such achievements possible. Organized religion will be on its deathbed. That's my personal hope, anyway.
And in 1000 years? Your guess is as good as mine.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
The Best of Richard Feynman
Below are links to some of my favourite Richard Feynman clips on YouTube. Each one usually comes in many parts, so for full value click on the ensuing clips.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Quotes I Like
"I don't know anything, but I do know that everything is interesting if you go into it deeply enough."
-- Richard Feynman
"It is dangerous to judge ability by short-term results."
-- Leonard Mlodinow
-- Richard Feynman
"It is dangerous to judge ability by short-term results."
-- Leonard Mlodinow
Thoughts on Intuition
One of the ideas I've thought about a lot of late is the notion of intuition. What is it exactly? What role does it play in our lives? Is it a good thing or not?
The source of my interest in intuition is not just one book or personal experience, but several. It is brought about by a variety of subjects, including physics and mathematics, as well as history and current events. It is a theme that pops up again and again in the books I read, so I figure it is worth exploring.
According to dictionary.com, intuition is the "direct perception of truth, fact, etc., independent of any reasoning process." Also, it is "a keen and quick insight." The "independent of any reasoning process" part is what catches my attention, as this separates the idea of intuition from science.
Of course, intuition does serve a purpose in our day-to-day life. Without it, we would be forced to consider various possibilities we face every day without referring to past experience. For example, if I fail to set my alarm, my intuition may tell me that I'll wake up late and not get to work on time. I don't need to consider every single day whether I should set the alarm. But this is not such an important example of intuition. It is when we make decisions based on probability -- which can also be called incomplete knowledge -- that intuition tends to muddy things up.
In the book The Drunkard's Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives, physicist Leonard Mlodinow describes how intuition comes from experience, and the perceived causal connection between events/actions. He notes the research done by scientist Daniel Kahneman, who found that people often make false connections based on intuition. The example was a group of Israeli air force flight instructors who argued that they could change the behaviour of their pilots by yelling at them after they messed up. In the same vein, these instructors usually found that praising the pilots for doing a good job resulted in poorer performance the next flight. Therefore, they logically deduced that praise was a waste of time, while punishment brought about the desired effect.
Kahneman eventually realized that what was happening was a phenomenon called 'regression to the mean' (p.8). Extreme performances (either good or bad) are beyond the norm, and they tend to return to a more average performance in subsequent trials. In other words, there was no cause/effect relationship, but the instructors' intuition told them otherwise. Throughout the 1960's, research found that people's intuition about randomness failed them.
Mlodinow later discussed another phenomenon that tends to support a false trust in intuition, the 'confirmation bias' (p.189). "When we are in the grasp of an illusion... instead of searching for ways to prove our ideas wrong, we usually attempt to prove them correct." He also quotes Francis Bacon: "The human understanding, once it has adopted an opinion, collects any instances that confirm it, and though contrary instances may be more numerous and more weighty, it either does not notice them or else rejects them, in order that this opinion will remain unshaken" (p.189). So, humans have the unmatched ability to ignore facts when they disagree with intuition.
--------------------------
Richard Feynman was possibly the smartest man of the twentieth century. I have only begun to learn about his impact on science through reading the book The Pleasure of Finding Things Out, and through viewing a number of interviews with him on YouTube.
One of his points that really struck me in the above video is how he desired to speak to knowledgeable men, those men who had explored their subject as deeply as possible to the point where they have nothing left but more questions (for nature holds many mysteries). This statement implied that most people don't have complete knowledge upon which to base their conclusions. We think we "know" something when, in fact, we are guessing or assuming the truth of the matter. We are greatly impacted culturally by superstition or so-called common sense. And this is, in part, why intuition tends to confuse us rather than enlighten.
In my own world, I sometimes wonder about history (in the sense of the official story that is taught in schools and taken for granted within a culture at large). How certain should we be about what we think we know? My intuition tells me that what we learn in Canadian history classrooms is what actually happened. I am led to believe that Canadians have fought valiantly in wartime. And yet, I remember talking to an old Korean man one night many years ago in Seoul who had been in the Korean War. He told me that the Canadian soldiers he saw behaved like cowards. This assault on my common knowledge of the Canadian soldier was a major affront to my pride. But what if it were true? Do we tend to get duped by what our cultural myths would have us believe? I believe it is foolish to think otherwise. It is intuitive to believe that which we are constantly told unless we learn to doubt. Question authority, goes the old saying.
Should intuition be ignored? For daily routine, I doubt it matters if we follow intuition. But in matters where people tend to have opposing points of view or a different cultural background, intuition is probably the greatest barrier to seeing the truth. Once we recognize this, we can learn to control our impulse to accept that which we assume.
The source of my interest in intuition is not just one book or personal experience, but several. It is brought about by a variety of subjects, including physics and mathematics, as well as history and current events. It is a theme that pops up again and again in the books I read, so I figure it is worth exploring.
According to dictionary.com, intuition is the "direct perception of truth, fact, etc., independent of any reasoning process." Also, it is "a keen and quick insight." The "independent of any reasoning process" part is what catches my attention, as this separates the idea of intuition from science.
Of course, intuition does serve a purpose in our day-to-day life. Without it, we would be forced to consider various possibilities we face every day without referring to past experience. For example, if I fail to set my alarm, my intuition may tell me that I'll wake up late and not get to work on time. I don't need to consider every single day whether I should set the alarm. But this is not such an important example of intuition. It is when we make decisions based on probability -- which can also be called incomplete knowledge -- that intuition tends to muddy things up.
In the book The Drunkard's Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives, physicist Leonard Mlodinow describes how intuition comes from experience, and the perceived causal connection between events/actions. He notes the research done by scientist Daniel Kahneman, who found that people often make false connections based on intuition. The example was a group of Israeli air force flight instructors who argued that they could change the behaviour of their pilots by yelling at them after they messed up. In the same vein, these instructors usually found that praising the pilots for doing a good job resulted in poorer performance the next flight. Therefore, they logically deduced that praise was a waste of time, while punishment brought about the desired effect.
Kahneman eventually realized that what was happening was a phenomenon called 'regression to the mean' (p.8). Extreme performances (either good or bad) are beyond the norm, and they tend to return to a more average performance in subsequent trials. In other words, there was no cause/effect relationship, but the instructors' intuition told them otherwise. Throughout the 1960's, research found that people's intuition about randomness failed them.
Mlodinow later discussed another phenomenon that tends to support a false trust in intuition, the 'confirmation bias' (p.189). "When we are in the grasp of an illusion... instead of searching for ways to prove our ideas wrong, we usually attempt to prove them correct." He also quotes Francis Bacon: "The human understanding, once it has adopted an opinion, collects any instances that confirm it, and though contrary instances may be more numerous and more weighty, it either does not notice them or else rejects them, in order that this opinion will remain unshaken" (p.189). So, humans have the unmatched ability to ignore facts when they disagree with intuition.
--------------------------
Richard Feynman was possibly the smartest man of the twentieth century. I have only begun to learn about his impact on science through reading the book The Pleasure of Finding Things Out, and through viewing a number of interviews with him on YouTube.
One of his points that really struck me in the above video is how he desired to speak to knowledgeable men, those men who had explored their subject as deeply as possible to the point where they have nothing left but more questions (for nature holds many mysteries). This statement implied that most people don't have complete knowledge upon which to base their conclusions. We think we "know" something when, in fact, we are guessing or assuming the truth of the matter. We are greatly impacted culturally by superstition or so-called common sense. And this is, in part, why intuition tends to confuse us rather than enlighten.
In my own world, I sometimes wonder about history (in the sense of the official story that is taught in schools and taken for granted within a culture at large). How certain should we be about what we think we know? My intuition tells me that what we learn in Canadian history classrooms is what actually happened. I am led to believe that Canadians have fought valiantly in wartime. And yet, I remember talking to an old Korean man one night many years ago in Seoul who had been in the Korean War. He told me that the Canadian soldiers he saw behaved like cowards. This assault on my common knowledge of the Canadian soldier was a major affront to my pride. But what if it were true? Do we tend to get duped by what our cultural myths would have us believe? I believe it is foolish to think otherwise. It is intuitive to believe that which we are constantly told unless we learn to doubt. Question authority, goes the old saying.
Should intuition be ignored? For daily routine, I doubt it matters if we follow intuition. But in matters where people tend to have opposing points of view or a different cultural background, intuition is probably the greatest barrier to seeing the truth. Once we recognize this, we can learn to control our impulse to accept that which we assume.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Random Thoughts
I've just finished reading chapter one of Steven Johnson's latest, The Invention of Air. This follows my recent completion of The Drunkard's Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives, where Leonard Mlodinow eloquently explained the mathematical concepts behind random actions. Both books deal with the matter of how events often develop out of thin air (much more so than we could ever imagine). In particular, both writers discuss how great leaps forward in conceptual thinking are typically the result of sheer luck -- being in the right place at the right time.
Which is not to say that people aren't deserving of their fame and legacy. It's just that in addition to having a good dose of smarts, it never hurts to have the good fortune of being in a time and place where someone else recognizes your genius. It's safe to say that there have been many more geniuses in the history of our world who didn't benefit from such luck, and therefore did not grace us with whatever insights they may have developed. But that's just the way it is. Occasionally you hit in a game of roulette; more often, you miss.
On a personal note, in recent days I've run into two situations that seem to be pure cases of randomness. First, a buddy of mine suddenly contracted a bacterial infection in his elbow that, if not for quick action by doctors, would have led to flesh-eating disease. The doctors had very little explanation for the way the bacteria in his arm all decided to congregate and attack his elbow. But that's something that will happen at random. We all have bacteria in our bodies, and usually we handle them just fine; for some reason, the bacteria in my friend's body turned on him. There's probably no point looking for a reason. It may have just been a random (bad) luck of the draw.
The other incident took place at a bookstore in Seoul this past weekend. While browsing for a good book to buy (the one that eventually became The Invention of Air), a young Korean man who had been standing next to me for a few moments suddenly asked if I worked for JLS. Since I do, I said yes. He then asked if my name was Phil. I was clearly surprised, and I went on to learn that he had been in a class of mine some four or five years earlier. He was now a student at New York University who was doing a summer internship in Korea. So, in a city of over ten million people, a guy I met maybe a dozen times in a writing class years earlier now recognized me. Seems almost bizarre on the surface. But I would have to guess that the odds of such a meeting are not that astronomical since I have taught thousands of students in my years in Korea. In spite of aging, at least one of those students was bound to know me, and we just happened to be in the right place at the right time.
For the past couple of days, I've wondered what (if any) significance there is to be gleaned from this chance encounter. Perhaps it comes in the comment he made that despite the fact many of the students in that class were being ignorant and inattentive (paraphrasing), he personally liked the class. Over the years, there have been certain classes where I've been so turned off by the general apathy of the students that I've forgotten that one or two of them may actually have been getting something from the course. In other words, this encounter may have been my wake-up call to not throw in the towel when I get frustrated with a class. Not all of the students are wasting their time, and it is my responsibility to reach those who care. Well, okay, it's my responsibility to reach ALL students -- I know, I get that. But I shouldn't lump them all together.
And this leads me to some thoughts about another book I read recently: Teacher Man by Frank McCourt. He gained fame a few years ago for his Pulitzer prize-winning memoir Angela's Ashes. In Teacher Man, McCourt tells of his 30 years as a teacher in New York City high schools, of his struggle to reach students under difficult circumstances. It is a wonderful ongoing story that is easy to relate to for any teacher. Some of his thoughts, gleaned from in-the-moment situations, particularly struck me: "If you bark or snap (at the students), you lose them. That's what they get from parents and the schools in general... If they strike back with the silent treatment, you're finished in the classroom... They have you by the balls and you created the situation." Yikes! And so true.
Teaching... history... randomness... the future -- what does it hold?
Which is not to say that people aren't deserving of their fame and legacy. It's just that in addition to having a good dose of smarts, it never hurts to have the good fortune of being in a time and place where someone else recognizes your genius. It's safe to say that there have been many more geniuses in the history of our world who didn't benefit from such luck, and therefore did not grace us with whatever insights they may have developed. But that's just the way it is. Occasionally you hit in a game of roulette; more often, you miss.
On a personal note, in recent days I've run into two situations that seem to be pure cases of randomness. First, a buddy of mine suddenly contracted a bacterial infection in his elbow that, if not for quick action by doctors, would have led to flesh-eating disease. The doctors had very little explanation for the way the bacteria in his arm all decided to congregate and attack his elbow. But that's something that will happen at random. We all have bacteria in our bodies, and usually we handle them just fine; for some reason, the bacteria in my friend's body turned on him. There's probably no point looking for a reason. It may have just been a random (bad) luck of the draw.
The other incident took place at a bookstore in Seoul this past weekend. While browsing for a good book to buy (the one that eventually became The Invention of Air), a young Korean man who had been standing next to me for a few moments suddenly asked if I worked for JLS. Since I do, I said yes. He then asked if my name was Phil. I was clearly surprised, and I went on to learn that he had been in a class of mine some four or five years earlier. He was now a student at New York University who was doing a summer internship in Korea. So, in a city of over ten million people, a guy I met maybe a dozen times in a writing class years earlier now recognized me. Seems almost bizarre on the surface. But I would have to guess that the odds of such a meeting are not that astronomical since I have taught thousands of students in my years in Korea. In spite of aging, at least one of those students was bound to know me, and we just happened to be in the right place at the right time.
For the past couple of days, I've wondered what (if any) significance there is to be gleaned from this chance encounter. Perhaps it comes in the comment he made that despite the fact many of the students in that class were being ignorant and inattentive (paraphrasing), he personally liked the class. Over the years, there have been certain classes where I've been so turned off by the general apathy of the students that I've forgotten that one or two of them may actually have been getting something from the course. In other words, this encounter may have been my wake-up call to not throw in the towel when I get frustrated with a class. Not all of the students are wasting their time, and it is my responsibility to reach those who care. Well, okay, it's my responsibility to reach ALL students -- I know, I get that. But I shouldn't lump them all together.
And this leads me to some thoughts about another book I read recently: Teacher Man by Frank McCourt. He gained fame a few years ago for his Pulitzer prize-winning memoir Angela's Ashes. In Teacher Man, McCourt tells of his 30 years as a teacher in New York City high schools, of his struggle to reach students under difficult circumstances. It is a wonderful ongoing story that is easy to relate to for any teacher. Some of his thoughts, gleaned from in-the-moment situations, particularly struck me: "If you bark or snap (at the students), you lose them. That's what they get from parents and the schools in general... If they strike back with the silent treatment, you're finished in the classroom... They have you by the balls and you created the situation." Yikes! And so true.
Teaching... history... randomness... the future -- what does it hold?
Monday, July 6, 2009
Michael Jackson
It has taken some time for me to write anything about Michael Jackson, given his recent death. Truthfully, he's not the kind of artist I normally give much thought about, and his actions over recent years make him somewhat harder to stomach.
Nevertheless, the truth is that he's a global icon, and likely to remain so in death in much the same way that Elvis continues to hold our imagination. I would be remiss to ignore something of such obvious importance to so many people.
I first heard of Michael Jackson around 1983 or '84, when I received the Thriller album from my cousins for Christmas. I liked it. Of course, I didn't have much of a discerning taste for music, which is not to take an unnecessary stab at Michael Jackson. Rather, at that point in my life, I was acquiring new music approximately once every 6 months, so I was pretty happy for anything. This was it. Besides, the guy's music videos were everywhere, and he was in the news so much that I figured it was a good bandwagon to hop aboard.
Honestly, though, I got over my interest in the Thriller album fairly quickly once I started becoming more of a fan of hard rock groups like Van Halen and Whitesnake in the following year. And when you said you were a fan of metal, you could never acknowledge an interest in pop. It just wasn't done. So, goodbye, Thriller album.
Michael went on to make a few more albums that were pretty successful, although I couldn't tell you what most of them are called because I never acquired another one. No, Michael became more and more infamous for his crazy obsession to mess with his biology through ongoing hormone treatments and plastic surgery, eventually becoming physically unrecognizable. (I wonder how many people came up with the same joke, as I did, that Michael Jackson's body had appeared to begin decomposing long before his death).
I thought about going into some of the crazier aspects of his life, but they are far too numerous for me to even attempt.
Memorials have been held all over the world for Michael Jackson. His funeral takes place at the Staples Center in Los Angeles on July 7th. Thousands of people want to attend. It's a circus.
There isn't much more to be said, is there?
Nevertheless, the truth is that he's a global icon, and likely to remain so in death in much the same way that Elvis continues to hold our imagination. I would be remiss to ignore something of such obvious importance to so many people.
I first heard of Michael Jackson around 1983 or '84, when I received the Thriller album from my cousins for Christmas. I liked it. Of course, I didn't have much of a discerning taste for music, which is not to take an unnecessary stab at Michael Jackson. Rather, at that point in my life, I was acquiring new music approximately once every 6 months, so I was pretty happy for anything. This was it. Besides, the guy's music videos were everywhere, and he was in the news so much that I figured it was a good bandwagon to hop aboard.
Honestly, though, I got over my interest in the Thriller album fairly quickly once I started becoming more of a fan of hard rock groups like Van Halen and Whitesnake in the following year. And when you said you were a fan of metal, you could never acknowledge an interest in pop. It just wasn't done. So, goodbye, Thriller album.
Michael went on to make a few more albums that were pretty successful, although I couldn't tell you what most of them are called because I never acquired another one. No, Michael became more and more infamous for his crazy obsession to mess with his biology through ongoing hormone treatments and plastic surgery, eventually becoming physically unrecognizable. (I wonder how many people came up with the same joke, as I did, that Michael Jackson's body had appeared to begin decomposing long before his death).
I thought about going into some of the crazier aspects of his life, but they are far too numerous for me to even attempt.
Memorials have been held all over the world for Michael Jackson. His funeral takes place at the Staples Center in Los Angeles on July 7th. Thousands of people want to attend. It's a circus.
There isn't much more to be said, is there?
Sunday, June 21, 2009
When social networking and political protests collide
In 1989, two major democracy movements arose and brought about two very different results: the pro-democracy uprising in China, culminating in the Tienanmen Square massacre, reaffirmed the dictatorial regime's authority, and; the collapse of the Iron Curtain, climaxed by the falling of the Berlin Wall, brought an end to Soviet-backed communist governments in Eastern Europe.
I remember both events for the tectonic shifts in international politics that they necessarily inspired. I remember, in particular, the way that western media outlets like CNN and BBC, trapped amid the chaos of the revolt in Beijing, managed to capture and broadcast images of the Chinese army gunning down hundreds, if not thousands, of its own citizens... people who had desired more political freedoms in a changing Chinese society.
This was the iconic image from Tienanmen Square -- of one man standing up to an army. It was exactly the kind of media moment that threatened the survival of the communist government. The PRC's response: to finally crack down on media access within the country, and to eventually begin a campaign of historical white-washing. My point is that media was at the threshold of a landmark political moment, but ultimately failed to push it over the edge.
Meanwhile, events in Eastern Europe later that year began to unravel the grip of the communists. It began with the government in Hungary announcing it would remove its physical border fences with Austria. This led 13000 East German tourists to escape to Austria, setting in motion a chain of events that were aided by television broadcasts from West Berlin, and finally brought about the fall of the Berlin Wall.
In both cases, the the media played an important role in how events played out.
Which brings us to June 2009, and the so-called "Twitter Revolution" in Iran. Actually, Twitter is just one communications tool being used in this amazing uprising by Iranians seeking change within their society (amid a hotly disputed election outcome). Social networking tools such as Facebook and YouTube, along with Twitter, have given a voice to the protesters themselves. Whereas the traditional media outlets find it hard to get the reports out, people on the street are spreading the message to the outside world via cellphone. And the message is largely uncensored -- people are being shot and killed, and these images are finding their way to people's computers. Even the news networks are using some of the footage to supplement what they themselves can broadcast.
On YouTube, we can see the intensity of the protests from street level. On Facebook, supporters of the opposition candidate are gathering images, videos, and reports of protests and violence. And there is Twitter, where people are spreading the word in short spurts, helping to galvanize the protests even as the government threatens a violent crackdown. Social networking is fueling this democratic uprising. Where will it end?
I wish the protesters well, and I hope this new media aids them in their cause.
P.S. It's not just the Western world that is following events in Iran. The Arab Street is also using social networks to learn some lessons from their Persian neighbours (with whom they traditionally have a tense relationship).
I remember both events for the tectonic shifts in international politics that they necessarily inspired. I remember, in particular, the way that western media outlets like CNN and BBC, trapped amid the chaos of the revolt in Beijing, managed to capture and broadcast images of the Chinese army gunning down hundreds, if not thousands, of its own citizens... people who had desired more political freedoms in a changing Chinese society.
This was the iconic image from Tienanmen Square -- of one man standing up to an army. It was exactly the kind of media moment that threatened the survival of the communist government. The PRC's response: to finally crack down on media access within the country, and to eventually begin a campaign of historical white-washing. My point is that media was at the threshold of a landmark political moment, but ultimately failed to push it over the edge.Meanwhile, events in Eastern Europe later that year began to unravel the grip of the communists. It began with the government in Hungary announcing it would remove its physical border fences with Austria. This led 13000 East German tourists to escape to Austria, setting in motion a chain of events that were aided by television broadcasts from West Berlin, and finally brought about the fall of the Berlin Wall.
In both cases, the the media played an important role in how events played out.
Which brings us to June 2009, and the so-called "Twitter Revolution" in Iran. Actually, Twitter is just one communications tool being used in this amazing uprising by Iranians seeking change within their society (amid a hotly disputed election outcome). Social networking tools such as Facebook and YouTube, along with Twitter, have given a voice to the protesters themselves. Whereas the traditional media outlets find it hard to get the reports out, people on the street are spreading the message to the outside world via cellphone. And the message is largely uncensored -- people are being shot and killed, and these images are finding their way to people's computers. Even the news networks are using some of the footage to supplement what they themselves can broadcast.
On YouTube, we can see the intensity of the protests from street level. On Facebook, supporters of the opposition candidate are gathering images, videos, and reports of protests and violence. And there is Twitter, where people are spreading the word in short spurts, helping to galvanize the protests even as the government threatens a violent crackdown. Social networking is fueling this democratic uprising. Where will it end?
I wish the protesters well, and I hope this new media aids them in their cause.
P.S. It's not just the Western world that is following events in Iran. The Arab Street is also using social networks to learn some lessons from their Persian neighbours (with whom they traditionally have a tense relationship).
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Zeitgeist - June 2009
It occurred to me that with a number of interesting world events taking place right now, maybe it would be fun to place The Brain of Phil in context. So, here is the zeitgeist of June 2009.
In Korea:
In Korea:
- a former President, Roh Moo-hyun, committed suicide after being targeted for questioning over allegations of receiving bribery money.
- North Korea tested a second nuclear bomb in an underground test, raising tensions once again on the peninsula (and scaring my family back in Canada yet again)
- swine flu has caused a minor hysteria in Korea; a language school nearby recently shut its doors for a week, and my own employer has taken some rather unprecedented measures to prevent staff and students from catching the pig sickness -- but will these measures be enforced?
- In Cairo, Barack Obama made his speech to the Muslim world in an effort to heal centuries-old wounds
- an Air France jet crashed into the Atlantic Ocean
- In Bangkok, David Carradine accidentally offed himself (it would seem) while engaging in some kinky self love
- Roger Federer FINALLY won the French Open, largely thanks to Rafa Nadal bowing out of the tournament early
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Web Cram Schools: Education in Korea
The New York Times has an article today about the growing trend in South Korea toward online supplementary education. It talks about how Koreans are spending a fortune (yet again) on online courses offered by places like MegaStudy. They cite the number "20 trillion won" (roughly $20 billion) spent last year in private education expenses by desperate parents as clear evidence of a rather nasty, and nutty, reality for Korean students -- one that often leads them to late nights of additional learning instead of something so trivial as sleeping.
In truth, this is merely the latest iteration of a phenomenon that has long existed in Korea -- the obsession with education in order to get the highest scores on college entrance exams. The concept of meritocracy exists as much here on this peninsula in north-east Asia as anywhere else on Earth. And now the country is pouring additional government funds into upgrading an already impressive broadband network.
Look, you don't have to convince me of the merits of online education. I've done it (thanks, University of Phoenix). I've also watched a language academy I worked for during the past decade develop an online curriculum to supplement its in-class courses. I'm a believer. Making education and training available online, 24/7, with a smorgasbord of course offerings is the ultimate democratizing of learning.
It is interesting how much money is to be made by teachers and company owners by these online educational ventures -- some teachers are raking in millions of dollars annually, according to the NYTimes article. That's in a country of 50 million people. What about India or China? How much could the same companies make in those countries, with 20 times the population? Ch-ching!
In truth, this is merely the latest iteration of a phenomenon that has long existed in Korea -- the obsession with education in order to get the highest scores on college entrance exams. The concept of meritocracy exists as much here on this peninsula in north-east Asia as anywhere else on Earth. And now the country is pouring additional government funds into upgrading an already impressive broadband network.
Look, you don't have to convince me of the merits of online education. I've done it (thanks, University of Phoenix). I've also watched a language academy I worked for during the past decade develop an online curriculum to supplement its in-class courses. I'm a believer. Making education and training available online, 24/7, with a smorgasbord of course offerings is the ultimate democratizing of learning.
It is interesting how much money is to be made by teachers and company owners by these online educational ventures -- some teachers are raking in millions of dollars annually, according to the NYTimes article. That's in a country of 50 million people. What about India or China? How much could the same companies make in those countries, with 20 times the population? Ch-ching!
Sunday, May 24, 2009
70-30
In September, I begin my B.Ed. program at the University of Toronto. In May of next year, I will be finished. Then I'll need to figure out what to do.
The options are stay in Ontario and try to get a placement in a high school, or come back to Korea and see what options there are at international schools. Of course, if I do come back to Korea, I could also put in time at a university, a language academy, or maybe even a Korean public school while I wait for a position at a place such as K.I.S. to open up.
Right now, I'm leaning 70-30 to coming back to Korea. The reasons are numerous, but among them are the fact that my family will be here, and Heather will hopefully have a secure job, something which eluded her in Canada. There are other less important factors such as climate and travel opportunities that favour coming back to Korea. I think, though, that during my return to Korea this summer I've realized that I'm happier here. I'm working at my old school, seeing many of the people I had gotten to know during my previous stint here, and I just feel much better about myself than I did back in Ontario. This really is a second home for me, but perhaps it should be my first home.
After reading The World is Flat by Thomas Friedman, I came to the conclusion that it is no longer necessary for students to get their education in Western countries in order to achieve future success. This inter-connected world of ours permits the sharing of knowledge and employment opportunities that weren't possible before the Internet age. Kids who grow up studying in Korea, China, India, and in every other part of the globe can still access the level of education that Canadian and American kids have long accessed. Furthermore, the kids in the non-Western countries usually study harder and achieve more than their Western counterparts. And taken one step further, they usually learn multiple languages. So I'm actually starting to believe that my kids will be better off staying here in Korea.
About a week ago, I met a young man, an overseas Korean now living here. He grew up in England and Kenya, and he speaks four languages (English, Korean, Japanese, and Spanish). He told me that he sometimes feels like he has no real home in this world, no grounding in a particular culture. This is probably a common sentiment of students who grew up attending international schools in multiple countries, and at first glance it seems like a reasonable argument against the international school experience. Yet, I can't help but believe that these kids are best suited for the world of globalization. They don't necessarily see the world in nationalistic tones. They typically speak a variety of languages. And they make contacts with people from all over the world that ought to increase the chances of success when they finish with their formal education.
On a personal level, I have long felt a desire to travel the world and experience different cultures. I'll admit, however, that I'm more comfortable sticking close to Western values while living overseas. I'm stuck speaking English (although there is no better language to be stuck on), as I just find the study required to learn new languages too bothersome. But my girls are well on their way to being bilingual. I'd love for them to pick up Mandarin, maybe Japanese, as well as a European language or two.
Which brings me back to the question of the day: teach in Canada or overseas? Sure, there are good reasons to think about Canada (family and friends). But I'm thinking more and more with each passing day that I belong overseas. I love the energy of Korea, and I really like the fact that I'm in demand here. In Canada, I'm just another guy in a depression-hit country, competing with many people like myself. Not so here.
I might still change my mind a year from now, but for now I'm leaning toward returning to Korea.
The options are stay in Ontario and try to get a placement in a high school, or come back to Korea and see what options there are at international schools. Of course, if I do come back to Korea, I could also put in time at a university, a language academy, or maybe even a Korean public school while I wait for a position at a place such as K.I.S. to open up.
Right now, I'm leaning 70-30 to coming back to Korea. The reasons are numerous, but among them are the fact that my family will be here, and Heather will hopefully have a secure job, something which eluded her in Canada. There are other less important factors such as climate and travel opportunities that favour coming back to Korea. I think, though, that during my return to Korea this summer I've realized that I'm happier here. I'm working at my old school, seeing many of the people I had gotten to know during my previous stint here, and I just feel much better about myself than I did back in Ontario. This really is a second home for me, but perhaps it should be my first home.
After reading The World is Flat by Thomas Friedman, I came to the conclusion that it is no longer necessary for students to get their education in Western countries in order to achieve future success. This inter-connected world of ours permits the sharing of knowledge and employment opportunities that weren't possible before the Internet age. Kids who grow up studying in Korea, China, India, and in every other part of the globe can still access the level of education that Canadian and American kids have long accessed. Furthermore, the kids in the non-Western countries usually study harder and achieve more than their Western counterparts. And taken one step further, they usually learn multiple languages. So I'm actually starting to believe that my kids will be better off staying here in Korea.
About a week ago, I met a young man, an overseas Korean now living here. He grew up in England and Kenya, and he speaks four languages (English, Korean, Japanese, and Spanish). He told me that he sometimes feels like he has no real home in this world, no grounding in a particular culture. This is probably a common sentiment of students who grew up attending international schools in multiple countries, and at first glance it seems like a reasonable argument against the international school experience. Yet, I can't help but believe that these kids are best suited for the world of globalization. They don't necessarily see the world in nationalistic tones. They typically speak a variety of languages. And they make contacts with people from all over the world that ought to increase the chances of success when they finish with their formal education.
On a personal level, I have long felt a desire to travel the world and experience different cultures. I'll admit, however, that I'm more comfortable sticking close to Western values while living overseas. I'm stuck speaking English (although there is no better language to be stuck on), as I just find the study required to learn new languages too bothersome. But my girls are well on their way to being bilingual. I'd love for them to pick up Mandarin, maybe Japanese, as well as a European language or two.
Which brings me back to the question of the day: teach in Canada or overseas? Sure, there are good reasons to think about Canada (family and friends). But I'm thinking more and more with each passing day that I belong overseas. I love the energy of Korea, and I really like the fact that I'm in demand here. In Canada, I'm just another guy in a depression-hit country, competing with many people like myself. Not so here.
I might still change my mind a year from now, but for now I'm leaning toward returning to Korea.
Monday, May 4, 2009
Connecting Dots - Part 2
Film school was a lot of fun, and I did well there. Considering I had had no previous experience with screenwriting, I can say I learned a lot. And when I completed the program, I did what anybody who is serious about a career in film needs to do: I volunteered. I helped co-produce a series of student films in the summer of '08. I provided script coverage for a production company in Vancouver. I tutored game design students who were developing storylines for their games. And I wrote a couple of short scripts, with hopes of getting them produced by directors I know.
But as our family financial resources dwindled, it became imperative that I make money. So I got a job teaching at a business college, and my interest in the film business took a backseat. Eventually, with the support of family, I decided to apply for teachers college. This September, I will attend OISE (University of Toronto) to get my teaching certificate.
And my screenwriting career seems to be fully stalled.
The truth be told, I'm not sure I have the requisite passion and discipline to be a professional screenwriter. Thus, I really do wonder if I just wasted the past two years of my life (including blowing our savings).
This brings me back to what Steve Jobs said (as quoted in Tom Friedman's book), that you can't connect the dots looking forward. So, I'm going to trust that down the road, my screenwriting training will serve me in some capacity related to teaching. Instead of fretting about the past, I'm going to focus on teaching now.
----------------
As for teaching liberal arts, let me say that I acknowledge the importance of math and science in the curriculum. They are essential for today's students in an increasingly technological society. But what are the arguments for continuing to fund arts programs? As Friedman discusses in The World is Flat, so many of today's knowledge jobs -- you know, 'left brain' work such as sequencing and analysis -- can be done more cheaply overseas. At the same time, jobs requiring creativity (right brain ability) will become more and more prevalent in our part of the world. Thus, music education will be given its due, as will art and design, for these are the disciplines that evoke creativity in other subjects.
As for my teachable subjects -- history and politics -- I want to see integration of these subjects with others in the curriculum. I recall doing a group project in my M.A. program where I and two other teachers developed a cross-curricular study unit around the study of World War Two. I made a study unit for history around the Great Man theory; another group member did a math unit looking at casualty figures for the different countries involved; and the last teacher created a music unit that studied musical compositions that came out of the period and inspired events. This type of curriculum integration is the future of education, and this is where liberal arts will find their rightful place.
But as our family financial resources dwindled, it became imperative that I make money. So I got a job teaching at a business college, and my interest in the film business took a backseat. Eventually, with the support of family, I decided to apply for teachers college. This September, I will attend OISE (University of Toronto) to get my teaching certificate.
And my screenwriting career seems to be fully stalled.
The truth be told, I'm not sure I have the requisite passion and discipline to be a professional screenwriter. Thus, I really do wonder if I just wasted the past two years of my life (including blowing our savings).
This brings me back to what Steve Jobs said (as quoted in Tom Friedman's book), that you can't connect the dots looking forward. So, I'm going to trust that down the road, my screenwriting training will serve me in some capacity related to teaching. Instead of fretting about the past, I'm going to focus on teaching now.
----------------
As for teaching liberal arts, let me say that I acknowledge the importance of math and science in the curriculum. They are essential for today's students in an increasingly technological society. But what are the arguments for continuing to fund arts programs? As Friedman discusses in The World is Flat, so many of today's knowledge jobs -- you know, 'left brain' work such as sequencing and analysis -- can be done more cheaply overseas. At the same time, jobs requiring creativity (right brain ability) will become more and more prevalent in our part of the world. Thus, music education will be given its due, as will art and design, for these are the disciplines that evoke creativity in other subjects.
As for my teachable subjects -- history and politics -- I want to see integration of these subjects with others in the curriculum. I recall doing a group project in my M.A. program where I and two other teachers developed a cross-curricular study unit around the study of World War Two. I made a study unit for history around the Great Man theory; another group member did a math unit looking at casualty figures for the different countries involved; and the last teacher created a music unit that studied musical compositions that came out of the period and inspired events. This type of curriculum integration is the future of education, and this is where liberal arts will find their rightful place.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Connecting Dots - Part 1
I'm very much a believer in a concept that others may put less faith in: that everything happens for a reason.
If I go back to important life choices I've made, particularly since high school, I can see how those choices appear to have been utterly necessary to get where I am today. This way of thinking has long influenced my own understanding of how I met my wife, who is Korean. If I connect enough dots, I end up back at high school in Wiarton, Ontario.
It started off when I became good friends with a guy named Terry. We met in the summer of 1985 while playing ball together, and we went on to become best friends within the next couple of years while attending high school. It just so happened that his dad, Ernie, was the principal of the school. Ernie was a fine educator, and an even better human being who made me feel welcome in his home whenever I visited Terry. So in late 1989, when it came time to apply for college or university, and I had chosen broadcasting school, Ernie took me aside and recommended going to university to get a degree instead. But not just any university. He recommended the University of Guelph, where Terry was going to go. For some reason, I capitulated and accepted Guelph's offer of admission early in 1990. This would be the first dot connecting to my wife.
While at U of G, where Terry and I roomed together in our first year in residence, I met a guy named Kenn. He was an animal science major, or an Aggie. Terry and I became great friends with Kenn, going on road trips to Cooperstown, New York, and Chicago, Illinois. I also had the good fortune of attending two Aggie-sponsored trips thanks to my friendship with Kenn. On the second of those trips (to New York City), I met this girl named Miriam, who was a classmate of Kenn's. Miriam and I began dating early in 1995. This was the second dot.
My relationship with Miriam wasn't destined to last very long. I already had plans of going overseas for a year, and Miriam wasn't interested in following me at the time. Nevertheless, there was a stroke of good fortune involved -- for me, at least. I had committed to going to Korea to teach, and Miriam just happened to have two friends teaching at a school in Seoul. Through Miriam's friends, I was able to sign a contract with Universal Language Institute. This was the third dot.
Why? Because in the same month that I began teaching at ULI, a young college student with the English name Heather began taking English classes at ULI. Before the end of 1995, Heather and I began dating, and we soon recognized a great similarity in our personalities and interests. Of course, we eventually got married. I still believe that it was always my cosmic mission to find Heather, and neither one of us can imagine being married to anyone else. All those important life choices I made brought me to her.
These are the dots I have connected with the benefit of hindsight. And one might ask, what's the purpose of writing about this?
I've just finished reading a chapter of Thomas Friedman's The World is Flat, in which he talks about what it will take for people in the 21st century to compete in a globalized society. In one section about teaching liberal arts in schools, he quotes Steve Jobs' commencement speech at Stanford University in 2005. Jobs tells how he dropped out of college after six months because the classes were not stimulating enough. However, he continued to "drop in" on courses that he thought sounded interesting. One course was about calligraphy. He explains how learning about fonts and spacing in the calligraphy course may have seemed like a perfectly innocuous way to spend time. But ten years later, when he and Steve Wozniak were developing the first Macintosh computer, Jobs brought that experience in the calligraphy class to the design of the computer's graphical interface -- and changed the history of the personal computer forever.
Jobs goes on to say, "You can't connect the dots looking forward; you can only connect them looking backwards. So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future." (Friedman, p.318)
This idea is important to me for two reasons at this time. First, I've spent a fair amount of time over the past few months mentally dissecting my choice two years ago to attend Vancouver Film School, only to find myself immediately after graduation getting back into teaching. Was that choice wise? So far, it seems to have done nothing more than bankrupt me, with no likelihood that I will gain from the choice I made to study screenwriting.
The second reason relates to the bigger idea that Friedman argues in this chapter, which is that we need liberal arts in the education system. As someone planning to become a history teacher at the high school level, I find myself wondering how to explain the need for such programs when so many people say we need to focus on math and science.
With these two reasons in mind, I will explore them in my next post... for this one has gotten way too long.
If I go back to important life choices I've made, particularly since high school, I can see how those choices appear to have been utterly necessary to get where I am today. This way of thinking has long influenced my own understanding of how I met my wife, who is Korean. If I connect enough dots, I end up back at high school in Wiarton, Ontario.
It started off when I became good friends with a guy named Terry. We met in the summer of 1985 while playing ball together, and we went on to become best friends within the next couple of years while attending high school. It just so happened that his dad, Ernie, was the principal of the school. Ernie was a fine educator, and an even better human being who made me feel welcome in his home whenever I visited Terry. So in late 1989, when it came time to apply for college or university, and I had chosen broadcasting school, Ernie took me aside and recommended going to university to get a degree instead. But not just any university. He recommended the University of Guelph, where Terry was going to go. For some reason, I capitulated and accepted Guelph's offer of admission early in 1990. This would be the first dot connecting to my wife.
While at U of G, where Terry and I roomed together in our first year in residence, I met a guy named Kenn. He was an animal science major, or an Aggie. Terry and I became great friends with Kenn, going on road trips to Cooperstown, New York, and Chicago, Illinois. I also had the good fortune of attending two Aggie-sponsored trips thanks to my friendship with Kenn. On the second of those trips (to New York City), I met this girl named Miriam, who was a classmate of Kenn's. Miriam and I began dating early in 1995. This was the second dot.
My relationship with Miriam wasn't destined to last very long. I already had plans of going overseas for a year, and Miriam wasn't interested in following me at the time. Nevertheless, there was a stroke of good fortune involved -- for me, at least. I had committed to going to Korea to teach, and Miriam just happened to have two friends teaching at a school in Seoul. Through Miriam's friends, I was able to sign a contract with Universal Language Institute. This was the third dot.
Why? Because in the same month that I began teaching at ULI, a young college student with the English name Heather began taking English classes at ULI. Before the end of 1995, Heather and I began dating, and we soon recognized a great similarity in our personalities and interests. Of course, we eventually got married. I still believe that it was always my cosmic mission to find Heather, and neither one of us can imagine being married to anyone else. All those important life choices I made brought me to her.
These are the dots I have connected with the benefit of hindsight. And one might ask, what's the purpose of writing about this?
I've just finished reading a chapter of Thomas Friedman's The World is Flat, in which he talks about what it will take for people in the 21st century to compete in a globalized society. In one section about teaching liberal arts in schools, he quotes Steve Jobs' commencement speech at Stanford University in 2005. Jobs tells how he dropped out of college after six months because the classes were not stimulating enough. However, he continued to "drop in" on courses that he thought sounded interesting. One course was about calligraphy. He explains how learning about fonts and spacing in the calligraphy course may have seemed like a perfectly innocuous way to spend time. But ten years later, when he and Steve Wozniak were developing the first Macintosh computer, Jobs brought that experience in the calligraphy class to the design of the computer's graphical interface -- and changed the history of the personal computer forever.
Jobs goes on to say, "You can't connect the dots looking forward; you can only connect them looking backwards. So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future." (Friedman, p.318)
This idea is important to me for two reasons at this time. First, I've spent a fair amount of time over the past few months mentally dissecting my choice two years ago to attend Vancouver Film School, only to find myself immediately after graduation getting back into teaching. Was that choice wise? So far, it seems to have done nothing more than bankrupt me, with no likelihood that I will gain from the choice I made to study screenwriting.
The second reason relates to the bigger idea that Friedman argues in this chapter, which is that we need liberal arts in the education system. As someone planning to become a history teacher at the high school level, I find myself wondering how to explain the need for such programs when so many people say we need to focus on math and science.
With these two reasons in mind, I will explore them in my next post... for this one has gotten way too long.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Your Online Profile
Are you the kind of person who posts embarrassing photos of yourself from last night's party? Do you write angry rants about your boss on Facebook? Or do you get into flame wars with other folks on message boards, all under the assumption that you remain anonymous?
This is an issue - the question of Internet anonymity - that people are only beginning to think about. Maybe they should be learning about their developing online profile from early on in life.
People use Google to do vanity searches. That is, they enter their own name in the Google search box to see what comes up. But the argument that this tendency indicates an ever growing narcissism in society misses a more important point. Other people are also Googling your name: your friends, a potential employer, even a new boy/girlfriend. People want to know as much about you as they can, and Google's online repository of information just might give these people what they need to know to decide if you are worth their time. It's an important thing to remember that whenever you spend time surfing the Web, you leave traces of your digital DNA everywhere you go.
Educator/blogger Will Richardson talks about the need for teachers to learn how to guide their students towards developing positive online profiles. This is a matter that I take seriously, especially given my future in the teaching profession; thus, I'm looking for the developing trends in online profiling.
Google, in fact, is making it a bit easier for people to have some control over the information that Googlers uncover when searching your name. The Google Profile will appear at the top of search listings when someone enters your name. Of course, other results will still appear, so you can't have complete control over the results. (Note: here's my profile)
Nevertheless, there are things that people can do to exercise a certain amount of influence over search results. Aside from the Google Profile, you can publish yourself as much as possible in blogs, social networking sites, or on YouTube. And when you do so, make sure that what you publish portrays you in a positive light. In my case, I've been making personal websites and blogs for the past eight years about my travels and other experiences. And when YouTube started to become popular, I created over two dozen short movies from old home video footage and posted these movies online. As more and more people have watched these videos, they have added their own opinions (generally positive) that contribute to my overall online profile. In fact, many of my videos have been embedded in other websites all over the world, which increases the number of search results (again, mostly positive) when someone Googles me.
If you have a common name, it may be hard for people to differentiate the search results. My name, Phil Schroeder, is common enough that a Google search turns up the following: a musician from Oakland, California; a Facebook profile for a namesake in Phoenix, Arizona; a minister in Georgia; and a recording artist from Rancho Cordova, California. And that's just on the first page of search results. There are some results for me, as well, but people specifically looking for me will have a busy time sorting through all the different people with my name.
However, I've been rather fortunate to have used my online handle, philseoul, since my earliest days on the Web. It's my email username, my blogging handle, and my YouTube profile name. Consequently, if I type 'philseoul' into the Google search box, I get almost exclusively relevant results. The first result is my YouTube channel. The second leads to my Twitter profile. The next unique result is my most recently added movie to YouTube. The next is a website that has aggregated my videos on an international site. Further down the first page is a link to a short review I posted on a recipe site back in 2003. At the bottom of page one is a link to my StumbleUpon profile. And relevant results keep on appearing (1160 total search results), the vast majority of which refer to my sprawling online presence.
Because of the success of finding search results under my handle, I have added 'philseoul' as a Google search term to my resume and email signature. I know that people are likely to Google me anyway, so this is my way of having them do it on my terms.
This is an issue - the question of Internet anonymity - that people are only beginning to think about. Maybe they should be learning about their developing online profile from early on in life.
People use Google to do vanity searches. That is, they enter their own name in the Google search box to see what comes up. But the argument that this tendency indicates an ever growing narcissism in society misses a more important point. Other people are also Googling your name: your friends, a potential employer, even a new boy/girlfriend. People want to know as much about you as they can, and Google's online repository of information just might give these people what they need to know to decide if you are worth their time. It's an important thing to remember that whenever you spend time surfing the Web, you leave traces of your digital DNA everywhere you go.
Educator/blogger Will Richardson talks about the need for teachers to learn how to guide their students towards developing positive online profiles. This is a matter that I take seriously, especially given my future in the teaching profession; thus, I'm looking for the developing trends in online profiling.
Google, in fact, is making it a bit easier for people to have some control over the information that Googlers uncover when searching your name. The Google Profile will appear at the top of search listings when someone enters your name. Of course, other results will still appear, so you can't have complete control over the results. (Note: here's my profile)
Nevertheless, there are things that people can do to exercise a certain amount of influence over search results. Aside from the Google Profile, you can publish yourself as much as possible in blogs, social networking sites, or on YouTube. And when you do so, make sure that what you publish portrays you in a positive light. In my case, I've been making personal websites and blogs for the past eight years about my travels and other experiences. And when YouTube started to become popular, I created over two dozen short movies from old home video footage and posted these movies online. As more and more people have watched these videos, they have added their own opinions (generally positive) that contribute to my overall online profile. In fact, many of my videos have been embedded in other websites all over the world, which increases the number of search results (again, mostly positive) when someone Googles me.
If you have a common name, it may be hard for people to differentiate the search results. My name, Phil Schroeder, is common enough that a Google search turns up the following: a musician from Oakland, California; a Facebook profile for a namesake in Phoenix, Arizona; a minister in Georgia; and a recording artist from Rancho Cordova, California. And that's just on the first page of search results. There are some results for me, as well, but people specifically looking for me will have a busy time sorting through all the different people with my name.
However, I've been rather fortunate to have used my online handle, philseoul, since my earliest days on the Web. It's my email username, my blogging handle, and my YouTube profile name. Consequently, if I type 'philseoul' into the Google search box, I get almost exclusively relevant results. The first result is my YouTube channel. The second leads to my Twitter profile. The next unique result is my most recently added movie to YouTube. The next is a website that has aggregated my videos on an international site. Further down the first page is a link to a short review I posted on a recipe site back in 2003. At the bottom of page one is a link to my StumbleUpon profile. And relevant results keep on appearing (1160 total search results), the vast majority of which refer to my sprawling online presence.
Because of the success of finding search results under my handle, I have added 'philseoul' as a Google search term to my resume and email signature. I know that people are likely to Google me anyway, so this is my way of having them do it on my terms.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Introduction to Version 2.0
Here I go again.
The last time I posted under the blog "Brain of Phil" was March 19, 2007. Two-plus years later, I'm reviving the concept as The Brain of Phil 2.0. This blog will largely follow the model of the original, but it represents my worldly thoughts after a two-year hiatus to pursue other creative interests.
As I wait for my B.Ed. program at the University of Toronto to begin this coming September, I am once again writing about connections I see between various stories (news events, books, etc.). In the globalized, inter-connected world of the 21st century, people have the opportunity to contribute to the pool of human knowledge. We can look at multiple stories and/or events, ponder their relationships, produce new insight based on our analysis, and then make our ideas available to the public.
Since I last posted to the original Brain of Phil, new technological advances have developed that allow even greater distribution of our insights. There is the social networking phenomenon Facebook. I first got onto Facebook in May 2007, just after moving back to Canada, and now I get the daily "news" of my friends' lives. It's addictive and quite fun, but it also raises many issues of privacy, especially since so many users are young people who don't think about the consequences of laying their personal lives out in the open. (For an example, read about the Vancouver teen who was expelled from school for using Facebook in a less-than-intelligent way.)
Another development was the release of the iPhone, which brought together the capability of accessing all kinds of media along with the ability to communicate by voice or data in a popular, user-friendly device. Yes, I know that such capability technically existed before the iPhone. But just as podcasting existed but never really took off prior to iTunes adding podcasts to their store, it is the development of the iPhone by the folks at Apple (re: Steve Jobs) that began to show the potential of anytime, anywhere connectivity. At least, that's what I think.
Well, I could go on, but a lot of what I feel like saying is pretty self-evident to anyone who pays even the remotest amount of attention to what is going on. I will just say that The Brain of Phil 2.0 is my mental playpen. It is my attempt to make sense of the complex, yet fascinating world in which I live. It will not always look scholarly -- after all, it is a blog. But I hope it makes some kind of impact on the world.
The last time I posted under the blog "Brain of Phil" was March 19, 2007. Two-plus years later, I'm reviving the concept as The Brain of Phil 2.0. This blog will largely follow the model of the original, but it represents my worldly thoughts after a two-year hiatus to pursue other creative interests.
As I wait for my B.Ed. program at the University of Toronto to begin this coming September, I am once again writing about connections I see between various stories (news events, books, etc.). In the globalized, inter-connected world of the 21st century, people have the opportunity to contribute to the pool of human knowledge. We can look at multiple stories and/or events, ponder their relationships, produce new insight based on our analysis, and then make our ideas available to the public.
Since I last posted to the original Brain of Phil, new technological advances have developed that allow even greater distribution of our insights. There is the social networking phenomenon Facebook. I first got onto Facebook in May 2007, just after moving back to Canada, and now I get the daily "news" of my friends' lives. It's addictive and quite fun, but it also raises many issues of privacy, especially since so many users are young people who don't think about the consequences of laying their personal lives out in the open. (For an example, read about the Vancouver teen who was expelled from school for using Facebook in a less-than-intelligent way.)
Another development was the release of the iPhone, which brought together the capability of accessing all kinds of media along with the ability to communicate by voice or data in a popular, user-friendly device. Yes, I know that such capability technically existed before the iPhone. But just as podcasting existed but never really took off prior to iTunes adding podcasts to their store, it is the development of the iPhone by the folks at Apple (re: Steve Jobs) that began to show the potential of anytime, anywhere connectivity. At least, that's what I think.
Well, I could go on, but a lot of what I feel like saying is pretty self-evident to anyone who pays even the remotest amount of attention to what is going on. I will just say that The Brain of Phil 2.0 is my mental playpen. It is my attempt to make sense of the complex, yet fascinating world in which I live. It will not always look scholarly -- after all, it is a blog. But I hope it makes some kind of impact on the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
