[wllknj]

The author is best known for complaining about modern education and having a low opinion of his students. The fact that he would respond to students not understanding the book he assigned by telling them their phones are the problem is unsurprising.

Here is a pretty good summary of his MO which apparently hasn't changed much since a few years ago. https://hookandeye.ca/2016/03/23/the-unbearable-privilege-of...

[thisone]

ahh, I did think that first student "quote" seemed made up by someone who doesn't listen to students.

[darkmighty]

Indeed, most of my education was without (smart) phones, and teachers rarely had my raw undivided attention. I were quite frequently working on more interesting stuff (hobbies, math, stories), daydreaming, etc. Students are humans, and they have preferences -- and that's an excellent sign (that creates differentiation, that makes students more cognitively flexible, more adaptive). My preferences don't align perfectly with the curriculum and I were free to explore as I wanted (without disturbing other students of course), as long as I did my duty of learning enough to pass the course. In the worst case I've always had the refuge of my mind.

To demand sole attention unconditionally and continuously is thought-police-alike.

That said, there are certainly perils with too much distraction and smartphone usage. I'm a firm believer in human instinct guiding toward positive usage of technology, but there are unquestionably failings in our instincts -- there have been for quite a while.

Television was a big one for me -- it's immensely more attractive than a book; but books can be much more gratifying and educational once you get started; it's just more work. Yet there was always a lot of value added by judicious usage of television -- documentaries, non-vacuous talk shows, good film, etc.

Online games too -- I've spent a good chunk of my childhood in front a PC playing an MMORPG. Seems like a waste of time (and some of it was), but I've experienced a world of politics, fierce competition, intense cooperation, trading and all sorts of economical endeavors, friendship, cruelty and kindness in the safety of my home, with people of diverse backgrounds and cultures; I've learned a English and became extremely proficient almost entirely through the game. It also ran the risk of getting me addicted and isolating me entirely from real life social interactions; that risk was averted (and I would certainly still have a dearth of social interaction due to family problems) -- mostly through my own good judgement but also from pleads of caution from my parents and siblings. I still remember events, lessons and friends from those days.

Surprise: we'll have to keep dealing with the ambivalence of technology.

---

"The one solid fact is that the difficulties are due to an evolution that, while useful and constructive, is also dangerous. Can we produce the required adjustments with the necessary speed? The most hopeful answer is that the human species has been subjected to similar tests before and seems to have a congenital ability to come through, after varying amounts of trouble. To ask in advance for a complete recipe would be unreason­able. We can specify only the human qualities required: patience, flexibility, intelligence."

From 1955: Can we survive technology?

http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~kite/doc/von_Neumann_1955.pdf

"What kind of action does this situation call for? What-ever one feels inclined to do, one decisive trait must be considered: the very techniques that create the dangers and the instabilities are in themselves useful, or closely related to the useful. In fact, the more useful they could be, the more unstabilizing their effects can also be. It is not a particular perverse destructiveness of one particular invention that creates danger. Technological power, technological efficiency as such, is an ambivalent achievement. Its danger is intrinsic. "

[will4274]

He's also one of those people who fetishizes the humanities. See his article "If I Didn't Laugh I'd Cry: An Essay on Happiness, Productivity, and the Death of Humanities Education"

> Productivity has become the raison d'etre of Western capitalist societies, supported by its fundamental principles, quantity and impact. Both of these principles have taken hold in universities, and both place" useful" applications of knowledge above exploration of the human condition, above doubting, questioning, and wondering. The predominance of this ethic has forced humanities faculties into the awkward position of either repackaging their offerings so as to support the productive ethic or insisting on their integrity and facing charges of irrelevance. Though the strategy suggests choice, both options lead to the same end: the elimination of genuine humanities education. No wonder humanities professors are unhappy. If we are going to learn once again what a genuine and robust education in the humanities is about, we're going to have to explore that strange thing on which humanities education ultimately rests--our humanity

I find such essays to be bland to the point of absurdity. Humanities advocates repeatedly claim that "only the humanities" provide certain skills like "critical thinking" without really presenting any evidence to the point. In my (admittedly anecdotal) experience, engineers took classes outside of engineering and found them thought provoking but lacking in rigour while humanity majors simply found engineering classes too hard. My advice for those seeking a well-rounded education is simple: study engineering and take electives in humanities. Don't major in the humanities, because you'll surround yourself with people who look down on the hard sciences, and end up with a distinctively not well-rounded education.