Changing the world line by line

Posted on by

The FT today has an article about the creativity of computer code, which includes this wonderful quotation from Ada Lovelace:

“The Analytical Engine does not occupy common ground with mere ‘calculating machines,’ ” she wrote elsewhere. “It holds a position wholly its own … A new, a vast, and a powerful language is developed … in which to wield its truths so that these may become of more speedy and accurate practical application for the purposes of mankind than the means hitherto in our possession have rendered possible. Thus not only the mental and the material, but the theoretical and the practical in the mathematical world, are brought into more intimate and effective connexion with each other.”

The feature is an extract from Vikram Chandra’s [amazon_link id=”0571310303″ target=”_blank” ]Geek Sublime: Writing Fiction, Coding Software[/amazon_link], which sounds intriguing on the basis of the article.

It’s many years since I had to write code – it was Fortran in the early 1980s – other than bits of HTML for fun. But I always enjoyed it and certainly occasionally experienced that sense of flow you get from absorption in a creative experience. In a way, code can be more creative than natural languages because it has to operate within the strict constraint of formal logic.

Chandra ends here:

“But programs are not just algorithms as concepts or applied ideas; they are algorithms in motion. Code is uniquely kinetic. It acts and interacts with itself, with the world. In code, the mental and the material are one. Code moves. It changes the world.”

[amazon_image id=”0571310303″ link=”true” target=”_blank” size=”medium” ]Geek Sublime: Writing Fiction, Coding Software[/amazon_image]

The education factory

Posted on by

The exchange on yesterday’s post about the importance of ‘Open’ schools and organisations took me to read John Dewey’s Pedagogical Creed of 1897 – it’s well worth reading in full:

“With the advent of democracy and modern industrial conditions, it is impossible to foretell definitely just what civilization will be twenty years from now. Hence it is impossible to prepare the child for any precise set of conditions. To prepare him for the future life means to give him command of himself; it means so to train him that he will have the full and ready use of all his capacities; that his eye and ear and hand may be tools ready to command, that his judgment may be capable of grasping the conditions under which it has to work, and the executive forces be trained to act economically and efficiently.

“I believe that much of present education fails because it neglects this fundamental principle of the school as a form of community life. It conceives the school as a place where certain information is to be given, where certain lessons are to be ]earned, or where certain habits are to be formed. The value of these is conceived as lying largely in the remote future; the child must do these things for the sake of something else he is to do; they are mere preparation. As a result they do not become a part of the life experience of the child and so are not truly educative.”

And again, I recommend [amazon_link id=”1909979015″ target=”_blank” ]Open [/amazon_link]by David Price – it’s about work as well as education, by someone who is frustrated that our post-post-industrial societies cling stubbornly the mass-production model of learning. We churn out factory-processed young people and expect them to work at the frontier of the high-tech, creative economy – no wonder everyone is getting worried about robots, who are better than humans at the factory tasks.

[amazon_image id=”1909979015″ link=”true” target=”_blank” size=”medium” ]Open: How we’ll work, live and learn in the future[/amazon_image]

On being open

Posted on by

In 1981 the Labour MP George Foulkes drafted the ‘Control of Space Invaders (and other electronic games) Bill’ because he thought it was addictive and causing deviant behaviour. The bill was defeated – but by only 20 votes in the House of Commons.Mr Foulkes was obviously very persuasive in his speech about the effects of games on the young:

“They play truant, miss meals, and give up other normal activity to play “space invaders”. They become crazed, with eyes glazed, oblivious to everything around them, as they play the machines. It is difficult to appreciate unless one has seen it for oneself. I suggest that right hon. and hon. Members who have not seen it should go incognito to an arcade or café in their own areas and see the effect that it is having on young people.”

It’s tempting to laugh, but recall that there are still serious voices urging control over childrens’ use of video games or online access in general. Anybody who watches children using online resources either in play or study will know how enormous the potential is for their learning and creativity. Of course, most schools ban mobile use and constrain use of social media and  internet access, and there are obvious risks to be managed, but it means that the enormous potential is untapped.

For the first chapter or so of [amazon_link id=”1909979015″ target=”_blank” ]Open[/amazon_link] by David Price, I was disappointed, although (because?) it had been praised so enormously by people I respect. The first part sets out the case that we are churning out mass produced children for the post-industrial age, and it isn’t working. The children are as bored as can be, the testing and league tables distort incentives for schools and discourage them from innovating, and by the time they get to 18 young people have been drilled into expecting to be told whatever they need to know to jump through the next hoop. No politician can risk being honest about this. Of course, this is all true. But it’s been known for years, decades even. (I even wrote about it myself in 2001.)

[amazon_image id=”1909979015″ link=”true” target=”_blank” size=”medium” ]Open: How we’ll work, live and learn in the future[/amazon_image]

But before long, I was thoroughly enjoying this book. Part of the enjoyment comes from agreeing so wholeheartedly with what David Price has to say about the need for a complete re-engineering of so many organisations – schools and businesses so that they face outwards, engage with all relevant communities, and above all enable their students or employees to become creative and enthusiastic learners. Schools in particular are set up to do exactly the opposite – testing of individuals is seen as the only way to measure educational success yet it actively discourages collaboration, a key skill in the workplace.

Price urges readers to just get on with remodelling their organisations. “We are beginning to realise that we don’t have to wait for those who govern locally or nationally to act on our behalf. We now have the means to act autonomously.” Of course there are constraints – schools have to jump over the league table and testing hurdles. But there’s scope to just go ahead and remodel the approach to learning beyond that.

The book touches on MOOCs, quoting Arthur C Clarke: “Teachers who can be replaced by a machine should be.” Price, like me, believes that some successors to today’s MOOCs will overturn universities in the way file-sharing did for albums and the record industry. Universities are vital civic and educational institutions but they will need to find new delivery models both in what they offer online and what they offer face-to-face.

There are lots of examples of open organisations in [amazon_link id=”1909979015″ target=”_blank” ]Open[/amazon_link]. I was especially struck by a quotation from Patrick McKenna of Ingenious Media: “We give a lot of our knowledge away… The reason we don’t worry about giving that knowledge away is because most people can’t implement what they know. The capital value of something these days is the ability to implement it rather than to create it originally.” This is a profound point with lots of implications.

Finally, the book notes the disjuncture between life and politics: “If schools are coming directly into competition with the learning opportunities available in the informal social space, it has to be said that this is a pressure which barely registers within the political discourse. The gaping hole in the middle of the public debate on schooling is that we can’t even agree on what schools are actually for.” Preparation for jobs? Child development? National economic competitiveness? Civic cohesion? Policy mushes all of these together and compels children to find their own way through the obstacle course in between them and the thrill of learning. Anybody with a teenager will know how thoroughly they’ve had all the enthusiasm beaten out of them by a decade of compulsory schooling for tests.

The book is slightly prone to educationalese but it’s very clearly written. Even if you start out agreeing – as I do – the many examples are interesting and useful. I’ll be giving this book to quite a few people, I think.

As a final treat, it introduced me to this fabulous course.

 

What does Joni Mitchell have to say about growth?

Posted on by

Here is Andrew Sentance at the very successful ‘official’ launch last night of his new Perspective book, [amazon_link id=”1907994157″ target=”_blank” ]Rediscovering Growth: After the Crisis[/amazon_link].

Andrew Sentance citing Joni Mitchell

Andrew gave an excellent talk at the CPS, culminating in a line from Joni Mitchell’s Big Yellow Taxi: “You don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone.” (The point being that average annual real GDP growth from the mid-1980s to 2007 in the UK was 3.3%, a much higher figure than I would have guessed.) To whet your appetite for the book, he’s also done a write-up in City AM this morning.

[amazon_image id=”1907994157″ link=”true” target=”_blank” size=”medium” ]Rediscovering Growth: After the Crisis (Perspectives)[/amazon_image]

The dollar, the unthinkable and the inevitable

Posted on by

What is [amazon_link id=”0691161127″ target=”_blank” ]The Dollar Trap[/amazon_link]? In this book Eswar Prasad argues that the US grip on the global financial system has increased, not diminished, since the global (or North Atlantic, if you’re in China) financial crisis. The core of the argument is that foreigners (ie. non-Americans) have too much invested in dollar assets to permit a significant decline in the US currency. What Barry Eichengreen flagged in his book as the country’s [amazon_link id=”0199642478″ target=”_blank” ]Exorbitant Privilege[/amazon_link] continues (he too predicted there was nothing to knock it off its perch, despite the ‘rise and fall’ subtitle). The chart of the day in The Economist today, setting out the decline in emerging market currencies during the past nine months – accelerating just recently  – only underlines the asymmetry.

[amazon_image id=”0691161127″ link=”true” target=”_blank” size=”medium” ]The Dollar Trap: How the U.S. Dollar Tightened Its Grip on Global Finance[/amazon_image]

It can’t last, of course. Danny Quah’s research (pdf) shows that the world’s centre of gravity for economic activity has shifted from the Atlantic firmly into Asia. [amazon_link id=”B00I124BKO” target=”_blank” ]Jim O’Neill argues that behind the BRICs are coming the MINTs[/amazon_link], and even a near-term decline in the growth of emerging markets will not reverse the shift. Yet as Prasad concludes, “The situation is rife with paradoxes.” The US relative status in the world economy is inexorably shrinking, it is a fiscal mess, the monetary taper will cause havoc, yet despite this fragility, it is hard to see what can dislodge the dollar from its perch.

I’m certainly not going to risk a prediction. But I would observe that in general fragile systems can persist in that state for a long time, but when the end comes, it’s often a sudden and catastrophic collapse. The unthinkable can become the inevitable.