reflections of a budding self-directed learner.

and so it begins.  I came to class on the first day, a first-semester freshman thinking I had signed up for "Civilization 2: Letters."  I soon learned that this was not just any Civilization class.  It turned out to be a radical fusion of the future and the past and us in between.  Digital Civilization changed the way I look at learning, and forced me to change the way I go about learning as well.

1. History.  I have heard that history repeats itself, but in this class I was able to learn of real examples.  The parallels between past and present were often intriguing.  I looked long and hard around in all the internets for historic-digital parallels.  I read about Galileo and crowdsourcing and I tried to read as many of the other students' blog posts as I could.  My blog posts about historical context include:

• undercover dogs.
• the four causes.
• a modern-day mr. smith.
• the race for the double helix.
• the experiment.

2. Core Concepts.  I will never forget.  Control.  Information.  Openness.  Participation.  I admit, I cannot help but see those concepts in many facets of daily life.  I think the class focused particularly on openness, which was the cause of much reflection for me on the advantages and disadvantages of increased openness.  Some core concept posts include:

• openness and participation in science.
• cocaine and google's new privacy policy.
• global effects of the digital age.
• for the birds.

3. Digital Literacy.  I am still learning what that term really means, but at the same time I realize that its definition is forever changing.  I suppose part of being digitally literate is accepting the fact that I will need to constantly adapt.  This class helped me with that as well; I had to adapt to changes, as well as a deliberate lack of structure.  I had to use technological mediums to facilitate my own learning.  Before, I had always thought of social networking and other similar things as something completely different from my educational experience.

• Consume.  Through researching for my different DigiCiv topics, I experienced firsthand the woes of internet research.  The internet is a great thing, and research is a snap.  But there's so much information to wade through, it is hard to know where to go to find what I'm looking for.  I wrote a little about this in an open-access dilemma.   
• Create.  We really did create something!  I have to admit, I didn't really understand the point of an ebook at the beginning of the semester, but now I can't wait to read it.  I learned from Digital Civilization that I shouldn't suppress the desire to create something worthwhile, and I shouldn't spend my time creating things for the wrong reasons.
• Connect.  Never before have I had a class where Google+ was mandatory.  It was definitely a different experience for me.  I learned about the benefits of being connected with classmates not only during class, but anytime I needed.  So many people in this class have great ideas, and I was able to access those and be better because of them.

4. Self-Directed Learning.  This was a major source of frustration, most of which came from my inability to consume intelligently, as I wrote earlier.  Every time I looked for something to blog about, I accessed such a random wave of information, I felt as though I was just surfing the internet instead of doing research.  But things got better!  Because of this class I gave some serious thought to how my learning can improve.  In order to be successful at whatever I pursue in life, I will have to learn to take the initiative.  I learned a lot about that in this class.  I tried my best to be self-directed, to act and not be acted upon, and to think independently.

5. Collaboration.  This was essential.  I realize now that this was the only class that I never felt alone in.  Basically everything we needed to do was group-related, and this was important because we will work with people for the rest of our lives.  I participated in Google+ hangouts, met with my groups at late hours, and used Google+ correspondence to coordinate with other group members.  I even wrote a blog post about collaboration called three cheers for teamwork.  I tried to work well with members of my group, communicate with others, and do my fair share of the work.

in conclusion.  Digital Civilization stands out among all of my other classes.  It was so different.  I'm not going to lie, it was frustrating.  It required me to think differently and put lots of effort into things that before I thought were of little value, like writing what I think on a blog.  But what I learned from this class will continue to influence my performance and experiences in many classes to come, and even after college.  It became part of my unforgettable first-semester experience.  Did I bite off a little more than I could chew?  Most definitely, and not just in this class.  I was a gung-ho returned missionary ready to take on everything.  I soon found that spreading myself thin wasn't as fun as I had thought it would be.  But I persevered and gave it my best.  And I'm glad I stuck around.

Thanks DigiCiv!  You're neat!

--garret.

Bidness: An Annotated Biblography

Bidness: An Annotated Bibliography

My research process...?  I don't feel that my research has been much of a process at all - a learning process at best.  I'm still figuring out how to find good, solid sources online.  With all the good stuff the Internet has brought, it has also made the unskilled searcher's quest for relevant and reliable information a bit harder.  It's been good for me, though.  Most of my research has led me to online articles; my book-centered research has been limited.  What really helped me to find some good sources and start to pull ideas together was talking to my Dad, who is an Internet entrepreneur.

Our group claim is that the Digital Revolution is creating opportunities.  This bibliography contains sources that attempt to show the opportunities that are being created through outsourcing and crowdsourcing, both of which would not be possible on such a large scale without the Internet.

Further Reading:

• Howe, Jeff. (Crowdsourcing: Why the Power of the Crowd Is Driving the Future of Business.  Crown Business, 2008).  Howe coined the term "crowdsourcing" in 2006 and makes a great case for its impact on society and business.  This book shows why crowdsourcing is a good thing for individuals as well as for humankind collectively.  [This was the book assigned to me in class, and I found it fascinating.]
• Rodriguez, Peter. (China, India, and the United States: The Future of Economic Supremacy.  The Great Courses, 2011).  This book/lecture addresses the recent shift in the global economy and its causes.  It is relevant because Rodriguez shows the positive effects of our changing economy, instead of a more narrow American view.  [I was given this book by my Dad, who is always learning.]
•  Bhagwati, Jagdish. (In Defense of Globalization. Oxford University Press, 2004).  The author shows that some of the negative ideas that people have about globalization are not as they seem, and that it is actually a good thing for many people.  [I found this as I scoured the Internet for books on outsourcing, but not as business guides].

Thought Leaders:

• Jonathan Reichental (Chief Information Officer at O'Reilly Media).  I found an article by him called "Will your business survive the digital revolution?" and I will look for other articles, especially on his website  http://www.reichental.com.  [I found him searching on Google+]
• Stan Bassett (President of TechMediaNetwork).  He started an Internet company a few years ago, and with the growth of the company he is now experiencing the good and the bad of outsourcing.  I have been talking with him about the effects of outsourcing in his business.  He has been able to give me good points on both the positive and the negative side of outsourcing - how it is creating and eliminating economic opportunity.
• Steve Gibson ( http://creatingenterprise.com/).  Although I haven't come across many articles written by him, I think contacting him would help.  He has created a successful business college called The Academy for Creating Enterprise, which teaches people in third-world countries basic principles for success in running a small business.  These people are provided with the resources they need to start a business.  That's an opportunity.  [I attended a few social entrepreneurship classes after returning from my mission and they were very interesting.] 
• Ross Dawson (rossdawson.com).  His website says he is a futurist, strategy advisor, entrepreneur, keynote speaker, and bestselling author.  He has authored a book called "Getting Results From Crowds," and I think he would be a good source of information about crowdsourcing (I found him on my Google+ feed, because I am following Crowdsourcing Week].

And...  I'll keep looking!  This is just the beginning.

global effects of the digital age.

The world has had its share of revolutions – some bloodier than others.  Some of the revolutions that have had the greatest impact on humankind and life as we know it were hardly bloody at all; they are the revolutions in which those dethroned are not rulers, but old ways of life.  The Industrial Revolution is among the most important of all revolutions because it has had lasting effects – both positive and negative – on human society.  Because of the changes it brought about, aspects of global economics have been irreversibly changed.  This same process is happening once again, this time as a product of the Digital Revolution.

The Industrial Revolution was born of human genius.  Curiosity and observation led to action, which led to innovation.  The results of that innovation were many, including the steam engine, telegraph, sewing machine, and cotton gin.  These new machines allowed for a new kind of production, one in which people could share the load of hard labor with equipment made specifically for the job.  This led to the implementation of the factory system, and efficiency became forever a crucial aspect of manufacturing just about anything.  Here are two socioeconomic changes brought about by the Industrial Revolution:

1. The standard of living and average income rose substantially.  New estimates released in 1983 by Peter Lindert and Jeffrey Williamson show that real wages in England doubled in 32 years from 1819 to 1851.  They suggest that this was due largely to the effects of the Industrial Revolution.
2. Innovation led to the disruption of certain trades.  For example, textile weavers found themselves replaced by machines that did the same job better, faster, and cheaper.  Their response was, naturally, to try to destroy the machines!  These displaced workers, called Luddites, were in a tough situation.  Change had become their enemy.  That is just one example of how new inventions, while they were great for many things, did make life difficult for those whose expertise was rendered obsolete.  There were some who could adapt, and others who had to start over.

The surge in innovative technology known as the Digital Revolution has already made a tremendous impact on the world, and we are still in the middle of it.  Among the great catalysts in this revolution are the personal computer and the internet.  With the unprecedented connectivity and accessibility that these have brought to the world, we have seen the same two effects mentioned above, but this time on a global level:

1. The global standard of living and average income is rising substantially.  I'm currently reading a book called "China, India, and the United States: The Future of Economic Supremacy" by Peter Rodriguez.  He states that in 1961, Americans had $31 in income for every $1 that Chinese had.  In 2010, the ratio was at $5 to $1.  That is a huge increase in income in only a 40-year period.  Much of that change is due to the shift in manufacturing jobs from the United States to China.  Something similar is happening in other countries, such as India, because that is where American companies are outsourcing.
2. Innovation is disrupting certain trades.  A classic example is that of newspapers.  I'm not saying that newspapers are on their way to extinction in the near future, but they are definitely headed in that direction.  Paper is just not flexible enough.  People no longer have to wait for yesterday's news to be printed, stacked, transported, and thrown on your porch by a kid on a bicycle.  Many newspaper companies are scrambling to find ways to adapt, and those who are not able to keep up are forced out of business.  There is even a website, updated daily, which is dedicated to documenting the demise of the traditional periodical - http://newspaperdeathwatch.com.  Innovation is good for the future, but sometimes bad for the past.  

            I have yet a lot to learn about economics, but it seems to me that both the Industrial and Digital Revolutions have been good for us.  I can't relate to those whose livelihood is in jeopardy because of new technology that is transforming their line of work.  But the positive effects of our new "flat world," as Thomas Friedman describes it, are many.  During the Industrial Revolution, those who wanted factory jobs had to go to the factories.  They had to take what they could, leave the rest, and move to the city.  With the Internet, the factories have moved to the people.  Someone whose opportunities were extremely limited simply because of his or her geographical location and uncontrollable circumstances is now able to gain valuable knowledge and use it to move forward and live better.  50 years from now, perhaps we will more clearly see the effects of the Digital Age and how it has really helped the world move toward global economic equality.

a modern-day mr. smith..?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

How thankful we should be for freedom of speech.  Even here in America, freedom of speech has been suppressed even in the not-so-distant future.  In the film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, freedom of speech and of the press is all but crushed by a powerful political machine when a senator attempts to expose corruption in Congress.  Senator Smith decides to filibuster, hoping that it will give enough time for his words to reach the American public.  Unfortunately, the political "Taylor" machine controls all the major newspapers in Smith's home state, so all that gets printed are lies.  Newspapers with "Stop Smith" are being churned out by the thousands while kids who are trying to spread the truth are getting pushed around and their red wagons are being run over.

I admit it, I sometimes tire of the ways people use their first amendment rights; some of which, frankly, I doubt the founders would put up with.  However, I believe that the freedom to speak that our nation enjoys - and at times abuses - is light years ahead of what it replaced.

Who are the "Mr. Smiths" of the 21st century?  One self-proclaimed Mr. Smith is known as Wikileaks.  The goal of Wikileaks is "to bring important news and information to the public."  Their website has a list of ways they have exposed corruption in the form of:

 War, killings, torture and detention 
 Government, trade and corporate transparency 
 Suppression of free speech and a free press 
 Diplomacy, spying and (counter-)intelligence 
 Ecology, climate, nature and sciences 
 Corruption, finance, taxes, trading 
 Censorship technology and internet filtering 
 Cults and other religious organizations 
 Abuse, violence, violation

 Wikileaks claims to be all about spreading truth, but should all truth be spread?  What about classified truth? In Bradley Manning's case, was he only spreading truth when he leaked over 90,000 intelligence reports?  Openness is great, but it has its limits.  In some cases, perhaps secrets keep us safe.

three cheers for teamwork.

In my earlier post about The Race for the Double Helix, I wrote a bit about Watson and Crick's competitive approach to science.  Is there an alternate approach; something more "teamwork-based?"

Can our "race" mentality really be fixed?  According to Foldit, it can.  Fold.it is an online protein folding video game.  You can actually play a game - and a fairly entertaining one at that - and simultaneously help solve problems that have been baffling scientists for years.  Granted, there's a big learning curve, but there have been big results.  Apparently one of the pieces of the AIDS puzzle was found when Foldit gamers cracked a case in 3 weeks that scientists had been working on for 15 years.  If you want to learn more about it you can go here or here.

The Foldit story is proof that competition isn't the only thing that motivates scientists.  Foldit's success is based on several ideas, three of which are:

1. People are smarter when they work together.  The fact that we all reason differently can be one of our greatest advantages.

2. People work better when they are having fun.  People will keep doing something if they enjoy it.

3. People are often driven by something more than just selfish motives.  We're more benevolent than we think.

Ctrl+Z.

I saw someone sitting on a bench as I walked across campus; he was staring at a tree and transcribing what he saw onto a large sketchpad...  He's an artist.  I admire his dedication; his bare hands must be freezing, and who knows how long he's been out there.  And it's all for the sake of putting a tree on paper.

Let's say he's drawing in pen and makes a big mistake, or the pen bursts and spurts ink all over the drawing.  What he do?  Ctrl+Z, right?  Wrong.

What happens to us when we start to believe that nothing we do is necessarily permanent, that everything can be undone with the push of a button?  The "cut and paste" mentality of virtual reality doesn't always hold true for real life.  Knowing (or at least believing) that what I put on the internet doesn't have to be permanent might cause me to have one of two attitudes, or a combination of both:

1. "I can ridicule and demoralize people on the internet...  I can always delete it later."

"Four things come not back - the spoken word, the sped arrow, the past life and the neglected opportunity."

One needn't look far to see the actions of people who don't understand or don't believe this adage - especially the part about the spoken word and the sped arrow - and many of these people are proving it in cyberspace.  Take a look at the string of comments below almost any article, and you'll most likely see people taking jabs at each other and saying things that they might not have the guts to say in person.  I really believe that the way people behave on online forums has a negative effect on how they behave in real life.

2. "I can publish something now, even though it's incomplete... I can always change it later."

Is the assumption that I can go back and "tweak" whatever I've created always necessarily a bad thing?  Maybe not.  In Digital Civilization, we are encouraged to publish blog posts even if they're not polished or even complete (that explains his blog posts, you might be thinking).  Knowing that my publication will be there to alter later if needed, I can put it out there now and see what happens.  Although I'm still learning how to do that, I suppose it can definitely be a good thing.

So...  I'm going to post this now and tweak it later.  After all, I can do that.

the race for the double helix.

I'm slowly learning about what "open science" really is.  The website OpenScience.org defines it like this:

Open science is the idea that scientific knowledge of all kinds should be openly shared as early as is practical in the discovery process.

This definition is based on "sharing" - what's mine is yours, right?  While it sounds great, I don't know if it can work.  The concept is flawed at best.  In the competitive society and economy in which we live, there are many things that just can't be shared.  I doubt, for example, that we would expect any company to share R&D information with its rivals; Coke wouldn't share a new formula with Pepsi, and Apple would definitely not share a new idea with anyone.  What selfish people, right?  I suppose they have the right to be selfish.

But science should be different, many people argue.  And in spite of my lack of knowledge on the subject, I think I agree; however, people are competitive.  I was reminded of that today as I watched a movie called "The Race For The Double Helix," which is about Watson and Crick's discovery of the structure of DNA.  At first glance, it was great open science - they used, after all, information that had been collected by researchers in several laboratories, including that of Rosalind Franklin.

But was it really open science?

It seemed to me to be competitive, secretive, selfish science.  Of course, it was a movie, and I'll need to find time to inform myself a bit better on the actual events.  But it was no doubt a race.  The film paints a stark contrast between Watson & Crick and Rosalind Franklin.

• Watson & Crick - They wanted to make history.  They talked a lot about winning the Nobel Prize.  There was another scientist also working on a DNA structure model, and their goal was to beat him to it.  In a world where everyone "shares," they would have collaborated.  But they didn't!  They fought it out!
• Rosalind Franklin - She didn't understand why the other scientists saw the race for the double helix as just that, a race or some kind of game.  She was a champion of open science, believing that all scientists "should stand on each other's shoulders." 

Francis Crick's character at one point says, "Problems don't belong to people."  I would agree, especially when it involves making peoples' lives better.  But if people in other fields have the right to keep their findings secret, do scientists have that same right?