this post was submitted on 07 Dec 2023
513 points (87.3% liked)
Asklemmy
44146 readers
1250 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think the main issue is the fact that learning about how every single component in a computer works, would take an enormous amount of time and dedication, you cannot just inspire the interest in people to learn about something they are completely uninterested about.
You may see others as blind, careless individuals that want to get their data milked, but we all have to make sacrifices for convenience. We just cannot be interested in every single thing.
At a societal level, we all cannot and shouldn't be knowing what the Unix philosophy is and what it represents for software design.
That being said, I do agree with the main point of being taught inferior PC practice, education in the schools I attended was mostly done via rote learning rather than explaining the tools that we have created to solve which problems or situations.
Given the importance of computers in our time, isn't it only proportionally justified to spend an enormous amount of time and dedication in teaching it properly?
Only computer nerds think this way. People have a finite time and capacity for learning, and if computers can serve their needs without spending a large fraction of that precious resource it would be terrible to mandate such an expenditure anyway.
I wish we could all be completely educated and independent in every way that matters, but it's not possible.
This is why people on lemmy are confused about a lack of adoption. Federation is significantly confusing and subtle; we're just mostly dorks with the pre-inclination to get it.
I too have to watch myself to keep from falling into the hole of blaming the dumbing-down of computing systems on a moral failure of users. It is not.
I was playing a degree of devil's advocacy there because I was interested in how the person I replied to would respond.
I don't think it needs to be as intensive as that, I think a small amount of education would go a long way. Like teaching school classes how to install an operating system on a blank machine as a basic entry point - that would do wonders for gaining a basic appreciation for ownership over computing.
I think the other user replied what I would have said as well, we have a finite amount of time and we are seeing things from a computer-centric perspective.
I do agree that computer literacy is incredibly important and people should have the means to know how to properly operate the things they use on a daily basis but we could make the exact same argument over a myriad of things, take for example interpersonal skills or even emotions, we barely go over them in most educational systems and something as simple as communication is one of the biggest bottlenecks you can find while working, I've personally seen big projects go down in a big ball of fire all because of people miscommunicating or because someone can't control their emotions.
As a TL;DR, we have more pressing issues as a society.
Hopefully we can continue moving forward as a society though, and we can have better education in more aspects, I've been a teacher in the past and I can tell you some that students are really hungry for knowledge. So not all hope is lost in that sense.
There is a middle ground for sure. Installing an OS sounds like a solid unit in such a curriculum.
I might have phrased my thought too bluntly: I never intended to frame the problem as any sort of moral failure on the end users' part. I view this as a failure of our educational institutions.
In my mind, preferring to spend time on (e.g.) MS Office in class, instead of teaching proper computer literacy, is like trying to teach meal-prep with Philips air fryers instead of teaching how to cook.
I hear you, and I too feel like it might be just my aspi-nerdiness speaking, but the same argument could be said about any subject that is considered fundamental to highschool ed. We don't skip on philosophy, sciences, languages and arts just because they seem less applicable than math or econ, or because "it's impossible to learn everything".
Our civ made progress, having invented a fundamentally new tech that is accessible to everyone and now underpins everything. Allowing people to acquire the basic literacy needed to interface with this tech sustainably is the bare minimum we should be doing. I am not talking about turning kids into cyber wizards - just getting their computing up to a level that allows them to make relevant informed choices.
I'm totally with you. I just think the level of informed choices that we nerds seek will not be attainable through a reasonable gen ed curriculum. It would be an improvement, though!