Who gives a Tweet? Not me anymore.

 

I have long had my reservations about Twitter. See:

•  Twying again, June 2009
• I killed my Twitter account, August 2009
• 10 useful Twitter alerts, July 2013
• Poster Power on Twitter, April 2014
• The 140 character discussion, June 2013
• Discussion via bumpersticker, December 2014

My major concern about the platform has always been how it discourages rational, nuanced discussions of important issues. To me, it seems as though we are trying to persuade others by shouting bumper sticker slogans back and forth.

Granted, I am not Twitter’s most avid user. I follow a whole 15 people, of whom only three or four post - and then seldomly. 6300 people follow me (who knew there were so many bored people in the world), mostly for the silly t-shirt sayings I sometimes share. I primarily use the platform to let readers know that I have written a new blog post by sending a link to it. I have a couple relatives who kindly “like” those tweets and a few others who retweet the t-shirt slogans. 

There will be few tears shed when I delete my account. 

Elon Musk's purchase and seemingly erratic control over the platform is the primary motivation for abandoning ship. It looks that by calling himself a “free speech” advocate, he will do little to control the spread of disinformation, racism, calls for violence, hate speech, and the radicalization of politics. While I too believe in free speech (my library school professors beat this into me), I also know free speech must be accompanied by responsibility and understanding of the harm speech may cause to others. If Elon’s revenue is based on the number of users on Twitter, my absence will make but a microscopic difference to this billionaire. But it is what I can do.

So after today, this old fart’s total social media presence is a Facebook account with both personal and Blue Skunk blog pages, a Feedly account tracking 31 blog feeds, a LinkedIn account browsed every week or so, and a Goodreads account. No Instagram. No Tik Tok. And of course no programs I am too out of the loop to even know about.

Been nice Tweeting to you.

Does education work?

 

Graphic has no bearing on the content of this post. I just needed some cute.

After writing the last post about simplistic campaign ads, I started down the road of wondering if education is actually working in this country. If my career as an educator was an exercise in futility. If human beings are even capable of being truly “educated.” What does being educated even mean? Why do such campaign ads even move a single vote?

Much of what feels like “stupidity” in today’s politics seems fueled by social media. For many, many years, not just in 2022, pundits have been concerned about “culturally constructed ignorance.” Clive Thompson uses the word “agnotology” to describe how special interests work to sow confusion instead of enlightenment when there is ignorance about a topic.

Ah, life was much simpler before the Internet and cable news - when professional librarians stood guard between bad information and their patrons by carefully selecting materials for their collections by using credible review sources. Going to the library meant one was assured that the books on the shelves were - to the extent possible - accurate.

On seeing this barrier between the misinformation and users melt away as the Internet became popular, many of us during our careers pushed for a new competency called “information literacy.” Over 20 years ago, I wrote the article “Survival Skills for the Information Jungle,” In the introduction I observed:

While technology can be enriching, the Information Jungle and projects that call for the demonstration of higher level thinking skills contain perils as well. The role of the teacher and library media specialist has rapidly changed from one of a desert guide (helping learners locate scarce resources) to one of a jungle guide (helping learners evaluate and select resources of value). This change has been so rapid that many educators have not had time to learn the skills necessary for their new roles. But for those who do, the rewards for doing information problem solving in the Information Jungle can be tremendous.

So did all educators see the value of teaching information literacy skills? Or did they continue to push a curriculum that was memorization and low-level skills-based (encouraged by NCLB and national assessments that were to be the be-all-and-end-all of school performance measures.) 

Yet as I reflect on the current state of national discourse, I perhaps have suffered under an even greater illusion - that we as humans are rational beings. That our emotions are subservient to our analytic abilities. That we think more than we feel.

At what seemed like the same time information literacy became a topic of discussion, the concept of EQ (Emotional Quotient) appeared in educational conversations as well. EQ (or EI - Emotional Intelligence) was defined as “the ability to perceive, use, understand, manage, and handle emotions.” Acknowledgement that attention to emotions is as important as attention to literacy and analytic ability. (Sorry, Mr. Spock.)

Voters are value-driven. And for some, those values are based on evidence selected by using information literacy skills. But for too many, solid factual information is trampled by strong emotions, deliberately inflamed by special interests. 

I would be both naive and dishonest to say that my own emotions do not enter into my decision-making around political issues. My love for my children and grandchildren impact my stance on environmental interests. The work I do daily with low-income seniors fuels my support for social support networks funded by government spending. Even the amount of the grocery shopping receipt and the balance of my IRA increase my interest in economic policy. 

Can education somehow help students at least develop an awareness of both the need for good information and a strong EQ? And be wiser voters now and in the future?

Oh, and please vote if you haven’t already. Rationally, if possible.

Just at whom are these political ads aimed?

Like, I suspect, most of my readers, I am sick and tired of political ads, especially those on television. I only watch the news on TV, but I’ve been so overwhelmed that I am missing the ads for drugs with 50 side effects and bundled car insurance that comes with a flightless bird.

Both political parties are constantly running ads that are personality, rather than issue, based. Scare tactics, accusatory remarks, and dire predictions are accompanied by darkened grimaces and glaring stares of these menacing potential demagogues. Based on attack ads, I wouldn’t vote for Jesus or Mother Theresa were they running.

There must be some empirical evidence to back up the effectiveness of this form of persuasion. At what type of voter are these multi-million dollar campaign efforts aimed exactly?  Last minute voters? Twitter affectionados? Psychopaths? Sufferers from advanced dementia? The completely illiterate? (The same people who would try drugs with severe side effects or buy insurance from an emu, perhaps?)

I hope in this election that people vote on candidates’ and parties’ well-defined values, goals, and strengths. There is plenty of fairly robust information available if one wants to know a candidate’s stance on the environment, taxes, Social Security, abortion, education, gun control, etc. Unfortunately we are in an era of bumpersticker and Tweet lengths of discourse.

Vote as you will, but please vote informed. We have enough simplistic ideologues in government already. 

Thus endeth the rant.