Saturday, August 30, 2014

Neophobia (fear of the new) - not new but it's damn annoying

I’ve delivered hundreds of talks on technology across the globe over many years and there’s almost always that point where someone asks the “but…. do you think that it’s destroying minds/culture/civilisation”. I often wonder whether, at the pet-food conference on the other side of town, is full of people who don’t like pets.
Neophobia is not new
Neophobia, fear of the new, is not new. No doubt some wag in some cave was asking their kids to ‘put those axes away, they’ll be the death of you’. From Socrates, who thought that writing was an ill-advised invention, people have reacted with predictable horror to every piece of new technology that hits the street. It happened with writing, parchments, books, printing, newspapers, coffee houses, letters, telegraph, telephone, radio, film, TV, railways, cars, jazz, rock n’ roll, rap, computers and now the internet and especially social media. The idea that some new invention rots the mind, devalues the culture, even destroys civilisation is an age-old phenomenon.
I’m with Stephen Pinker who sees neophobia as the product of superficial reaction about cognition that conflates “content with process”. The mind and human nature is not that malleable and obviouslyly not subject to any real evolutionary change in such a short period of time (I say this as I’ve heard the word ‘evolve’ in such questions). Sure the mind is plastic but not a blank slate waiting to be filled out with content from the web. It is far more likely that the neophobes themselves are unthinking victims of the familiar destructive syndrome of neophobia, than our kids.
Neophobia as a brake on progress
Thomas Kuhn and the evolutionist Wilson, saw neophobia as a brake on human thinking and progress, as individuals and institutions tend to work within paradigms, encouraging ‘groupthink’ which makes people irrationally defensive and unsupportive of new ideas and technologies. As Bertrand Russell said, “Every advance in civilisation was denounced as unnatural while it was recent”. Religion, for example, has played a significant role in stalling scientific discovery and progress, from the denial of the fact that the earth rotates around the sun to the position of women in society and medical research. Education is a case in point.
Neophobia as a medical and social condition
Interestingly, the medical evidence suggests that neophobia, as a medical condition, is commoner in the very young, especially with new foods and then the elderly, who have deeply established habits or expectations that they may see under threat. It fades throughout childhood and flips in adolescence when the new is seen as risky and exciting. Then it gradually returns, especially during parenthood, and into our old age. It is a cycle, with parents bemoaning the lack of interest of their children in what they enjoy, forgetting the fact that their parents had exactly the same reactions, as did theirs. To see this as predictable neophobia, is the rational response.
Tool of our tools
Neophobia exaggerates the role of technology. Have we ‘become the tool of our tools’ as Thoreau would have us believe? There is something in this, as recent research suggests that tool production in the early evolution of our species played a significant role in cognitive development and our adaptive advantage as a species. So far, so good. But far from shaping minds, the more recent internet is largely being shaped by minds. Social media has flourished in response to a human need for user-generated content, social communication and sharing. Input devices have become increasingly sensitive to human ergonomics and cognitive expectations, especially natural language processing through voice.
That is not to say that what we use on the web is in some way neutral. Jaron Lanier and others do expose the intrinsic ways software shapes behaviour and outcomes. But it is not the invisible hand of the devil. All technology has a downside. Cars kill, but no one is recommending that we ban them.
The internet, as Pinker explains, is not fundamentally changing ‘how we think’ in any deep sense. It is largely speeding up findings answers to our questions through search, Wikipedia, YouTube etc., speeding up communications through email, whatsapp, whatever. Speeding up commerce and fundraising. It provides scale and everyone can benefit.
Social media
A particulary incisdious version of neophobia are those who secretly use it but in public despise it. For years I’ve read dull journos andTV presenters decry social media, then seen them fall over each other to get their ‘follower’ numbers up on twitter. The duplicity is astonishing. Rather than see it as part of their profession, they saw it as the enemy – big mistake.
There’s many types of the all-too-common, social medianeophobia. It’s usually a sneer. I’m OK with you not being on Facebook, I’m not OK with you telling me an idiot because I am. First they often know nothing about the medium, assume it has nothing but cat videos and don’t know about the links, the chat fucntion and don’t really know that the Wikipedia they so often use was crowdsourced. Second, the lurkers who sneer but always seem to know what you’ve posted. What’s wrong with these people? I don’t mind lurking, I do mind sneering lurkers.
We have the late, great Douglas Adams to thank for this stunning set of observations:
1) Everything that’s already in the world when you’re born is just normal;
2) Anything that gets invented between then and before you turn thirty is incredibly exciting and creative and with any luck you can make a career out of it;

3) anything that gets invented after you’re thirty is against the natural order of things and the beginning of the end of civilisation as we know it until it’s been around for about ten years when it gradually turns out to be alright really.

 Subscribe to RSS

Thursday, August 28, 2014

Must watch freakout: 10 reasons why Facebook is good for Oculus Rift

That was my sister!
Now we’ve seen Tron, The Matrix and Minority Report. But nothing, absolutely nothing in the cinema matches the actual experience of virtual reality. When I first slipped the Oculus Rift over my head, even though it was a development kit it was such a blast, such a mind-altering experience. It blew my mind. I knew then, that it could shift consciousness sand that its potential in education, which is all about cognitive change, was immense.
Rarely do you come across a piece of tech that you try once and you know that it will create radical change. That’s what makes this different. VR is not a gadget it is a medium. It’s moving from 2D to 3D, literally and extra dimension to your mind. I showed it to everyone I could muster, at conferences, to companies, at home, at parties, at a nightclub. I even took it to Africa. Eventually I found funding for two educational simulations in social care and retail. But there’s a story to tell here.
Mr Luckey
VR goes back to the 50s and 60s and had a rollercoaster ride for several decades in adventurous, but expensive, applications in the military, health, gaming and the arts. So Palmer Luckey, Mr Oculus Rift, joined in at the end of a long journey by researchers and pioneers in VR. He’s honest about this. What he did was immerse himself in that stuff. He worked with explorers, like Skip Rizzo and Mark Bolas, just two of many people who experimented and pushed the technology forward bit by bit. But it was Palmer who had the focus, drive and foresight to make it happen technically and commercially.
Good timing
Technology leaps are rarely single pieces of technology. They use a number of past technologies to create a breakthrough. This happened with printing, where the screw press, new inks, casting techniques and moveable type, along with papare, became the print revolution. More recently, the smartphone is an assembly of technologies, screens, sensors, processors and batteries, that made them fly off the shelves. When the technologies all work and the prices are right, you have a volume product. They are ensembles of tech and it was Luckey who brought together a suit of smart sensors, cheap screens, optics, processing power and software to get the potential price down to a few hundred of dollars. To get to presence, the feeling that you really are in another place, you have to tick off a long list of technical and psychological problems. Then there’s the graphics cards, 3D graphics packages and skills in building 3D worlds that have emerged to feed the games, movies, TV and other worlds. This needs lots of smart people. Oculus assembled those people and had the money and focus to get it done. This was never possible in a research lab, this attitude – focus and speed.
What’s also new is that Palmer Luckey had Kickstarter at his fingertips. That meant quick money. Traditional investment cash suffers from lag. They often lack vision and the adventurous enthusiasm for tech that you need for a tech-driven project like this. After a $2.4 m cash pull from Kickstarter, came the smart move of distributing affordable and not half bad, developer kits. This created a shitstorm of YouTube, blogger, tech tester and social media splurge. Demand came from this network, not a corporate marketing team or professional launch. Almost every gamer or tech-savvy kid knows about Oculus, although most have never tried one. Demand is already massive.
Zuckerberg arrives
Then, out of the blue, I read that Facebook had bought Oculus Rift for a cool $2 billion. Remember, this device hadn’t been launched and has no user base. It’s a prototype. So why buy a piece of kit that has been around since the 1950s with not a single customer? Well, they saw what I saw and when a prototype changes your consciousness and literally allows you to see the future, it’s time to slap the cash on the table. Zuckerberg’s opening statement impressed me, “Imagine enjoying courtside seat at a game, studying in a classroom of students and teachers all over the world, or consulting with a doctor face-to-face – just by putting goggles on in your home.” He gets it. This is not just a games’ peripheral, it’s a game changer; in education, health and entertainment.
Why Facebook is a good partner
1. Missing link
There’s a missing link in this story - Cory Ondrejka -  the guy behind Second Life. Guess what, he’s now Head of Engineering at Facebook. It was Cory who got Zuckerberg hooked. Remember, at Facebook it’s still a tech-obsessed guy who runs the company, not some MBA clone. They tried, it, loved it and they bought it. This was a tech to tech sale – no suits involved. It was that simple.
2. Shock & awesome
It’s not like buying a population of users. This is pure tech. Nobody has used it except a bunch of developers on the DK1. It’s driven by the pure ‘awe’ factor. Try this thing. For once the word ‘Awesome!’ is not hyperbolic. I’ve demoed this kit to hundreds of people in many countries, including Africa, and the reaction has been, well, awesome. This was a sale based on actual experience of the product.
3. Game changer not games peripheral
It won’t be funnelled into the pure ‘gaming’ world. Facebook are not a gaming company and have a wider field of view. They see education, health and social media as major markets. Sony, it’s main, and only real competitor (at present) is really aiming at the games’ market. They have the PS4 and future consoles in mind. In fact, Morpheus only works with a PS4. That’s their game. I’m not criticising that, just saying that Facebook are playing an entirely different game.
4. Brave new worlds
VR is about creating and entering new worlds, some will be closed but the real prize are more open worlds where you can meet others, new forms of world building. It’s this sort of vision we need, not the Microsoft vision for Kinect (basically low-level gaming) or Apple gadgetry. The only other company that could have been a contender here was Google. Bu they’re a platform company. In my view they missed the boat.
5. Head start
Facebook had the vision to create the largest alternative world we’ve ever seen, inhabited by over 1.5 billion people. That’s one hell of an existing market. If anyone can make this fly on this scale, it’s Zuckerberg. He has a head start – 1.5 billion eyeballs. Of course, it’s also a hedge against seepage, competitors, even disillusionment with Facebook itself. At some point it will be challenged and they need to move it to higher ground to defend itself.
6. $2 billion
$2 billion is a lot of cash. It will accelerate research, recruitment and production. This means getting to market quicker with a product that is cheap, as it has a greater chance of getting massive volume sales. When you can sell tens, even hundreds of millions of these things, then £2 billion looks reasonable.
7. Consumer company
This is a consumer company, driven by the user experience and the experience is mind blowing. It moves us on into visual and aural worlds not the world of text and 2D snaps. Facebook is driven by users and their created content. This is what the Oculus promises, worlds created by and shared by millions of people. It’s about the opportunity to create things that you will be gagging to experience. For some, who have never seen VR before, it’s almost a life changing experience, the idea that you can enter another world and feel as though you really are there and that it really can induce intense emotions and sensations. Presence is about being there, not just seeing something. There’s a world of difference between seeing and being. As a transformative experience, it is compelling.
8. Not traditional media
This is way beyond those media folks trapped in 2D. You can buy as many big screen TVs as you want, even a hokey 3D one. You can go to the cinema to get a pseudo-immersive experience on an even bigger screen. This is just upgrading through bigger and bigger screens. The Oculus leap is to wrap a screen around the back of your head, above and below, put you right inside any created world. That’s a breakthrough. Gamers get it, those that have tried the Oculus get it – traditional media companies don’t. It’s just another slot in their TV shows about gadgets. That’s why a traditional media company couldn’t handle an Oculus acquisition.
9. We live in a 3D world, not 2D
Education is a 2D affair. Teaching is 2D subjects taught using 2D materials, hence the focus on the academic, at the expense of the vocational. And we wonder why graduates and school leavers are ill-prepared for the real word – they haven’t been taught about the real world, only a 2D representation of that world. Education, at last, has an affordable medium in which any world can be represented and where we can, as the psychology of learning tells us we should, learn by doing. This leap from 2D to 3D is to literally add a new dimension to our experience.
10. More than mimicry
This is not mimicry. It’s not about copying the real world, although that is useful in itself. What really matters is the ability to go beyond the real. It started in flights sims, where you can repeatedly experience things you are unlikely to experience in real life, but need to know, for example repeatedly crashing the plane. It’s about doing the dangerous, even impossible. Going down to the molecular level, into space, into psychological realms, even different, induced brain states. It’s aesthetic and artistic experiences you’ve never had. It’s high-end training in surgery simulations. It’s prototyping almost anything you buy. It’s travel to places you’ve never seen and may never see for real. See yourself and experience what it’s like to be another gender, race or age. It’s just so damn different.
Before I get flooded with complaints about Facebook and privacy, let me anticipate an answer. I’m not one of those people who see Facebook as a totalitarian monster. I’ve spent years in their world, for free, and am OK with them knowing something about me. They’ve given me renewed friendships with people I knew decades ago, new friends around the world, tons of great content, work, rip-roaring debate, entertainment and a whole load of stuff that has widened my knowledge of the world and others. That, for me, is a fair trade. I ‘like’ Facebook and resent then sneering types, who have never used it but think they know what it is, or use it, then use it to constantly complain about it. If you don’t like the play – leave the theatre.

Leaving Facebook as evil totalitarian corporate aside, there are several predictable risks that may befall this deal. First, in catching this butterfly they may crush it. I don’t think this is likely as Cory Ondrejka is leading the show and it is not in Facebook’s interest to blow $2 billion on something they let be destroyed. Second, they may play the wrong game and force everyone through some dystopian route. This I doubt as we’re not in some David Eggers novel here. This is real cash and a real business. They want the Oculus to enhance their business not make people hate them or leave Facebook. 
Whatever the outcome, I hope it succeeds. It was a bold move and I like boldness. I also like the story, a long, hard trail of research and pioneering work, comes together through a visionary and crowdsourced investment, taken to the whole world through a social media company. I want us to escape from Disney, Time Warner, Murdoch and all the other media companies that try social media and tech, and usually fail. It’s time to move on and give the new kids on the media block a chance.

 Subscribe to RSS

Monday, July 28, 2014

10 counter-intuitive, researched tips on use of video in learning

When considering video what do key pieces of research say about impact on learning outcomes. As it turns out video may seem instinctively useful but that is not always the case. Our limitations in terms of working memory, episodic & semantic memory, attention and perceptual systems all play a role in limiting the effectiveness of video. Understand how the mind works and you can use video more effectively and cheaply. Here’s seven research-based facts that you should perhaps consider when using video in learning:
1. Media rich not always mind rich
Intuitively we may feel that rich, high quality, high production value video with animation, graphics, background sound, music and narration makes for great learning. But the evidence suggests otherwise. This approach can often result in ‘seductive but irrelevant distractions’. Meyer and Moreno have researched this area in detail and found that cognitive overload and dissonance can often occur when too much information is being presented. Controlling the load on working memory is an important consideration. Lesson: video is not always a good medium for learning. Lesson: Video can inhibit as well as enhance learning.
2. Attention maxes out at 6 mins
Philip Guo has tracked median engagement times versus video length, aggregated over several million EdX maths and science video sessions. He found that the average engagement time of any video maxes out markedly at 6 minutes, regardless of its length. An interesting side finding was that students who had enrolled for the certificate engaged more with the videos. Lesson: keep videos below 6 minutes.
3, No  to 1 hour lectures (even chopped)
The edX researchers, confirmed by the MOOC factory in Lausanne, have found that, in addition to avoiding the dreaded 1 hour lectures, one should also avoid simply chopping up the existing 1 hour lecture into 6 minute chunkes. Take time to rework and rehearse the chunks as small videos in themselves, not the result of meat-chopper editing.
4. Stay personal, informal & enthusiastic
An interesting research finding from MOOCs, where huge amounts of video have been used by millions of learners is that learners don’t like over-produced, TV quality presentation. They much prefer more informal, personal and, above all, enthusiastic performances by their teachers. Hesitations, a chatty relaxed style even corrected errors. Lesson: More YouTube than TV.
5. Image quality NOT key
Most video cameras these days produce good pictures. Even then you really have to know about ISO, depth of field, framing and so on to get the best results. However, on the basic issue of picture quality, it doesn’t matter that musch when it comes to retention.
6. Audio quality IS key
Poor quality video quality is rarely the problem when it comes to learning and retention. Bad audio can, however, cripple both. . are not necessarily damaging in terms of learning and retention, poor quality audio, however, is bad news. Nass & Reeves showed that poor audio, hissy, distant or robotic can seriously affect retention.
7. Do not mix video & text
Video and accompanying text is a no-no. Never put the script up at the same time as the video. It overloads working memory and damages learning.  Mayer (2001 suggests that both a visual and a narrative description increases the amount of time information about the process can be held and processed in working memory, leading to measurable, lower retention.
8. Worked examples
In research on 862 videos from four edX courses, for subjects that rely on symbolic, semantic reasoning, such as maths, physics and coding, worked examples (a la Khan Academy or Udacity) work far better.
9. Size matters
In an HCI course I took the talking head was postage size stamp size in the bottom right of the screen. Nass and Reeves showed that screen size does matter when it comes to reaction.  As my BBC film editor used to say – it’s all in the eyes.
10. Alternate heads & images
With talking heads, go full screen and alternate with slides. Use talking heads for conceptual explanation and slides for diagrams, images and pictures that really do explain a point and don’t merely illustrate the point.

There’s lots more to be said about the use of video in learning. I’ve been using it for over 30 years and all of the above are confirmed by that vast and wonderful experiment – YouTube. There’s lots of different types of video and when it comes to learning, it is vital that the optimal technique is used. TV and film, in that sense, are not the most useful guides as, for learning, you often have to break their rules.

 Subscribe to RSS

Leadership: the weasel word that led to bad management

‘Leader’ is an odd word when it comes to management. It’s a bit phoney, exaggerated but does it also lead to dysfunctional behaviour? What do you do for a living? I’m a ‘leader’. Cue laughter and ridicule. Have you ever heard anyone in an organisation say, “We need to ask out ‘Leader’?” - only if it was sneering sarcasm.
Weasel words
When I first started in the learning world over 30 years ago ‘Leader’ was not a word I heard at all. There was plenty of good management theory and training and most people who headed up companies were called Managing Directors. Then the tech bubble came along in the 90s and we all went gaga for snazzy, new US terms and everyone swapped out the sober and descriptive MD for CEO (Chief Executive Officer) (I’m guilty here). The word ‘Chief’ is an interesting choice. You were no longer someone who ‘managed’ others but the big chief, big cheese, a big shot.  It was then that another word rose like Godzilla from the depths of the cess pit that is HR lingo – ‘leader’. Suddenly, managers weren’t people with competences but top dogs who ‘Led’ people towards victory. Mike, senior manager in accounts, was now a dog of war.
The opposite of leader is follower. In a sense the word infers that the people you lead and manage are followers. It sets you apart from other people, not a great quality in management. Of course, leadership trainers will tell you that it’s not about creating followers, but in practice this is the effect the word creates and management trainers jump through hoops to reconcile this leader/follower dilemma. If you want to avoid this problem, simply don’t use the word ‘leader’.
Leadership courses
When the language changed so did the training. HR bods were suddenly the leading thinkers on leadership. HR and training departments saw an opportunity to big-up their status by breeding, not managers, but leaders. Middle managers went on ‘leadership’ courses run by people who had never led anything, except flipchart workshops, in their entire lives. In practice this meant cobbling together stuff from existing management courses and adding a veneer of specious content from books on leadership. Winging it became a new course design methodology and every management trainer in the land suddenly became a leadership trainer.
Middle managers went crazy for books they’d never dreamt of reading. I’ve seen everything from Meditations by Marcus Aurelius to Lao Tzu’s Art of War touted as serious management texts. I knew it had all gone seriously wrong when I saw a commuter, with a bad suit and combination lock briefcase, on the 7.15 from Brighton to London, reading ‘The Leadership Secrets of Genghis Khan’. What next? Hitler, Stalin… Pol Pot?
Led to the abyss
Managers loved their new found status as little generals, leading the troops. They responded to the training as narcissists respond to flattery, with gusto. I don’t think it’s an accident that this coincided with the megalomaniac behaviour in the banks where ‘leaders’ fed on a high-octane diet of ‘leadership’ training, ‘led’ us into the abyss of financial collapse. These ‘leaders’ adopted delusional strategies based on over-confidence and a lack of reality. There’s a price to pay for believing that you’re destined to ‘lead’ – realism. Managers who now saw themselves as ‘Leaders of the pack’ engaged in behaviours that flowed from the word. They became driven by their own goals and not the goals of the organisation or others. It also led to greater differentials between leader and follower salaries.

We have seen leaders in every area of human endeavour succumb to the tyranny of ‘leadership’, in business, politics, newspapers, sport, even the police. Rather than focus on competences and sound management; fuelled by greed, they focused on personal rewards and ‘go for broke’ strategies. So what happened to these ’leaders’? Did they lose their own money? No. Did any go to jail? No. Are they still around? Yes. Have we reflected on whether all of that ‘leadership’ malarkey was right? NO. Let’s get real and go back to realistic learning and realistic titles.

 Subscribe to RSS