Some of these ideas (UW Prof predicts Trump win) remind me of observations Toffler made some decades ago in the Third Wave. He notes that significant advances bring a period of disruption and the romanticization of the good old days. Typically, the good old days were not actually that good and the advances made have momentum for valid reasons. Changes this country faces such as climate change, increasing globalization, and the increasing diversity of the U.S. threaten the way many have grown to see their personal worlds. The thing is, their personal worlds are not reality and the examples they allow to influence their beliefs are not consistent with statistical trends that argue otherwise. This issue has become more problematic as political leaders promote falsehoods without remorse. Anxiety is understandable, but resistance to inevitable pressures because many think they would rather live in the past slows productive adaptations and ignores opportunities. Clean energy will provide employment opportunity. New ideas from different cultures and bright minds not jaded by entitlements or the priority of personal wealth will drive advances.
Most of my recent posts have had a political focus so I decided it was about time to take on a topic of greater and deeper importance.
I have been told that great advances occur not so much from answering difficult questions, but from discovering difficult questions that need to be answered. For example, many folks have concentrated on the question of why the chicken crossed the road. I was driving through the woods of Wisconsin and it occurred to me that this was not a particularly novel or important question. I try to be open to insights from my surroundings and soon my surroundings suggested a much more novel question.
Why do turtles cross the road? I mean turtles are far slower than chickens and even the most jaded driver must notice far more smashed turtles than smashed chickens. Who really cares about why chickens cross the road? Most of them make it.
So having established a more pressing question through sheer creativity, I turned to Google in search of answers. It turns out that while few seem to ask this question, Google can provide the answer.
According to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, turtles cross the road looking for sex. I should have known. Male turtles continually search for willing partners and some may be in the pond on the other side of the road.
There you have it. A question more important than the one about the chicken and even an answer.
Consistency makes an important contribution to trust. I think this is one of President Trump’s greatest issues. Consistency is easiest enough to evaluate given our present ability to check public positions because of recordings of various types and public access. Trump seems to function as if checking this consistency is not possible – what is said about topic A at time A is completely independent of what is said about topic A at time B; what is said in country A differs from what is said in country B. For example, the inconsistency of the complaints Trump made about Obama and Trump’s present behavior or statements. The phrases Trump insists other politicians use in this country and the phrasing he uses himself elsewhere. Trump complaining about such things encourages others (me) to evaluate you by your own standards.
Without consistency, you appear to be catering to the audience of the moment. Without consistency, it seems your positions are not truly held. Without a reasonable level of consistency, it is difficult to develop trust. People do change their minds and this is to be valued, but when such changes happen very frequently and without much in the way of logic or explanation frequent changes imply something else. Was it Kerry the Republicans attacked so relentlessly for being a flip-flopper? I seem to remember being consistent was once a Republican value. I guess times change and flipping on your own expectations for trust is sometimes necessary.
I have long used the data collected by the PEW Research Center when I write about the educational use of technology. The Research Center collects data on a wide range of topics and is careful about the survey methodology employed making it a source I trust. The Center offers useful insights into other issues and has long provided information on political matters. In 2014, the Center sought to understand media consumption by those labeling themselves as having different political values. The following is their summary contrasting the 20% who label themselves as consistent conservatives or consistent liberals. There is are positive and negative factors (according to my interpretation) in each category.
[the following content excerpted from the PEW site – see the link above for additional information]
Overall, the study finds that consistent conservatives:
- Are tightly clustered around a single news source, far more than any other group in the survey, with
- Express greater distrust than trust of 24 of the 36 news sources measured in the survey. At the same time, fully 88% of consistent conservatives trust Fox News.
- Are, when on Facebook, more likely than those in other ideological groups to hear political opinions that are in line with their own views.
- Are more likely to have friends who share their own political views. Two-thirds (66%) say most of their close friends share their views on government and politics.
By contrast, those with consistently liberal views:
- Are less unified in their media loyalty; they rely on a greater range of news outlets, including some – like NPR and the New York Times– that others use far less.
- Express more trust than distrust of 28 of the 36 news outlets in the survey.
- Are more likely than those in other ideological groups to block or “defriend” someone on a social network – as well as to end a personal friendship – because of politics.
- Are more likely to follow issue-based groups, rather than political parties or candidates, in their Facebook feeds.
I find myself writing a lot about recent political issues. Things seem to be changing and often in ways that make little sense to me. The possible changes to health insurance are an example. As a recent retiree, I had to abandon my university group health care plan and find something new. Luckily, I now live in Minnesota and have three options. Hopefully, any political changes will not destroy this situation. The pre-existing condition issue is a big one for my own family as several individuals face a genetic condition that predicts a high rate of cancer so the true meaning of “access to health care” matters.
It is with this mind set that I have been thinking about other issues. I just returned from a conference I still attend with other professors. Those others are still working while I am not. My decision to retire was based on several factors – did I have enough money was certainly important. Did I have things I thought were important to do but that would be difficult should I continue to work was another? One factor that most may not consider when reaching retirement age weighed heavily on me. I was holding a work position that many would love to have. My position was not a job that required much in the way of physical capabilities. I had tenure and was making a nice income. My intellect was pretty much intact as far as I could tell and without the responsibility of children I should spend time with, I had more time to devote to my job than younger faculty members. What bothered me was the difficulty I witnessed in young PhDs searching for a good faculty job. These jobs are very competitive and I felt I had had my opportunity. It was time for a new hire to have a chance. I do think more folks should consider this reality. Certain job areas are not going to expand and there is some element of selfishness in hanging on. I felt that I could continue the intellectual challenge of the job without requiring an office or a paycheck. Most days reading and academic writing are still what I spend much of my time doing.
I wonder if changes to health insurance will come to influence the type of decision I made. If health care for older individuals becomes much more expensive and care for those with pre-existing conditions become insanely expensive, why would someone like me give up coverage that prevented any such concerns? A group health plan protected me and my wife. Why risk providing someone else a job opportunity with so much on the line?
I happen to think we make health insurance far too complicated. Simply put, the idea is that the risk for a group must be covered by a charge to all. When some do not contribute because they cannot or some simply feel they owe nothing to others, things become more complicated. The affordable care act tried to prevent those who had reasonable means and decided not to become involved by way of a penalty so some funds went into the overall risk pool. Some states were unwilling to enforce this expectation and maybe the penalty should have been larger. Simple math quickly becomes complex when the system can no longer rely on simple division. Now, the system must find other ways to address the risk pool. Throwing out some who on average can reliably be predicted to be more costly is one such approach. Let them fund themselves or recalculate the risk for this risky group. The issue becomes one of whether such an approach is ethical or moral. If some cannot pay already, note that those in the risky group face far more expensive policies with no hope of covering the cost.
Complexity can be introduced in other anticipated ways. I have raised one I am guessing most have not considered. There are predictable relationships between age, access to health insurance, and employment opportunities. Why would employed and protected older individuals leave the job market to offer a high paying job to others should they not be able to count on health insurance? So much of a democracy depends on trusting the system. So much of a democracy depends on shared goals. Systems begin to break down when it is everyone for themselves.
I have written in several locations explaining my objection to the FCC reversal of net neutrality. I have received pushback from some pro-business defenders so I have been trying to find a way to explain my position. This represents another attempt.The Internet and ISPs are different things.
Key points in my position
- The ISPs should not be understood by consumers as “the Internet”
- The Internet is already and should continue as a utility. The Internet is content and source neutral.
- ISPs offer access to the Internet. The issue of neutrality that concerns me and others applies to ISPs. ISPs can have business interests other than selling access to the Internet. These multiple business interests can be in conflict. For example, a phone company allowing voice over the Internet (VOIP) or a cable company selling movies and allowing users to access Netflix. Issues such as net neutrality concern opportunities ISPs can and could use to their financial advantage (e.g., slow video from some providers to favor video they sell or companies paying for privileged access)
- The logic for keeping government out of business matters is typically that competition will assure consumers get a good deal. This is the position commonly taken by politicians who object to government regulations. However, the reality is that a large proportion of those who want to access the Internet have one and perhaps two choices. Meaningful competition is seldom available. Options that would allow greater competition such as community wifi are fought by ISPs typically by contributions to politicians. Small interests are unable to compete for the support of decision makers.
I have been struggling to think of an analogy that would explain this situation to those not that interested in the infrastructure they use when going online. What I have come up with is not perfect, but may be helpful.
Think of it this way. What if everyone was free to use the interstate highway system, but there was only one gas station available where they lived. If this station sold gas for $10 would they complain to and about the department of transportation or the gas station.
All of this is separate from the issue of whether or not your ISP should be able to sell data related to your online activity. It is true that some locations you visit when online do this, but these sites can be avoided if you object, the sites typically do not charge you for your use and the presentation of ads and data collected is how they find themselves, and you can avoid the sites if you want. In many situations, there is no way to avoid the ISP you use. This is another reason regulation makes sense.
I am going on three years being out of North Dakota and the University of North Dakota. This is probably a good thing. I find what is happening now very discouraging. The present decline in funding for higher education has done damage that will likely take decades to undo. The cutting of programs and faculty and the precipitous decline in funding has eliminated productive programs and led to a decline in faculty morale. This may not be a matter of concern for many citizens so let me put it a different way. Why would high-quality students from Minnesota and high-quality young faculty members from anywhere want to risk careers on institutions that are obviously in decline? You think the Minnesota students don’t matter? These students make up about the same percentage of UND and NDSU student bodies as students from ND. The infrastructure of these institutions requires a critical mass of students to run efficiently and take advantage of the faculty. Size does matter. These are not elite private schools can have the resources to operate with 7-8000 students.
A very similar argument can be made regarding quality faculty. Quality can mean many different things and there are stereotypes that quality in some areas (say research) is related to lower quality in others (say teaching). BTW – this stereotype is not generally accurate – just because you had a professor you did not like who was highly regarded as a researcher does not mean this is the most common connection between research and teaching proficiency. The correlation between research productivity and student evaluations is not negative. Anyway, if I was a young faculty member with a solid research program capable of generating external funding (outside of a couple of areas) and/or likely to lead to significant innovations in a field, I would avoid North Dakota like the plague.
ND has long had higher ed challenges. With 11 or so institutions written into the state constitution, here are too many independent institutions for the size of the state. Think 11 institutions in Omaha for a comparison. There is this notion that somehow the institutions are to work together. I have never understood how this would actually work. For most areas, there is an economy of scale related to issues such as the dependence of instruction and research across departments. Everyone needs to learn to write and needs some exposure to languages, psychology and history. Engineers need advanced math and pre-meds, pre-nurses, pre-PTs and OTs need more than basic biology and chemistry. The better the supporting coursework, the better the odds of competing for limited access to professional training in North Dakota and elsewhere.
Most institutions train educators and this might seem an opportunity to share. Possibly, but note the same requirements for supporting training in fields such as psychology and the importance of quality experiences in the domain students intend to teach I have already mentioned. Then, there is the issue of advanced training – administration, advanced degrees for teachers, counseling, etc. What does it take to provide this training efficiently and does it make sense to have a focus on graduate training and address undergraduate training at different institutions?
The present economic crisis is largely politically made. The higher ed issues I describe have been in place for decades. As a nearly 40-year faculty member, I went through several economic downturns and only one boom period. The 20% cuts and possibly more is unique and caused mostly by political decisions to rely too heavily on oil revenue. If you want to claim credit for the boom as the republicans did when the oil was flowing, you need to own the overcommitment to the easy money in the downturn. The republicans have mismanaged the economy of North Dakota. Institutions such as higher education need to have a funding model that prevents large yearly fluctuations. Sure, downturns can result in no or small raises, but this is very different from cutting productive programs. Whatever the possibilities politicians in North Dakota think are possible, universities operate on other than a state level and must compete with peer institutions able to make long term plans. You don’t bet your career on institutions you can’t trust.
See a related oped from InForum.
I have decided that I am a digital technology romantic. Maybe idealist is more accurate. These perspectives cause me some stress in present times and require that I promote what might be lost causes. I came to these perspectives and stresses because I am a mature user of digital technology. You can translate this as old if you wish, but I am proud to say I was there before the Internet was really available. I was there when you called up BBSs using your acoustic modem. I was there in the days of telnet and gopher and before Mosaic. I ran my own server that sat next to my desk (working at a university with a direct Internet connection made this possible) and crafted rudimentary web pages by hand so there was something there to see.
These experiences offered me a vision of what the Internet might become. I saw digital technology as an equalizer – a way for more individuals to be influencers and to become better informed. It looked good for a while, but now what once seemed possible is being corrupted by big companies and the powers that be in the government. Maybe you don’t see this happening. Maybe you are satisfied with the filtered information you consume through Facebook. Maybe it is fine with you that your access provider (ISP) can collect data on your online behavior as an additional profit opportunity for that company. Maybe you don’t care that your provider can prioritize the speed with which you receive content of a type they can determine.
We went the wrong way with digital technology. The interstate highway system, an early way to think about the Internet, would have made a better model. Now, we are stuck with a system in which big money controls and shapes user experiences often without users understanding how these controls even work. You work for these companies. You provide the content and they distribute. You provide the attention and they sell the ads.
I blame the republicans for some of this. Allowing ISPs to sell data associated with user behavior and rolling back net neutrality were actions taken by the republicans now in office. At some level, I suppose this is consistent with the “get government out of as much as possible” mantra republicans push. However, allowing this logic works far better when those who provide services must compete. So, how many Internet providers can you access? With minimal and often no competition, the republican logic just does not work. Big money to play and few options for consumers means what was once possible has been lost. This is what happens when the common good is no longer the responsibility of government. This is what is called an oligarchy rather than a democracy.
Much has been made of Facebook and fake news. As I understand the concern, the problem is a combination of two factors: a) some individuals rely on Facebook as their major source of news and b) Facebook is going to prioritize “news” shared by those you follow. The result of these two factors can be that you view fake news likely to feed your personal biases.
Facebook has made efforts to address this criticism. Recently, the company has added methods for contesting posts for various reasons. To make use of these methods, you begin by using the drop-down menu associated with a post you find objectionable.
The “report post” option will take you through a hierarchical series of options for stating your concern.
When considering what seems a “crowd sourcing” approach to identifying fake news I wondered how the credibility of claims would be established. I imagined the type of situation faced by Wikipedia when groups with differing opinions change a post back and forth to communicate their positions.
This is what Facebook says about their approach:
You may see that certain news stories are marked as disputed on Facebook. News stories that are reported as fake by people on Facebook may be reviewed by independent third-party fact-checkers. These fact-checkers will be signatories of the non-partisan Poynter Code of Principles. A story may be marked as disputed if these fact-checkers find the story to be fake.