This is my first reading reflection post for my Critical Theory of Technology [CTOT] class. The reading that provoked the most thought for me this week was Mindstorms by Seymour Papert. (maybe also because it was the longest…)

‘It’s about using computers to to challenge current beliefs about who can understand what and at what age.’

  • I do feel like I underestimate children’s ability to work with computers. Before this class, I was visiting some relatives at their cottage in northern Michigan and my younger cousin was playing Minecraft, and was insanely good at it (in my opinion). I was so amazed at what she could do in the game being so young (ages 4-7ish). Because I didn’t grow up having access to a computer at that age, it seems inconceivable that children that young can work with it so well.

I really liked the analogy of learning to communicate with a computer to being exposed to and learning a language in another country. I’ve always wondered why it’s so much easier to learn a language through exposure rather than brute force teaching so it’s really interesting to relate learning a programming language to this. I also never really thought of learning programming in the same context as learning another language such as Spanish or French; maybe because programming isn’t usually spoken, only written?

‘Breaking a vicious learning cycle without creating a dependence on machines’

  • is very important. It’s great to teach children to communicate with a computer at a young age, but it shouldn’t replace any physical hands-on learning.

‘Our culture has a general perception of mathematics as inaccessible.’

  • I happened to really enjoy learning what the paper calls ‘school math’, but I knew plenty of people who had mathphobia as well. There was/is definitely a clear disconnect between skills: those who feel more comfortable in the ‘english/lit/creative’ world and those who feel more comfortable in the ‘analytical/math’ world, and they’re looked at as mutually exclusive spaces. I was lucky to somehow feel inspired by and have a natural affinity for math, but at the same time, I would say I had a writing phobia because of it. Because I was good at math throughout school, I automatically felt that I would not be a good writer and hated writing and literature classes. (Which is strange because I love to read and reflect on reading…) I think this inspires my gravitation towards computational linguistics as it makes language/writing as math-y as possible.

‘Mathematics must be continuous with well established personal knowledge from which it can inherit a sense of warmth and value as well as cognitive competence.’

  • I’ve been thinking a lot about why I like math since reading this paper, and I don’t know if I can articulate why yet…I was taught what the paper calls ‘school math’ and I don’t feel like I had much of a chance or was encouraged to find relevance to something personal, as the author did with gears. In college, what distinguished math from other classes for me was that it was learning and understanding a process rather then memorizing facts. So why do I like math enough to get a degree in it? I don’t quite know.

Check out all the readings:
Mindstorms: Seymour Papert
Face to Face: Alan Kay Still Waiting for the Revolution: an interview with Alan Kay
Bicycles for the mind: Steve Jobs