Why Jaron Lanier Is Wrong About the 'Digital Classroom'

"Lanier claims that education in the digital age will be determined by what information can be represented in computers."

You mean like immersing yourself through a Virtual Reality Process in efforts to best understand in its entirety rather than regurgitating badly written text and acting like you really know? The information represented in computers can better foster creativity..regurgitating IMHO is robotic.

"that control exists only in the hands of the designer and in the technology itself."

I believe that is self evidently different in the Web2.0 era. For example, facebook 'sharing' with the originating user profile (via 'username') displayed may very well have been a natural progression perpetuated by the users rather than a planned enhancement. Natural progression, YES! However learned from the users. Taking this into the classroom, it is the life long dream of many educators and the 'designer(s)' to have an app that perpetually gets smarter on ITS OWN. Digital collaboration accelerating to the speed of thought! HOW DOES Jaron like dem apples? I'm chalking this up with something that I heard yesterday in the sauna at the gym. "He would have made a great INTERNET salesman ten years ago" - yes I got into a discussion about the 'goodness' of the web with someone...... and that statement says IDIOT all over the place.

Thanks for posting a detailed critique on Lainer's perception about digital classroom. I would like to say that every piece of technology has two sides. If it makes life easier , bring more power to human capabilities then it also have downsides. Similar is with the Digital Classroom. Indeed my feeling is that technology need intense debate to bring out a more useful flavor of it.

Hi Matthew, 

Thank you for your detailed response. 

"Part of my concern is who the "our" is. Lanier comes from a position that I feel overemphasized the role of the programmer/technical expert, without seriously considering the role that teachers and students have in this process."

Yes, I would agree with this. He seems to switch back and forth between 'our' in the 'programmer community' sense, and 'our' in 'western culture in general' sense. I would agree that when he uses 'our' in the former sense, the programmer community sense', he is entertaining too limited a view, one that restricts and distorts his more general claims. 

"Again, the question is *whose* judgement is off. I'd posit that who Lanier is really talking about are the so called experts (the programmers). As I said in an earlier post, I think he falls into the Marxian trap that allows only a certain, select subset of people to have achieved so called "technological" consciousness."

In "You Are Not a Gadget" he does extend the circle to include more than programmers, he includes computer culture at large, and the intelligent general public who hold opinions regarding technology and the future. To what extent he is making a theory of 'humanity', and 'humanity's relation to technology' in a more social theoretical sense is not clear. I think he likes to think he is tapping into some insights regarding human nature, and he explicitly tries to do this when he discusses political Internet subjects in interviews. This is less explicit in his techno-philosophy stuff, and I would agree that in the article at hand it seems like his being more restricting in the *who* sense. 

"This is an area where we have to agree to disagree. While it may be the case that in his larger body of work, Lanier touches on this point with far more nuance, but in terms of this article I see his argument as reduced to exactly what I wrote. He missed the opportunity to unpack the potential for creativity in the Mash-Up -- instead choosing to suggest that it leads to turning students into unthinking conduits of information. And the only positive form of creativity he writes about is the supposed blank sheet of paper."

Fair enough. I admit to having read between the lines and applying knowledge of Lanier's more general philosophy in order to glean a more nuanced interpretation of it--to glean that he was not negating the value of Internet sharing culture. I think Lanier's article is really poorly written. It took me at least an hour to to feel confident that I had gleaned from it the intended central claims, to follow the logic, since it, like much Lanier, has arguments that are several steps long and often not as explicitly stated as they could be. Nuance, with regards to having a nuanced view of things, yes, it definitely comes up short on that too. Also, this article had too much going on, big questions raised that he didn't adequately deal with. Someone not skilled with these topics and in interpreting Lanier (i.e. having some philosophy/sociology training, even, in addition to reading his other material) would certainly be confused and misguided by it. 

"I think its fair to say that in the context of "You are not a gadget" I have over simplified Lanier's argument. The problem is that to see the nuance that you and Michael have seen, it presupposed that you've read Lanier's book (something that he doesn't mention anywhere within the article)."

Yes. It requires an understanding of 'You Are Not a Gadget' in order to be a more useful piece of discourse. If one just encountered this NYT article, they would, as you point out, be lead in directions of thought that are highly unfavourable. 

"I think that in trying to combat problems that he see's in the computer science/technology community (versus the educational system), he puts forth an argument that ends up reproducing a lot of the problems that drove the critique while not opening up a real space of discussion for how to creatively work with technology."

Yup. And see his central points in 'You Are Not a Gadget' are that everyone needs to have a critical mind about what technology can and cannot do, what it should, and should not do, what it is, and is not etc. That his community of programmers are especially guilty of unwarranted hype, but also the more general public. That people (those who care to think about it) often get blindly carried away in their optimism about technology that they don't realize when it fails. 

So, I agree. The NYT article falls short in many ways. 

Getting back to the point i made initially, by surveying a larger portion of Lanier's work one must accept that he is not a 'technological determinist' in any strong sense of the phrase. Its too bad he wasn't able to get that across in the NYT article, and coming across, instead, as someone who considers humanity at large the passive victims of bad programming, or something like that! 

I look forward to your follow-up article!

-Nikki Olson

While the debate is interesting, it may be that our brains are basically wired to be adventurous, and seek new learning no matter what.

The educational system attempts to find the best way to teach or receive learning, but maybe it just doesn't matter. Technology or not, students and all of us long out of school will find what works for us. It may be the latest and greatest software application or most cool hardware. Or it may just be a book.

Hi Mathew, It is almost as I can feel your literal distain for Lanier as opposed to the content of his editorial.

Like with most opinions supported by examples that best accommodate one's perspective there belies his side, your side and somewhere in between, the TRUTH.

I find neither one of your arguments compelling and clearly miss the mark on the reality of technology and the classroom. This isn't a black and white, right or wrong but rather how the two theories of learning can compliment one another. 

Without question, there can be no sitting on the fence when it comes to the ability of the teacher to instruct everything beyond that is a prop.

Great subject matter, Matthew! 

I think you perceive Lanier’s claims to be a stronger form of ‘technological determinism’ than they are. 

There are degrees of technological determinism. One could see it on a spectrum, with 'agency' as the principle variable.

On one end of the spectrum you would find 'weak technological determinism', a belief that technology plays a small, yet considerable part in shaping society and values. There is much room for human agency in this perspective. 

"Strong technological determinism", on the other hand, the belief that technology is the main force that shapes society and values, is a stronger, reductionist claim, where humans are set to play out what the technology entails they do, and little else.

You seem to interpret Lanier as more of a ‘strong technological determinist’, where human agency is thought to be considerably interrupted, thwarted even, by technology.  I disagree with your interpretations and conclusions. 

I wish to point out some errors I think you make in interpreting Lanier's perspectives on education, and technology in general. 

You say:

“Lanier claims that education in the digital age will be determined by what information can be represented in computers”

He actually says :

“The future of education in the digital age will be determined by our judgment of which aspects of the information we pass between generations can be represented in computers at all. If we try to represent something digitally when we actually can’t, we kill the romance and make some aspect of the human condition newly bland and absurd.”

So, there is a step in the process where we are deciding which aspects of education can be represented/learned digitally. 

His point is not that these tools ‘determine’ us. Our own decisions determine education. His worry is that we have poor judgement about technology, thereby choosing to implement poor educational policy using technology when and where we shouldn't. 

Our judgment about what computers can represent is ‘off’, we think they are more than they are at the present time, he thinks, which causes us to favor digital platforms when we maybe shouldn’t.

This skewed judgment about the value of technology, he thinks, is based on our tendency to apply incorrect ideology and hype to what the technology is actually doing. As a result, we get overexcited by the technology. Being overexcited leads us to being blind to its shortcomings, much like being over-excited about a new job, person, hobby.

Bad technology leads to bad education when we don't realize it is bad technology. There are several human errors in the process, and several human solutions to the problems. Quite uncontroversial, actually. 

You say:

“For him, the only “true” creativity comes from the author who creates “from scratch”’

Where does he say this?  This is a straw man interpretation of what he says.

What he actually claims is much weaker, and is harmonious with what you get at regarding building upon one another, accumulated knowledge, dialectics of progress etc.

I think in his claims about ‘self-invention’ he simply wants to point out the value of being able to think critically. I will admit, I think ‘self-invention’ is a vague term, he could have defined it, or used a different term. But to assume that he meant that the only true creativity/learning comes from solitary mental activities is to straw man his claim. 

More generally, in his other works, he expresses caution about our being over-excited about the ‘hive mind’, the ‘global brain’, (in ‘You Are Not a Gadget’ and interviews). Thinks that 'wisdom of crowds' is over stated. We talk about the idea of great things 'emerging' from the 'hive mind', but there is very little evidence of that being true, and a lot of evidence to the contrary, he thinks. 

He does not undermine the value of sharing information and ideas via the web in general. His problem is more with hype surrounding 'free' platforms, especially when they fail to produce greatness and we don't realize the absence of confirmation for our hype. He points out that 'free' music hasn't lead to any really great artists, but we still maintain a hype surrounding the phenomenon as if it does produce great artists. 'Sharing', more specifically, is something I have never seen him speak out or write against the value of.

You say:

“The ability to bring different materials together to reveal something new is a critical creative skill”

He never said that it wasn’t. He was pointing out the need to 'self-invent', (think critically), and it is reasonable to assume that he means for us to do this along with sharing and collaborating.

You say:

“All of this points to a fundamental mistake in Lanier’s conception of technology: that control exists only in the hands of the designer and in the technology itself. He writes: “The crucial choice of which intergenerational information is to be treated as computational grist is usually not made by educators or curriculum developers but by young engineers.”

I think what he is saying here is actually a lot more mild than what you surmise. I think he is identifying one of the reasons that educational technology fails to be effective, that reason being that engineers often end up designing educational software where it should be 'educators'. He also does not seem to be claiming that educators couldn't/don't 'fill in the gaps' or have some agency about it much like a musician who plays more than just the notes on the page. As long as we realize the software is bad we can do this. Its when we don't realize its bad that we run into problems because then we are not acting with agency where we ought to be. 

You say:

“At the heart of Lanier’s argument is the claim that technology (and its users) fundamentally change us and we, the users, have no say in the matter”

Given the counter-arguments I have provided above, I argue that this ‘summary’ of Lanier's "Does the Digital Classroom Enfeeble the Mind?" that you provide is 'off the mark' and exaggerated. 

In sum, Lanier’s arguments are more complex and less severe than I found you to represent here.

What I think is better to take as a conclusion to the article can be found in what he says closer to the beginning:

"The trick is being ambidextrous, holding one hand to the heart while counting on the digits of the other."

Or, that we have a definite role in making the future of technology and education the way we want it, in preserving, promoting and maintaining, the ‘human element’ of education. If we don’t recognize the importance of our playing a role and depend too much on technology in education, then we get poor education, education that emphasizes the wrong things, since technology can’t give us everything we need in the educational experience.

Lanier, in general, has definitely been known to point out how technology influences our thoughts and our perceptions of self, but it is a stretch to claim that he is a ‘technological determinist’ in the ‘no human agency’ sense of the phrase as you seem to be claiming here. 

All the best,

Nikki Olson

Mea Culpa. I've quickly scanned his book and I'm much more familiar with his arguments as they have played out in the short form essay's he's published. The problem with a hard 700 word limit is that you tend to have to reduce an argument to it's most basic form. So I definitely have had to do a bit of violence to Lanier's argument.

(From what I've seen Lanier does more than a bit of this himself as well in order to make his counter positions work... unfortunately, for better or worse this tends to go with the territory).

That said, in my opinion Lanier's position, at least as he's connected it to the transformation and dumbing down of culture, still plays into a fundamentally determinalist trap. And, they tend to ignore how mediated our experiences were prior to the introduction of computers.

His argument is fundamentally the same one that Marx and Engels made (more convincingly, imho) in reaction to the industrial revolution. Ditto the Frankfurt school about 50 years ago in reaction to mass media. And while there are important aspects to these critiques of mediation, the also tend to (1) assume that this is something new (or over emphasize the scale of the phenomena) and (2) leave very little room for agency.

Again, let me be clear that I am not arguing that we can ignore how technology mediates experience. Likewise, I also think that claims of "transparent"/"perfect" representation via technology are highly problematic. However, from my own research in this area, I typically find that it's the designers, as opposed to the users, who are typically the ones who are making the big claims about their own technologies.

Positions like Lanier's (and Marx's) tend to represent the users as passive players in this equation, simply taking up and using the technologies uncritically. Typically these theorists only leave the possibility of seeing the world "as it is" open to the unique few with the right (moral/elitist) character.

Media Anthropologists, among others, have done a lot of work to demonstrate that this isn't the case. People do use many technologies in subversive and unexpected ways. And even if the user is engaging with a technology as expected, they are often much more aware of the problems with mediating technologies than we give them credit for -- especially because they are interacting with that tech on a day-to-day basis.

All that said, if you can suggest some passages to take a look at out of Lanier's book, I'd be very much obliged as I'd like to represent him in a fair light.

At the heart of Lanier’s argument is the claim that technology (and its designers) fundamentally change us and that we, the users, have no say in the matter. This unwavering belief in technological determinism has made him a favorite “go-to” person when the media needs an “anti-techie techie,” but it doesn’t make him a particularly good student of history or technology.

I'm guessing you haven't read Lanier's book, You Are Not A Gadget, in which he goes into a lot more detail about the issue of technological determinism. His point of view really isn't what you're representing here.

He's not saying that the users don't have any say in the way they use technology. Rather, he worries that, because of arbitrary technological solutions to human problems, millions of people will find themselves in ruts, having reality mediated to them in ways that have become so universal that most of them won't even notice.

Lanier may not be a historian per se, but he is a programmer who has had a front-row seat as computers became increasingly popular in people's lives, and he has observed the often arbitrary technical decisions that end up having a profound impact on culture. The popularity of MIDI files changing the definition of a musical note is just one of his examples.

There are indeed many strong-willed, imaginative people, but that doesn't mean that their energies will necessarily be channeled into seeing through, or making it a priority to challenge, the ways of interacting with technology, media, and each other that they happen to inherit.

Matthew,

Thank you for sharing this great article with us.  As you point out with your excellent sheet music analogy, people have been arguing about technology advances for a long time.  I remember how me and my young classmates had to be taught that doing a research paper didn't just involve looking it up in Encyclopedia Britannica and copying the info done word for word.  :)

We may learn in different ways now that we have nearly unlimited information at our finger tips but decreasing memorization "learning" means that we have more time to focus on creating thinking and problem solving.  There are more tools than ever at our disposal but the greatest tool continues to be our own brain and how we find connections amongst the chaos of information to reach our goal.  Teaching that involves finding the connections, understanding the relationships, and effectively connecting those dots is what it should be about.

-jc