These children are not the ones giving adults much trouble, so they’re easy to miss. They’re the daydreamy ones, the ones with work that’s not turned in, leaving names off of papers or skipping questions, things like that, that impinge on grades or performance. So anything we can do to understand what’s going on with these kids is a good thing.
Dr. Keith McBurnett, a professor of psychiatry at UCSF, describing “sluggish cognitive tempo”, the newest en vogue ‘diagnosis’.
"What’s going on" is creativity and exploration. If we vanquish these things in pursuit of turning in structured papers on time we’ll commit a very grave error that will haunt us in generations to come.
- No one would get jokes in early Simpsons episodes anymore if these drugs catch on.
- I bet Einstein would have filed twice as many patents if he had been diagnosed and medicated. He’d stop wondering about how railway clocks could ever truly be in sync (and arriving at relativity in the process) and would have blasted past his performance reviews.
- Personally, my time spent daydreaming, drawing, and writing prepared me for my career significantly more than turning my work (which I constantly didn’t do)
Mongolian Girls continuing the 6000-year-old tradition
Reality more beautiful than fantasy, again.
“Maybe it’s an effect of living your life online — that you also want these physical things.”
Tom Nissley, who used to work for Amazon and now owns a small bookstore in Seattle. He’s a part of the movement of small, local shops gaining ground once again even in the face of Amazon.
It’s a slightly better sentiment than “books as art”.
Always looking justification in this department.
April 11, 2014 at 10:05pm
Ugh. So purty.
Our national political debate is so constrained that accelerated growth is presumed to be the necessary precondition for broad prosperity. We’re told the only way to help the 1 in 6 Americans living in poverty is to keep enlarging the pie until everyone has a big enough slice. But is this worth it if we lose Miami in the process? A rising tide used to lift all boats, but now it just drowns our cities. A genuine alternative instead of attempting to press beyond the limits we face would distribute the fruits of our technological and economic prowess away from those at the top and toward the vast majority.
— Opinion: Growth for growth’s sake will kill us all: Moral and ecological truths are challenging economic doctrines (via aljazeeraamerica)
The Economist highlights what I believe is our generation’s greatest challenge:
Over the past 30 years the digital revolution has displaced many of the mid-skill jobs that underpinned 20th-century middle-class life.
We’re only at the start of this change and as The Economist points out, if the “analysis is halfway correct, the social effects will be huge.”
As I wrote last May, overall I am optimistic about the future but there are going to be significant negatives that come with the advances. It’s important that we address the problems while nurturing the progress.
The Economist puts forward two ways for governments to support their citizens in the years ahead. The first is education. However, the paper points out that a dramatic change in education is needed, from rote-learning to creativity and critical thinking. The second is through some form of minimum income support.
Changing these systems in any developed nation will require incredible political will. At a time when partisanship makes it difficult for government to enact even minor reform and political leaders appear most interested in governing for electability, it’s hard to believe that changes of this nature can be done without a sizable negative event. Let’s hope that’s not the case.
This is indeed our generation’s biggest challenge, but education and minimum income (which is an idea I love) are small potatoes compared to the moral reform this will require.
Many humans’ labor will soon be worth close to nothing. In many instances, it already is. Meanwhile, in the United States, work ethic is strongly linked to moral worthiness. I mean, we use the term work ethic – if you don’t work, you’re good for nothing.
There’s no doubt that we’ll need to invent new things for people to do, but we’ll also likely need to train ourselves to be perfectly ok with people who do nothing. Particularly if we want to implement any kind of minimum income. That’s a far cry from the moral outrage we see directed at “welfare queens” today.
Yeah, such a huge cultural change would take generations.
Those fears of ‘idol hands’ were deeply embedded in me from the beginning.
Perhaps a more palatable/interim approach would be shorter (limited) careers. Almost a mandatory retirement age.
At 35-40, you relinquish your highly prized job to your intern or apprentice. You do this because you know your mortgage (can we eliminate those too, please?) can be paid with your minimum guaranteed income.
Rather than full retirement though, you go into educating the next generation, while you’re still young enough to appreciate the future needs of the workforce and technology.
The most controversial articles on Wikipedia, sorted by language. (via Daily chart: Edit wars | The Economist)
A standing desk may be one way to solve the sitting problem but it doesn’t solve the inactivity problem. Standing is not necessarily better than sitting if you do it for a prolonged period of time.
Crew Blog | Why I killed my standing desk
My dream workspace actually has both sitting and standing desks. The standing would be more for sketching and thinking. I’ve been pretty close to having such a setup and it was a good way to get me off the screens and do some proper think time, and then return to sit and make those ideas tangible.
Maybe there’s a distinction there, between standing which might encourage creative thinking, and sitting which may enable more pragmatic and detailed thinking.
I am absolutely amazed to discover myself on this rock ball, rotating around this spherical fire. It’s a very odd situation.
— Alan Watts, The Tao of Philosophy (via merlin)