Yep, that's another reason why I homeschooled. My third child was special needs, so we put her into a special program at the public school. We also read constantly at home with all three children and even my special needs child loved books. Then the school wanted me to record how long we read every day, and at the end of the week, someone would get a prize for reading the most. It was often my child who "won", but it still bothered me. We don't read to *beat* the other children. We read because we love it. I tried to explain to them that I saw these external reinforcers as threatening to my child's innate motivation. Finally I just told them we weren't going to participate in their reading program any more. I'm sure they couldn't figure out why we didn't want their stickers, but but it was best for us.
Many years ago, when speed reading was a new thing, I was (forcibly) enrolled in a class for it. You had a dial that controlled an upward scroll. I was told to quit scrolling so fast because no one could possibly read that fast. Ah, well.
Anyway, I grew up on a farm, in rural poverty, and although both my mother and father loved to read they didn't really have the time to read a lot. So I didn't learn to read until I went to first grade in a one room schoolhouse. But I learned quickly. Back then teachers got the basics into you, then tried to find something each child liked to read. We didn't all read the same books. It seemed to work. Most of the people I graduated HS with are still readers.
On Google's FX Image page, which is part of their AI Test Kitchen, I got a message saying my prompt violated their policies. The words I typed were: "English girl, cozy setting, cup of tea." It worked fine for "Japanese," "African," "Korean," etc. but not "English" or "Chinese." I tried the same thing with Microsoft's Bing Create. There, you can enter any description. Even "white girl, cozy setting, cup of tea" worked, and so did "Black girl."
I'm really not interested in having someone decide my goals for me, and then help me achieve them. Gamification *can* work, for some people and some circumstances. It's even been known to work for me, for a while, until I ran out of unattained goals in the game I'd chosen as motivation. But pseudo rewards for attaining goals one never signed up for?!? Not so much.
I'm also somewhat concerned about unsuitable goals. As an example, my second-to-last employer negotiated a discount on their health insurance plan, for those employees willing to come in to work fasting one day a year, line up interminably to get various screening tests done, then wait some more to receive scripted advice from a human being, based entirely on those tests.
The advice wasn't consistent with either individual circumstances or the latest medical research, consisting primarily of dated platitudes. After one or two experiences, I decided I'd rather pay "full price", than endure another experience of this kind. Meanwhile, HR insisted they had negotiated a "lower price" for the health plan. (Nope, the unpleasant time wasting exercise was part of the new price, which I found more costly than the $ it replaced.)
I suspect that given a group that contained a large proportion of people who never paid attention to their health, going through this rigamarole may well have reduced total insurance costs by more than the combination of price reduction and providing staffing for the "health fair". So it can be presumed to have been a win, statistically.
But some people may have trusted the bad advice they were given, and wound up with personally worse outcomes.
Because I live in the United States, "everyone" knows I'm overweight and desperate to take off pounds. Half the results I get when searching for "health" concern this all important priority. Unfortunately, there's more anorexia than obesity in my family. I wonder how many potential anorexics go over that line in part because of so many people insisting that everyone needs to diet.
I also wonder how long it will be before I can no longer buy a dumb watch, without any of these unwanted misfeatures.
<If I read too fast it would refuse to go forward to the next page until the appropriate time.>
This is like in Snow Crash, were the heroine's (Y.T.) mother worked for the United States government and they monitored the employee's read times on all memos.
I taught in a high school most of whose students had never had a habit of reading. Therefore their vocabulary was limited to the conversational words they used with friends and at home.
It is an insidious deficiency. Unwitting teachers would use words like “strenuous” and students would dutifully nod like they get it, they understand. They don’t. The standardized tests in English, American History and other subjects are written at a high-school reading level, but most of the students are reading at a 5th or 6th grad level.
I think if people are concerned that students will be discouraged from discovering the joy of reading for it’s own sake may not have extensive experience with high school kids like these who will inevitably graduate from high school uneducated.
This technology also seems to be depriving people of reason to develop the ability to nag themselves, which is a useful item to have in one's mental toolbox.
"Smart" devices (and those who program them) are trying to desensitize us all to this crap so that they can surveil and dictate our every action, 24/7/365. It would be nice if a competing phone service were available that would promise not to do any of those things.
Any idea why the market isn't offering one yet? We can't all be that stupid.
Normies are brainless cattle and the whole world is set up to flatter their magical notions. We should be nudged to hunt them for sport.
Yep, that's another reason why I homeschooled. My third child was special needs, so we put her into a special program at the public school. We also read constantly at home with all three children and even my special needs child loved books. Then the school wanted me to record how long we read every day, and at the end of the week, someone would get a prize for reading the most. It was often my child who "won", but it still bothered me. We don't read to *beat* the other children. We read because we love it. I tried to explain to them that I saw these external reinforcers as threatening to my child's innate motivation. Finally I just told them we weren't going to participate in their reading program any more. I'm sure they couldn't figure out why we didn't want their stickers, but but it was best for us.
Many years ago, when speed reading was a new thing, I was (forcibly) enrolled in a class for it. You had a dial that controlled an upward scroll. I was told to quit scrolling so fast because no one could possibly read that fast. Ah, well.
Anyway, I grew up on a farm, in rural poverty, and although both my mother and father loved to read they didn't really have the time to read a lot. So I didn't learn to read until I went to first grade in a one room schoolhouse. But I learned quickly. Back then teachers got the basics into you, then tried to find something each child liked to read. We didn't all read the same books. It seemed to work. Most of the people I graduated HS with are still readers.
On Google's FX Image page, which is part of their AI Test Kitchen, I got a message saying my prompt violated their policies. The words I typed were: "English girl, cozy setting, cup of tea." It worked fine for "Japanese," "African," "Korean," etc. but not "English" or "Chinese." I tried the same thing with Microsoft's Bing Create. There, you can enter any description. Even "white girl, cozy setting, cup of tea" worked, and so did "Black girl."
Preach it, Brother!
I'm really not interested in having someone decide my goals for me, and then help me achieve them. Gamification *can* work, for some people and some circumstances. It's even been known to work for me, for a while, until I ran out of unattained goals in the game I'd chosen as motivation. But pseudo rewards for attaining goals one never signed up for?!? Not so much.
I'm also somewhat concerned about unsuitable goals. As an example, my second-to-last employer negotiated a discount on their health insurance plan, for those employees willing to come in to work fasting one day a year, line up interminably to get various screening tests done, then wait some more to receive scripted advice from a human being, based entirely on those tests.
The advice wasn't consistent with either individual circumstances or the latest medical research, consisting primarily of dated platitudes. After one or two experiences, I decided I'd rather pay "full price", than endure another experience of this kind. Meanwhile, HR insisted they had negotiated a "lower price" for the health plan. (Nope, the unpleasant time wasting exercise was part of the new price, which I found more costly than the $ it replaced.)
I suspect that given a group that contained a large proportion of people who never paid attention to their health, going through this rigamarole may well have reduced total insurance costs by more than the combination of price reduction and providing staffing for the "health fair". So it can be presumed to have been a win, statistically.
But some people may have trusted the bad advice they were given, and wound up with personally worse outcomes.
Because I live in the United States, "everyone" knows I'm overweight and desperate to take off pounds. Half the results I get when searching for "health" concern this all important priority. Unfortunately, there's more anorexia than obesity in my family. I wonder how many potential anorexics go over that line in part because of so many people insisting that everyone needs to diet.
I also wonder how long it will be before I can no longer buy a dumb watch, without any of these unwanted misfeatures.
<If I read too fast it would refuse to go forward to the next page until the appropriate time.>
This is like in Snow Crash, were the heroine's (Y.T.) mother worked for the United States government and they monitored the employee's read times on all memos.
Too fast, you were in trouble.
Too slow, you were in trouble.
That section of the book is hilarious.
I taught in a high school most of whose students had never had a habit of reading. Therefore their vocabulary was limited to the conversational words they used with friends and at home.
It is an insidious deficiency. Unwitting teachers would use words like “strenuous” and students would dutifully nod like they get it, they understand. They don’t. The standardized tests in English, American History and other subjects are written at a high-school reading level, but most of the students are reading at a 5th or 6th grad level.
I think if people are concerned that students will be discouraged from discovering the joy of reading for it’s own sake may not have extensive experience with high school kids like these who will inevitably graduate from high school uneducated.
Regarding the Reading to intelligence (g) (Ritchie et al 2014), I think that finding was due to a method error. https://srcd.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/cdev.12669
This technology also seems to be depriving people of reason to develop the ability to nag themselves, which is a useful item to have in one's mental toolbox.
I've written about this before, but I cured my son's dyslexia by hiring a 12 year old with adhd to read fun books to him.
David, here's how to stop having to log in every hour or so, on your Pixel Watch
Open the app
Tap "Watch preferences"
Select "Security"
Tap "Screen lock"
Select "None" from the Screen lock options
"Smart" devices (and those who program them) are trying to desensitize us all to this crap so that they can surveil and dictate our every action, 24/7/365. It would be nice if a competing phone service were available that would promise not to do any of those things.
Any idea why the market isn't offering one yet? We can't all be that stupid.
Hey David,
Have you tried the steps in this video https://youtu.be/Mn3KvinzepQ?si=j4w3lPvoYL3Ncb4G to disable the reminder to move notifications on your watch?