I get the feeling that the author was judging the person he was helping far more harshly than the perceived judgement she might have passed on him.
Maybe she was tired, clearly she was frustrated, but it wasn't obvious that she held the author in any disdain, though the author seemed to perceive it. What we're sure of is that the author held her in such low regard.
I wonder if she picked up on that. I suspect she did, and I suspect it contributes to the negative stereotypes that the author wanted to rail against by mentioning all this.
> ‘Do you know where the proxy settings are?’ I asked, hopefully.
> It took me about ten seconds to find and fill in the proxy settings.
Well for Christ's sake don't ask her something she almost surely doesn't know if it only took you ten seconds of looking. Look for ten seconds first.
The first rule of any educator is to never, under any circumstances, make someone feel inept. And it was so easily avoidable here.
~~~
Of course people can't use computers. They're not trying to use computers. They're trying to get X done. The computer is a device that, most of the time, just gets in the way of doing X.
Just the way that cars are a device that get from point A to point B. Few poeple get in a car to drive. They get in a car to locate themselves to point B.
In this case, the person can't use a computer because people like the author condescend a bit, fix the problem in ten seconds, and don't set them up to be just a bit wiser for next time.
The important part of the story is the part where the author explains that on some networks, you need to set extra settings so the office network can communicate with the outside world network. I hope the author explained what it took him ten seconds to do, so that she might be able to help herself next time. The omission (and disdain) leads me to suspect not, or at least that actually helping her was not an important part of the story.
The car analogy falls apart though, when you consider the complexity of the tasks that he's complaining about.
We would rightly laugh at anyone who complained that their car wouldn't 'turn on' when they jammed their key into the gap between the ignition and the steering column, or because the car was out of fuel. We'd laugh if they complained that they can't see at night because they didn't turn the lights on, and needed reminders every time they drove at night to find the light switch.
We'd laugh at someone who burned the car's engine and transmission up because they stomped on the gas pedal while the car was in park, because "when I press it the car usually goes forward but this time it didn't." Repeat, so on and so forth with every 'common' function in a car.
The problem is that people aren't learning about these basic functions that are required in day-to-day operation of a computer, like they do with a car. The wifi is a good example: Someone who owns a laptop should have a cursory familiarity with the wireless networking functionality and be able to find and connect to networks, because a laptop is made to be portable and will therefore be expected to use unfamiliar networks. Granted, the proxy settings are somewhat more forgivable as that's a non-standard setting, but it still doesn't excuse the person's total inability to find the network.
And the main point of the article stands as a rebuttal of the truism "Kids are better at computers", because they significantly aren't. They're only slightly less clueless than their parents.
The wifi is actually somewhat excusable, if they only ever connect to the internet at home or work and could have been years since those two networks were configured. Plenty of people never use internet on their laptop outside of two or three places.
However, it's pure lunacy on the part of the IT guy to expect people to know the specific proxy settings (including whether or not a proxy is needed), where to enter them, what sites exactly are being blocked, and how to diagnose where in the chain of powerpoint -> computer -> AP -> proxy -> internet your video is failing and how to fix it.
Going to cars, that's like expecting someone to be able to diagnose why an engine isn't starting when they turn the key in the ignition. Without any sonic or haptic clues.
Well yes - even an amateur has a chance of realizing from said clues whether their battery is dead, or they're out of gas.
But for network issues, the error message you're going to get 19 times out of 20 is some minor variant of "Server could not be reached." Which offers no additional information that you don't already know from it failing to work.
"Server can't be reached" gives critical, actionable information. Error messages can be searched for! If you can't search for an error message, you can't use a computer.
Or you can't search for it because you can't reach the internet.
Anyway, if you can definitively figure out which of the following is true from that message without the use of additional diagnostic utilities, well... (yes I have personally seen all of these (except exactly 12 which I've seen variants of but worded it the same way as the article))
1. Your cable modem can't find a signal, because of weather conditions
2. Your cable modem can't find a signal, but can once it's rebooted
3. Your access point stopped working, and needs a power cycle
4. The AP failed to give your computer any of: an IP address, DNS, a gateway, a working gateway
5. Your computer thinks it's connected to a wireless network, but the AP isn't receiving packets it sends
6. Your computer thinks it's connected to a wireless network, has the correct gateway, and can ping the AP, but nothing else (despite other computers on the same network working fine)
7. Your AP randomly resets long-lived TCP streams (due to a bug in its firmware)
8. Your ISP reliably corrupts traffic from eBay, fixed by getting a different IP address and gateway from the ISP (by changing MAC addresses)
9. Your ISP has the wrong DNS entries for the site you're attempting to visit
10. You need to visit a specific, unadvertised intranet page and sign in before your connection works
11. You need to manually enter intranet proxy settings before your connection works
12. Your intranet proxy is blocking Youtube and the player you're using doesn't bundle a general-purpose web browser
13. Youtube videos buffer at 3 kb/s from your laptop, but work fine from your tablet, on the same network
(okay 12 and 13 are cheating a little since they don't give any error message, but the point is that the error messages are basically never enough on their own to diagnose network issues)
Again, you can search with mobile, or someone else's mobile, someone else's laptop, etc.
I appreciate your point regarding the multitude of possibilities for a server error, but remember what we're talking about. The user did not even attempt to read the error message, did not know what it said, and kept retrying thinking things would change. He didn't take some next step to try to diagnose potential connection problems (e.g. check for ethernet cable), he just threw his hands in the air, said it doesn't work, and ran to IT. He can't use computers.
No, the problem is that complex systems fail in non-obvious ways. Even highly technical and computer savvy people still need to hit the reset button on a Windows PC or router, due to an un-diagnosable problem which then magically goes away. Computers are not intuitive without a large amount of experience to know how things 'should' work.
This is a recognised phenomenon in safety critical systems such as those protecting nuclear plants - simple devices fail in known, predictable ways, complex devices fail in non-deterministic ways. This is why humans generally don't 'get' computers, and aren't willing to invest even minimal time in understanding them - there's no payoff until you've invested a huge amount of time to cover the majority of the problem space.
The only solution is higher quality in the development of software and hardware, and that's back on us.
The rebuttal to that is that people might be able to learn if software people didn't keep changing how it works. It's obvious on nearly every car since 1960 where the ignition is. Can you say the same for the Wi-Fi settings on computers?
Also, it's almost always been located in either the top right or bottom right of the screen (re. Windows/OSX here). If all of a sudden the new OSX version required a command line to connect, or changed the icon to something else, I'd understand. But to borrow from the car example, the ignition is unlikely to be located in the trunk.
Except on phones, where it's not (at least, you can't click on it even if there is an icon there). And I believe Windows doesn't necessarily show the icon unless WiFi is configured. And ignition switches all look the same, not so much for WiFi settings.
I recently bought a new car, and an amusing part of the test drive experience was figuring out how to start the damned things. Half the new cars these days have a smart key system with a plain power button on the dashboard, and it took me some fiddling to figure out exactly what other actions (pushing the brake, mainly) had to be taken to make that button actually work.
But you did, eventually, figure it out on your own and make it work. That's the whole point - 95% of people are pathologically unable to do that, when it comes to technology.
I just checked two Android devices (Nexus 10 and Xperia Z FWIW) and they both jump when you try to tap the WiFi icon, giving an indication of the pulldown menu behind it.
Honestly, I'm mostly with the author on this. Maybe it's a UK thing and maybe his experience of schools has made him particularly jaded, but I see a lot of functional tech illiterates. For example - I've recently had people not notice their laptop wasn't charging after being warned it had a dodgy power cable and reminded where the charge status icon was, then wonder went it suddenly turned off. Or complain that their browser was broken and installed a different browser because their home page had been changed, even though the available functionality was identical.
We need to make computers easier to discover, sure, but users need to take responsibility for their own machines not ask to be babied while assuming every IT person can bale them out.
I included the bit about the keys/ignition not because it's in an odd place, but because it's a mistake I make fairly often due to carelessness. Most people blindly reach for the ignition and that's fine; most people also don't immediately quit when they miss the hole on their first try.
The counterpoint to this is that the folk understanding of computers is, when you consider it, often more compelling than the expert understanding.
The notion that all the computers somehow mysteriously talk to one another, or that if you can get WiFi you should be able to get to the whole internet, is not crazy. It is The Way Things Should Be! It's our job to rig up the equivalent of headlight switches for computers, so they work the way the folk expectation says. If your headlight switch required you to have a compatible dongle, which of course has exactly the same connector as 15 other types of dongle, and will only illuminate the left half of the road until you flip 50 other switches in the car, it would be crazy. That's what the computer world feels like a lot of the time.
It's definitely true that there is such a thing as digital literacy, that it is crucially important (although harder to get than it ought to be), and that many people mistakenly don't put in the effort to acquire it, for many reasons.
This guy sounds like he has a chip on his shoulder. As you pointed out:
>The first rule of any educator is to never, under any circumstances, make someone feel inept. And it was so easily avoidable here.
There are many sentences in this article indicating that this is not an isolated, unique reaction from the poster.
This paragraph especially irked me:
> I’ve messed up, as I’m sure many of you have. When we purchased an XBox it was Techno-Dad to the rescue. I happily played about with the mess of cables and then created profiles for everyone. When my son’s MacBook was infected with the FlashBack virus Techno-Dad to the rescue. I looked up some on-line guides and then hammered away in the terminal until I had eradicated that bad-boy. When we purchased a ‘Family Raspberry Pi’ Techno-Dad to the rescue. I hooked it all up, flashed an OS to the SD-card and then sat back proudly, wondering why nobody other than me wanted to use the blasted thing. All through their lives, I’ve done it for them. Set-up new hardware, installed new software and acted as in-house technician whenever things went wrong. As a result, I have a family of digital illiterates.
Well, maybe it shouldn't have been "techno dad to the rescue", but rather "dad spending a moment with his kids showing them how to setup a raspberry pi/their xbox/etc.". And if the kids aren't even interested in setting up their own XBox, well then that's their prerogative. Give a man a fish, etc.
Addendum: when I was a pre-teen/teen, I spent all my free time learning about computers, reading programming books, etc. There was another kid just like me whom I hung out with, but it was just the two of us in our entire school. Nowadays, when I teach I meet kids who know python/html/php, fiddle with minecraft mods, jailbreak their android tablet so they can run a GBA emulator, etc. all the time. So I couldn't disagree more with OP's title. Having heavily worked with educators/as an educator has led me to believe that when someone complains that "kids can't X", it's more often than not their own shortcomings than the "kids'".
> Well, maybe it shouldn't have been "techno dad to the rescue", but rather "dad spending a moment with his kids showing them how to setup a raspberry pi/their xbox/etc.". And if the kids aren't even interested in setting up their own XBox, well then that's their prerogative. Give a man a fish, etc.
...
That is exactly what the paragraph you quoted means. The author regrets just doing it, and wishes he would have taken the time to show his family how to set things up.
They won't always be living with "techno-dad", so it behooves them at some point to get some of that knowledge. The onus is eventually on someone to want to figure this out. To bring up a scenario from the article, I know I wanted to play Super Nintendo, so when I got one, I made damn well sure I know how to hook it up & operate it in case something went wrong. If my job relies on being connected to the Internet and editing proxy settings, it's even more important that I know the ins & outs of that...
At some point, it is clear that people don't want to learn, whether they think it is beneath them, outside of their expertise, too hard, or, in this case, they know they'll always have someone else to do it for them.
Just like I don't need to be a certified mechanic to change my own oil or a headlight, you don't need a degree in CS, CE or IS to figure out how to remove preinstalled bloatware from the computer you just bought at Best Buy or to understand that a suspicious link in an email from an unknown sender shouldn't be clicked. In any case, the answer is always a web search away...
There's nothing wrong with saving your brain power for something you like, but I think there is a knowledge divide around computers & the Internet that leads to people getting scammed out of money because people refuse to learn the basics. Or maybe they never get the opportunity to learn, I don't know. They still teach kids how to write checks in school, why not teach them about this sort of thing too?
maybe it shouldn't have been "techno dad to the rescue", but rather "dad spending a moment with his kids showing them how to setup a raspberry pi/their xbox/etc.".
More than this, I think that in part it's necessary to allow the kids to try and fail before assisting them. I'm not sure that showing and explaining to them how to perform a task from start to finish is much more effective than solving the problem behind a closed door, at least in terms of retention. What's really effective is if they can make an attempt to solve the issue, and then get the solution. Unfortunately, my experience is that not very many parents take this approach, because it includes failure as part of the learning process--and not many parents like to watch their kids fail. I've even seen some parents condemned for telling their kids to go and try it themselves before they provide help--some parents regard this as some kind of neglect.
The goal is to have the kid get 90% of the way there (or however close they're capable) before closing the gap and assisting them with the remaining 10% that they aren't able to get on their own. Part of the issue is that in the eye of the learner (and an observer) is that 0% of the way there and 90% of the way there feel the same. Both of them amount to "I can't do it and had to ask for help." But if you've gotten 90% of the way to a solution yourself, it's much easier to understand when the final (and hardest) 10% is demonstrated for you, and odds are you'll retain at least part of that. Whereas if 100% of the task is done for you, you'll frequently retain none of the solution, even if the solution is accompanied by a lengthy explanation.
In school, I found that I learned most effectively when I attempted the assigned homework before the related material was covered in class. I tried, I failed at a lot of things, and when the lecture came up, I knew what information to look for and what questions to ask. Failure is a critical part of the learning process--it's unfortunate that many people try to avoid failure rather than embrace it.
On the other hand, when I was a kid whenever I broke something on the computer it was my responsibility to fix it. My parents told me I broke it, so I'm able to fix it. So this particular paragraph really actually resonated with me, because if it weren't for my parents going "Well, you broke it, if you don't fix it it's going to stay broken." I probably wouldn't be nearly as computer savvy as I am today, and I probably wouldn't have gotten into programming (ok, maybe I would have, but certainly not as young as I did)
I get this, and it makes sense. But the combination of network connectivity and expensive closed-box devices means I'm not sure how to implement it.
The computer I grew up with was isolated. If I broke it, I had a broken computer. I could take my time fixing it. Nowadays, a computer is connected... to the other computers in the house, and the entire internet beyond. If my kid breaks his computer, he might get in all kinds of trouble. I can't let him play around and fix it if it breaks, for the same reasons I don't let him play around with something plugged in to the mains electricity as a way of learning about electronics.
I'm also not going to let him wire up the x-box, because I know that a busted HDMI connector that broke because I was letting my kid plug the thing in is unlikely to be covered y the warranty.
For the computer thing, that's pretty much exactly why Raspberry Pi was created, so there was a cheap open (relatively) computer that kids could play around with, and even if they somehow manage to break it, it's only like $30.
As for the XBox, couldn't you just supervise while your kid hooked it up? Hand him/her the parts, tell him/her to go to it and you'll answer questions and keep an eye on things so he/she doesn't break anything but otherwise leave him/her to figure it out.
I got to play games because I learned the magic of memmaker.exe, autoexec.bat, config.sys, and boot disks. And I was motivated to learn how to fix things back when they broke because I shared a PC with my dad, who used it for consulting work--and who did not take kindly to service outages.
That's exactly how I learned this stuff. The damn game wouldn't play, so I had to make a boot disk.
Then I learned to make a bootdisk with a menu system called from the autoexec.bat - cos I realized that several games had the same emm386 requirements. And now I program things.
You say that kids who know how to jailbreak their tablet and run a GBA emulator understand computers?
It's usually just people downloading mystery software (could be malware but oh well) onto their computer which promises to have a button that says "jailbreak" and then they jailbreak their device with it not knowing what goes on and then use a magical 'jailbreak app' (cydia, etc) on their device which in turn gives them magical 'free' software and GBA emulators.
So they can Google for what they want and follow simple instructions to get the computer to do what they want? Great, that's probably enough not to have to ask somebody for help with almost any computer problem/thing you want the computer to do. Using computers will always be an exercise in sensible and appropriate abstraction, in this case I doubt they need to know how jailbreaking actually works.
Except that's more like a Harry-Potter way of doing things, where if someone tells you the right incantation you can perform the magic, but there's no way you're going to fix things if it doesn't work and no chance of understanding what's going on in order to do anything new.
Yet his description is precisely how I became someone with over 10 years professional IT experience and 6 years over that as a developer.
My 386 era machine at the time was without internet. My first experience was through AOL and Netcom in the early 90's. I mostly got lucky when things broke as I would fix one thing and break another horribly.
Slowly over time I began offloading large chunks of brain power to the internet as Google and others started really upping their game. Now, as a developer I don't keep syntax idiosyncrasies between languages in my head, I search. I don't keep esoteric error messages from Microsoft Office in my head, again I search. The proper use of Google has practically paid my salary for the last 16+ years. Once Stack Overflow came on the scene, my developer skillset took a quantum leap and I suspect a lot of people could agree with that statement. Now, I can say with certainty a significant portion of my computer literacy comes from my ability to use Google effectively.
I'm completely convinced that teaching proper search techniques to just an intermediate level would bring a lot of people close to being at least "literate enough." I expect everyone to be able to solve any user software problem they have but that should extend to the OS as well. Hardware problems aren't that much harder to solve but they generally require more practical knowledge, like how a specific peripheral behaves under normal working conditions. That can easily be taught as well but I expect only people that care to not pay ridiculously high prices for repair would care to venture into this territory.
Regardless, this is a long way of saying this isn't a Harry-Potter way of doing things for most people. It might seem like magic at first to a vast majority even, but over time that will turn into confidence and skill to solve genres of problems, not just specifics.
| Well, maybe it shouldn't have been "techno dad to the rescue", but rather "dad spending a moment with his kids showing them how to setup a raspberry pi/their xbox/etc.".
Tell that to my brother - every single time I try to explain as carefully as possible, going step by step, making him repeat the steps to make sure he knows how to do it.
Aaand two weeks later he's got the same problem and is calling me to fix it... Some people just don't want to understand...
I get the feeling that the author was judging the person he was helping far more harshly than the perceived judgement she might have passed on him.
There are certain professions that get brought problems constantly by people who think nothing of having you work for them for free.
Doctors get this constantly at parties, at the grocery store, functions for their kids, etc. "Does this look like anything to you?" To a much lesser extent, IT people get similar requests from people.
I have been brought at least a dozen computers in the last year with desperate pleas of, "I have x years of pictures on this computer and it won't turn on!" Take a look and half the time they have a virus the other half their hard drive is dead. My profession is in corporate IT but they just know I "work with computers". So they trudge right over, notebook in hand asking me to recover their data. I've spent as long as 7 hours and as much as $50 for these data recovery jobs on things like circuit cooler and replacement hard drive circuit boards.
The more appreciative always offer to pay. But I always decline because then I'm responsible for anything that doesn't work on that computer for the next 10 years. "You re-installed Windows nine years ago and last week my Caps Lock key broke, WHAT DID YOU DO?" The nicer ones end up buying me a case of beer then. So then I end up working hours on behalf of an aquaintances for beer instead of providing for my family at my typical $150 hourly rate.
Ignorance is your right so long as you don't ask other people to clean up after you for free.
>So they trudge right over, notebook in hand asking me to recover their data.
I got this in spades at my last job.
We were a web app startup, and the youngest people in a 13 story building. Everyone in the building knew we did something with computers, so they would never hesitate in bringing us their ancient machines and ask us to fix it, ask us to fix their network, in one case, ask us to do their daughter's final project for her intro to C++ class.
People really do just assume that everything to do with computers is directly related, and that they can ask anyone to fix it for free because "it'll only take a second".
I definitely got the feeling that the author had a bit of a chip on their shoulder, but I got through it and loved this article, because I have that same chip on my shoulder.
edit: One cool thing about those old people asking us to fix their shit, was that I got to see an authentic modem from 1999. They wouldn't upgrade because they didn't want to have to change their email addresses.
Every time I see you username I remember, fondly, watching text scroll across the screen and how utterly fascinating it was that it was coming over a phone line.
> People really do just assume that everything to do with computers is directly related, and that they can ask anyone to fix it for free because "it'll only take a second".
I totally get your point, but to be honest they're not completely wrong about that most of the time: Even if you're usually working in an entirely different area, you probably still have more general knowledge on computing than most people. This will often be enough for everday problems.
I like the "You work with computers, lease fix mine" requests as little as you do, but in reality we are able to help most of the time.
I think you missed the point or my impression after reading the article is different.
I genuinely feel that the author frustration comes from the fact that people assume instead of "RTFM".
Each device comes with manual, whether paper or CD. Its just that average user does not read it. Your manual will tell you there is hardware on/of switch of wireless on the side of your laptop. Had she read that, she wouldn't have come and ask. ITs irrelevant how few seconds it will take him to "fix it"; get that same question hundred times a day and you will be frustrated. Many times non-tech users assumption "its broken" comes from basic lack of knowledge, which device manual will explain. "my laptop doesnt work! see i try to turn it on, nothing!". Manual, page 2: "insert battery and plug your computer to power plug to charge it". - "did you do that?" -"Well, no...".
The analogy with the car is a good one. When you purchase a vehicle it comes with couple hundreds of pages of manual. Imagine impression on mechanic's face, or his opinion about average driver if people would be coming to his shop all the time saying "man, my car is broken!", when the "change oil" light is on. OP didnt want her to deassemble her laptop and replace network card on it. He just want he to RTFM.
Average computer user nowadays lost patient and don't want to learn or find out anything out of ordinary. And that's why, I think, OP is rightfully so frustrated.
Here is something interesting regarding the mind-state of some 'techno-geeks'. If you ask a question, you will likely get the reply 'RTFM' or some similar sounding poem. If you make a statement that is very likely to be incorrect, a lot of people who originally said 'RTFM' will now give you detailed explanations on why you are wrong. You are expected to auto-learn, but that is mostly forgotten when you feign arrogance.
I find this to be a profound dichotomy. It gets even more profound when someone makes a statement, then said statement is misunderstood by some 'techno-geeks' due to poor natural language skills. A load of 'geeks' reply to this statement taken out of context, explaining the poster's apparent ignorance of technology.
A lot of people have a chip on their shoulder. Even mechanics that do get paid for their work. They see the world as full of idiots that can't figure out how to fix cars, when they've been doing it for fifteen years daily. Some of them do think they're smarter than everyone else. That's why we live in a world where everyone thinks they're much smarter than average.
I use to experience this heavily. I've resorted to self-deprecating humor to tell them to buzz off without them feeling too insulted.
"Oh wow, [Windows|OSX]? I don't know how this stuff works, I only work with little computers!"
With my parents I feel less obliged to be polite so I generally just say something about not bothering a mechanical engineer with your car problems. The idea there is to emphasize that despite a degree in something they think is plainly related to installing printer drivers in windows XP, that is not actually something that I am trained in.
I detect a lot of resentment in your post that could all be avoided by just saying "No, sorry, I can't fix your computer."
So I should lie to them? Because that's what I would be doing. The truth is that I can fix their computer. To make that a truthful statement it would have to be, "No, sorry, I won't fix your computer." Has a bit of a different ring to it, doesn't it?
You can tell them whatever you want. The point is that you're saying, "No".
I don't have time to be fixing friends and acquaintances computers and I have no qualms about telling them that. I've never had anyone give me a hard time about it. A lot of people assume that because you are knowledgeable that you may want to fix it, a point of view which is only reinforced when you gladly take their broken computer and return it to them repaired without putting up a fuss about it.
I would say "yeah, I could probably fix it, but it'll take me at least a few hours and even then it's not certain. You're better off taking it somewhere professionally where they can properly backup your data and be held accountable. These are the guys I'd recommend."
No offense, but it sounds more like you want to fix it. Not that there's anything wrong with that of course, it's your prerogative.
By agreeing to fix their problem, you are now held liable at least in their mind. You are that "professional that can safely backup their data..." or whatever else they think you are. Surely if you can handle a big corp IT department you can take all that proprietary software home (piracy) and solve their problem?
Now that I've left IT directly into software development, I get to play the "Hey I'm just as illiterate as you!" card which is at least partially true. I don't have expensive software or even take proper backups of my extremely important data I wouldn't store in the cloud. Would you want someone like me touching your computer? You shouldn't.
I've done everything I can to be unavailable. It's a choice and one I proudly make. I just don't have the free time for charity any more no matter who you are to me unless I'm actively seeking some form of community service.
I always say since they basically want me to work for them I need to charge them like any other client. Since computer support is not my forte it would probably cost a lot.
Yeah. In college I refused to help anyone except my closest friends and basically swore them to secrecy if I did help them. Otherwise everyone who downloaded some virus from directconnect or kazaa would stop by to get help as if I have nothing better to do than wander over to their dorm room to do battle with their bad decisions.
On the other hand I did teach my mom to fish. She is even comfortable making changes in her linksys router, although she does usually call to check with me first. Making her self sufficient was great and now she asks me why everyone wants her help...
>> The first rule of any educator is to never, under any circumstances, make someone feel inept. And it was so easily avoidable here.
In none of these instances did anyone attempt to seek out knowledge. They were looking for a solution. If they had said "how do I [get on the network|reinstall the OS|rip this file off YouTube]?" then it would be a lot easier for me to dismiss him as a curmudgeonly holier-than-thou IT guy.
I know plenty of people (and I even like some of them as people) who intentionally do not learn to do things on the computer because then they can't ask me to do it for them. When I like these people I make a subversive effort to teach them anyways, otherwise I just get it done for them to get them away from me, feelings be damned. Actual computer literacy (not MS Office literacy) is actually a necessary skill today in almost every office job. Knowing how to program? Probably not. Knowing how to connect to a network? Probably.
Finally, it is so damned easy now to google something, that much of the described behavior is inexcusable. Oh, but your problem is connecting to the internet? It sure would be helpful if you had a small computer in your pocket that could independently connect to the internet over some infrastructure that wasn't dependent on your local network, bummer. </rant>
But seriously we should actually be concerned about this and I hope that education does get better on this. I do fear that interfaces are almost too rich, meaning that it takes a concerted effort to "really" use a computer, unlike in even the recent past where you were forced to. Many people who were accidentally exposed to the more in depth aspect of computing and found it interesting would not have sought it out on their own, meaning that as a community we are losing out on that category of people going forward.
> In none of these instances did anyone attempt to seek out knowledge. They were looking for a solution. If they had said "how do I [get on the network|reinstall the OS|rip this file off YouTube]?" then it would be a lot easier for me to dismiss him as a curmudgeonly holier-than-thou IT guy.
Still inexcusable, especially as an educator. Here's what I would of done:
"Oh you can't connect to the internet? Watch this. See the little icon at the top that looks like ripples going up? This one? That's the hub for any wireless networking connection - just click it and pick an option. Each of those options is a network to connect to. The ones with little locks next to them means you need a password to connect. If you're ever having internet problems on your laptop, just check this icon out and see if you're connected." Then fix the situation for them. You still offered a solution, and they'll probably never come to you for help with that again - and whenever they hear a friend, they'll repeat it. It's really not complicated to explain AND fix the problem at the same time.
Almost nobody wants to listen to your lecture. They certainly aren't going to repeat it to others! They want you to do it for them, because it is beneath them.
I couldn't disagree more. It's not beneath anybody, and people ask for help all the time - some things that seem daunting or difficult are actually easy and vice versa. You prescribe too much to others' personalities without actually knowing them, and think they do the same to you.
What if I told you that you were wrong in doing so?
There is a reason such jobs turn people into curmudgeons. It's not like they all started that way. You attempt to give a simple explanation as to what you're doing, but as soon as you say anything about their computer, they assume it's technical and tune out.
There are definitely people that would come into the office and learn how you fixed things, and those people were wonderful. Few and far between, though.
I envy you. I know exactly one "non-geek" person who would really listen to that kind of explanation. Everyone else I've helped was happy that I fixed the issue, but couldn't care less about why it broke or how to fix it.
The people I like enough to try to help tend to be people who like me enough to at least give it a go (and put up with me :). Example: my girlfriend who has never been interested in tech has actually become other people's go-to person for all things troubleshooting. After a while she just saw how the google and RTFM combo worked and she started doing that instead of asking me. Now she only asks me if there's something totally hosed.
I believe you're just reading the surface message here. When I read the article, what I felt was "man, he's really railing against a general decline in curiosity". To paraphrase Marvin of HHGttG fame, our computers may lament so -- here I am, a GENERAL PURPOSE COMPUTER in your pocket, and all you ask me to do is to tell your friends what you had for lunch?
Sadly, I've been part of this decline in curiosity as well. My son, when he was 4 years old, reminded me of that unadulterated fascination. (translated)
... and I humbly thanked him for the lesson of missing a magnificent glorious tree right there in front of my eyes. Its a tree! It made itself mostly from the contents of air by trapping energy from the sun! How cool is that!
All that said, the above anecdote is promising too. If only, we'd nurture our kids curiosity without providing canned solutions for them all the time, as the OP says.
Again, different people are curious about different things. Some are curious about the workings of things around them, some about their origins/history, some about people, some about societies, some about how people think, some about plants and animals and life, some about the planet and the stars ... and some about stuff that they think has-nothing-to-do-whateosver-with-anything-but-in-the-end-hell-it-does (hint - math).
Perhaps we're in an era where polymaths are rare, but curiosity, though heavily fragmented, does live on.
I thought the author made a bunch of assumptions about her, too. Things like:
She handed me her MacBook silently and the look on her
face said it all. *Fix my computer geek, and hurry up
about it.*
That's quite a leap from merely the look on her face that you saw for all of 2 seconds before taking her laptop.
To people like her, technicians are a necessary
annoyance. She’d be quite happy to ignore them all, joke
about them behind their backs, snigger at them to their
faces, but she knows that when she can’t display her
PowerPoint on the IWB she’ll need a technician, and so
she maintains a facade of politeness around them, while
inwardly dismissing them as too geeky to interact with.
Hooooly cow, that's quite a lot of bitterness. I'm surprised this was written for a website called "coding 2 learn" and not "people, who should never be in a position to teach, talk about why they hate others for no good reason."
I’ve heard this sentence so many times now from students
and staff, that I have a stock reaction. Normally I pull
out my mobile phone and pretend to tap in a few numbers.
Holding the handset to my ear I say ‘Yes, give me the
office of the President of the United States… NO I WILL
NOT HOLD, this is an emergency… Hello, Mister President,
I’m afraid I have some bad news. I’ve just been informed
that The Internet is not working.’
It just keeps getting worse and worse. That's probably the most painfully unfunny thing I've ever heard. I feel sorry for the people at his school; they got the stereotypical "caustic geek who thinks he's so much better than the plebes who don't know computers" as their network support.
He treats everyone who approaches him for help like shit and then wonders why no one knows about computers? Real head-scratcher there.
What I'm saying is that rarely anyone is treated like that, and the OP sounds like he was just reading all of his insecurities into everyone he was assisting.
But what do I know? It's not like there are loads of other people in this very thread saying the... same... Oh.
This is how I keep myself from being angry at regular people just trying to use computers. I have a car, I just want to use my car. I don't really care all that much how it works (thought to be honest, combustion engines are pretty cool!). I'm vehicularaly inept. I can drive, but I can't diagnose and I can't troubleshoot (though I can change a wheel). In my position, It's my hope that the vehicular technicians opposite from me assist me in continuing to use my car. In response for that kindness, I'll assist them in using their computer.
The difference here is that we're willing to pay those vehicular technicians a realistic amount of money for their expertise, and nobody expects a mechanic to fix your car for for free, even if it'll "only take a second".
I also have a healthy respect for their skills, and if my car breaks down, I'd be embarrassed about my ignorance and inability to fix or diagnose the problem (and I suspect most people would too).
> The difference here is that we're willing to pay those vehicular technicians a realistic amount of money for their expertise, and nobody expects a mechanic to fix your car for for free
Can't think of examples with mechanics specifically, but certainly I've seen people seek free help from doctors, nurses, lawyers, and other professionals who are in their social circles -- or just non-professionals with a reputation of knowledgability in those fields; there's nothing really unusual about computing in that regard.
> The difference here is that we're willing to pay those vehicular technicians a realistic amount of money for their expertise,
Looks like computer technicians get paid plenty well. According to at least one random google search, entry level SysAdmins make nearly $20k more than entry level auto mechanics.
Anecdotally, I don't know a single person in the IT field who isn't flooded with recruiter-spam. Meanwhile, the economy and unemployment rate remain huge political and news topics.
Sorry your interactions have being so rough. I give tech support to my family for free, and people who are looking for a quick fix from me are often willing to pay for the privilege. I've heard stories like this quiet a bit though, but I don't think it is a universal attitude.
and I will grant you, the situations are not entirely symmetric.
Yeah - I never want to get paid to do tech support - I generally find it either so trivial it's not worth charging for, or so hair-pullingly frustrating that no reasonable amount of money would be enough.
It's because everyone says "time is money" but not one single person actually believes it. Mechanics make tangible shit happen, sometimes using new parts, etc. Software isn't tangible.
I feel differently. While I am well-versed in computers and know nothing about cars, I feel that my attitude towards cars is different than that of many computer illiterates towards computers. I envy the knowledge of the mechanics. If some mechanic says to me "I can fix your car for $x, but I wanna educate you about the reason your car is in trouble in the first place", I'd be very interested, and not (just) for economic reasons!
I get your point and I usually try to gage the techincal level of the person I'm helping and how interested they are in learning new stuff and explain/fix accordingly, but the author still has a point, way too many people these days have no idea how to do anything on a computer and the situation only gets worse when parents try to tell the world that their kids are "tech natives" when in fact they know nothing more than how some socialnetwork's UI works.
For example I graduate couple years ago from basic computer science vocational institution where we learned how computer hardware works, how to install a new OS and basics of web developement (PHP & MySQL), but now all of my former class mates contact me for tech help through skype even though they should all be "IT literate", but it was just a degree with for most of them, something to waste couple years on to figure out what they wanted to do.
Now I'm studying a computer science engineering degree and easily 1/3 of my class mates have no idea how to code or even how to use basic HTML and CSS tags and we've been at it for 2 years now, sure they are passing "Java 101", but if you gave them a task to write a piece of software most would just raise their hand in air and state "I can't do that" without even giving it a go and I know this I've been trying to recruit new blood to tech club where we write simple apps for Android phones for fun, experience and credit.
Have you ever been a school teacher? Or was that sarcasm? I'm going to imagine there are quite a few school teachers who would not call their jobs stress free.
In this case, the person can't use a computer because people like the author condescend a bit, fix the problem in ten seconds, and don't set them up to be just a bit wiser for next time.
When I try to teach people how to fix their own problems, 90% of the time they don't care and "just want it fixed". 9% of the time they write down the instructions on a piece of paper that promptly gets lost, and the process of teaching them is considerably long than the quick fix. Perhaps 1% of the time they actually pay attention, get that spark in their eyes that shows they've learnt something new and interesting, and can demonstrate it back to me a week later. I con honestly commiserate with real teachers and lecturers now - if the ratios are anything like these it must be the most soul crushing job on the planet.
Ultimately, I've learnt that 99% of the time I'm better off fixing things quickly and moving on. I'm hoping I can instil (heh - I typed "install" first time around) curiosity in my children such that they can learn to help themselves, but my wife, parents, parents-in-law, brothers, and most of my friends are a lost cause by this point in their lives.
To extend your car analogy, I wonder if the author knows how to fix his own car? I certainly don't. I know it involves pistons and carburetors and...tubes.
If you read the article, you would know the answer.
"A hundred years ago, if you were lucky enough to own a car then you probably knew how to fix it. People could at least change the oil, change the tyres, or even give the engine a tune-up. I’ve owned a car for most of my adult life and they’re a mystery to me."
If he were more honest with himself he'd say something like 'I know I can go online or pick up a manual and figure anything about my car that I'd want to.'
Letting it remain a mystery is just perpetuating the ignorance people seem to cling to like a life raft.
Figuring things out is fun and you learn new skills.
There are an almost unlimited number of things to figure out in modern life. IMO, it's not reasonable to judge someone for selecting which ones are most important to them. The important thing is to know it is possible if you had to -- it's just persistence.
That said, if you wanted to pick one thing, computers probably have the lowest cost-to-benefit ratio of figuring stuff out, at least at the proxy-settings level of detail. I know how to change the oil in my car, but I can't do it much cheaper than the nine minute lube down the street, and it takes me four times as long.
Same - I'm not super car-literate, but I was able to refill wiper fluid before I went on a long trip, and if it came down to it I could change the tire (I at least know where the jack is, and roughly where it goes under the car). But I don't change my own oil, because I can't really do it cheaper than the shop.
>> I’ve owned a car for most of my adult life and they’re a mystery to me.
Right. But you bought a car to drive places, not because you like taking them apart or 'programming' them. You probably bought a computer for the latter.
I can't say that I can pop the hood of my car and instantly know what's wrong, but I can change oil, tiers, lamps and battery and add necessary liquids. I don't know if that's a lot, but I like to think I know something about cars.
This analogy is pretty spot on. I don't know how to get rid of viruses, etc. But when people ask me to, I know how to google the problem. My experience with cars is basically identical - I didn't know how to change the brakes on my car, but I knew how to look up instructions and follow them.
So much of "computer literacy" these days is typing things into google and following instructions. The fact that that is beyond so many people is frightening, honestly.
I would argue there's more to literacy than blindly following instructions.
In regards to computers, sure, it isn't difficult to follow some instructions. The worst that could happen? Maybe you mistype a flag and end up recursively deleting a directory.
However at least most "damage" done on a computer rarely crosses into the physical realm -- anything lost or damaged can often be repaired or restored inside of a few minutes.
So, sure, much of "computer literacy" is simply following instructions that will _usually_ work -- but there's not much hanging in the balance if you mess up.
Working on cars though? I would urge strong caution against simply following instructions. Even a fairly "simple" procedure such as jumping your car's dead battery can end in _serious injury or death._ Many people don't realize that their $70 car battery, such an innocuous looking box, can provide in excess of several hundred amps when the current is demanded. Shorting a battery is a quick way to create such a demand. Such a short could result in burns, electrocution, explosions [discharging lead acid batteries give off hydrogen gas], and could even result in a bit of rather annoying spot-welding.
Working on certain suspension components can easily create enough force to maim or dismember innocent bystanders. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kY56ib3I-ew) (Ditto goes for working on any system with significant amounts of sprung weight -- such as garage doors, another common DIY maintenance item...)
Working on your exhaust often requires knowledge of your vehicle's fueling and vapor recovery system. Lest you start welding while there are flammable vapors near the rear of the vehicle.
"Knowing that you don't know everything" is often a mark of a wise individual. A tutorial may omit some crucial bit of domain knowledge that is commonly taught in the field, but not common knowledge for the average individual.
I certainly agree that people should endeavor to broaden their knowledge and skills using the Internet; but Google is certainly not a substitute for an expert's knowledge, experience, and guidance. Without true literacy, in any field, you may quickly end up doing more harm than good.
I can follow instructions too but I wouldn't change the brakes on a car without supervision from someone who knows what they're doing. That's a safety-critical repair.
More or less this is the point of my reply -- cars are crossing into a threshold where life or death quite seriously hangs in the balance on some repairs.
It's not just the failure of the system itself I'm worried about though, the _process of making certain repairs_ could kill you in many fields, not just automobile repair.
Working on high-current electrical systems is dangerous, working with sprung weight can be dangerous, working with flammable vapors can be dangerous. Automobiles are one of the few examples, though, where you're _surrounded_ by many of these dangerous sub-systems while attempting a repair on something that's otherwise fairly harmless [brakes, changing a tire, checking fuel pressure, replacing a battery].
The interactions between such subsystems is where the danger lies -- and without the domain knowledge of an auto mechanic, you could easily be left unaware of the dangerous interactions between these subsystems.
The difference I see here is I don't think there's some sort of prevailing idea that young people all know how to fix their cars, like there is that they know how to use a computer.
I don't know about you, but in the lower class area where I grew up, every teenage boy was expected to know about engines and pistons and cam-shafts and gaskets and whatnot.
Not that they did, mind you. It was enough to know a few makes and models so you could say "Gee look at that bad ass Thunderbird with a hemi!" when something cool drove by. That, and everyone had to pick a side in the Ford/Chevy debate, with a few parroted opinions to back up your choice. Actual mechanical ability was something most people just pretended to have.
To be honest, it's not that different than with computers these days.
I see it as the opposite: there's no prevailing idea amongst mechanics that inexperienced drivers who rely on assistance to diagnose and fix simple engine faults are incapable of using the road
Knowing how to use a computer is a lot more integral to living in modern society than knowing how to use/debug a car, though. Especially in areas with good public transit, one can live life without knowing how to drive, much less fix a car. Computers, on the other hand, are quickly becoming our best windows into the world at large.
Knowing the technical difference between China's great firewall, the NSA's snooping, and the the UK's proposed porn filter is vital for people making decisions about them, as well as educated voters.
OTOH, if I've been summoned to fix something for you, and I introduce myself to you, you damn well better respond in a polite manner, not just hand me the offending object and glare at me silently. Manners go a long way.
Honestly though, I question his whole premise. As he quite rightly points out, he can't fix a car (or probably wire a light fitting, fix a drainage system, or install an air conditioner), and nor should he. These roles have all been specialised, which improves their efficiency by allowing more complex and specialised techniques and hardware to be used. Computer systems are no different, and it not obvious to me that they should be an exception to this trend.
> Of course people can't use computers. They're not trying to use computers. They're trying to get X done. The computer is a device that, most of the time, just gets in the way of doing X.
Far too many times, "Computer Nerds" think that using a computer == getting X done -- because X for them is satisfying some arcane ritual to get some computer usage accomplished.
The computer is a device that, most of the time, just gets in the way of doing X.
I responded to this in somewhat more detail down below, but I'll be really blunt here: Their own fucking unwillingness to seek out knowledge and have the patience to learn to solve problems is what gets in the way of getting things done.
And every IT person with bad manners or an unwillingness to teach whatever they know and answer questions is complicit in this farce.
You've hit on what I think the core problem is: since forever (as far as I know) computers have been regarded as "magical and incomprehensible" - that is, non-technical people think they will never be able to understand what you just did with the proxy settings. So even if you show them and explain what you did, they never even consider that they could use that knowledge again in the future.
I think this is a failure of education. As the author points out, learning MS Office shouldn't be the first step, learning the principles of technical problem solving should be. That most computers operate the same way regardless of what they look like, and that you can draw inferences about what's wrong, and where to make changes. It seems like drilling in 'try a few things and then google for it' (as we all do) would help a lot.
Certainly unwillingness to teach can be a problem, but I think often it's born from the experience of solving the same problem for the same person many times over, and seeing their unwillingness to learn. </huge_generalization>
So true. In fact, I get really angry at people that use jquery to write applications if they don't know it inside and out. In fact, I don't even use libraries or even functions when I code unless I know exactly how they work.
I don't think the philosophy of "I need to know what X does before I use it" is extrapolatable. With jQuery, your frustration is mildly justified, in my perspective, as jQuery is in constant development, has bugs and breaks stuff.
But consider the number of times you've used systems and libraries that you do not understand beyond the subset of its API that interests you. I do not understand the details of my computer's microprocessor's architecture, yet through several layers of abstraction it is a useful tool for me to get my job done.
There are other systems, too, like processed food. Traffic control. The power grid. The military-industrial complex. Whole industries have their internal workings abstracted out but for the tiny intersection between them and our individual lives.
Sometimes the guy who's using the jQuery library is, say, running a startup that has other, more pressing priorities, and has no time to learn anything beyond .ajax() and .append() .
So while your specific example makes sense, I don't think the point you are trying to get across is extrapolatable beyond it.
The main point I believe he was making is that the lack of clockwork curiosity for innards is responsible for ignorance and general impatience in computing skills of the general populace.
That seems like an arbitrarily high standard for using a library. If someone wants to use jQuery so that they can use $() instead of document.getElement() is that really so bad? Libraries as a level of abstraction so that the user only has to know what a function _does_ not necessarily _how_ it does it.
Just like their fucking unwillingness to learn how to fix a car that won't start is what gets in the way of them getting to work? Oh yeah, it was easy, the clutch pedal switch failed, duh, that's a $5 part and 10 minutes to replace. What do you mean, you missed a day of work for that, you fucking idiot?
There is quite a difference between fixing a car and fixing computers.
In your example, you need to fix a specific broken mechanical part, which takes time and resources to fix if it was designed to be fixed at all by a home user. In my example, the information is freely available, costs nothing to duplicate or implement, and is simply a small investment of time--which will pay huge dividends if made.
Most computers even come with all the tools needed to fix them, something which cannot be said for cars. It just takes patience.
You're kidding if you think those are even of remotely comparable level of difficulty. I've fixed many small electronic or mechanical devices by just opening them up and looking at them.
It's a lack of critical thinking and problem solving ability, that's all.
I've fixed car problems in the past, and I don't even own a car. The difference is that my first instinct is to take out the manual and try to debug the issue using it, instead of throwing my hand up and immediately calling for help.
I don't exactly agree with your sentiment, but picking on that statement is right.
The computer is a device that, most of the time, just gets in the way of doing X.
But the OP of the quote misses a qualifier: the person is trying to do X on a computer! They can use paper and markers/crayons/pencil + xerox machine, not like PowerPoint is the only option.
Maybe she was tired, clearly she was frustrated, but it wasn't obvious that she held the author in any disdain, though the author seemed to perceive it. What we're sure of is that the author held her in such low regard.
I wonder if she picked up on that. I suspect she did, and I suspect it contributes to the negative stereotypes that the author wanted to rail against by mentioning all this.
> ‘Do you know where the proxy settings are?’ I asked, hopefully.
> It took me about ten seconds to find and fill in the proxy settings.
Well for Christ's sake don't ask her something she almost surely doesn't know if it only took you ten seconds of looking. Look for ten seconds first.
The first rule of any educator is to never, under any circumstances, make someone feel inept. And it was so easily avoidable here.
~~~
Of course people can't use computers. They're not trying to use computers. They're trying to get X done. The computer is a device that, most of the time, just gets in the way of doing X.
Just the way that cars are a device that get from point A to point B. Few poeple get in a car to drive. They get in a car to locate themselves to point B.
In this case, the person can't use a computer because people like the author condescend a bit, fix the problem in ten seconds, and don't set them up to be just a bit wiser for next time.
The important part of the story is the part where the author explains that on some networks, you need to set extra settings so the office network can communicate with the outside world network. I hope the author explained what it took him ten seconds to do, so that she might be able to help herself next time. The omission (and disdain) leads me to suspect not, or at least that actually helping her was not an important part of the story.