Information Age
Personally, I think that I experience the greatest discomfort (or sometimes, a frisson of schadenfreude) when watching authority figures talk nonsense in public because information is running ahead of (or has escaped from) them. Sometimes, the old and well-worn (or still well-wearing) opinions of past pundits or an earlier generation of authority figures are trotted out on parade, now woefully inadequate except for a museum.
Yes, people should keep updated at least in the areas they profess to talk about. That's the very least that the information revolution should be good for. I shiver when I look at John McCain's campaign, running as if their boss has not a clue about the nature of the internet or the technology that enables it. It is not good when a maverick boss, one who professes to bring change to an establishment by virtue of his outsider status, proves to be a maverick in terms of being behind the normal curve of information.
I would answer such people by saying that perhaps the answer is not generally (there are some exceptions) to be found in those approaching their 60s or 70s. This is sadly because the information revolution of the 1980s and 1990s came when they were already maturing or happy to be 'matured'. I've seen leaders in their mid to late 40s and 50s totally clueless about information technology and yet acting in the capacity of CEOs and CIOs without missing the missing beats (or even hearing the beat).
It is also tough for those in the 50s, 60s and 70s because most of them missed the neurobiological and cognitive advances of the last decade – or at least they might mouth the words and catchphrases but not have bothered to look at the research in detail. At this point, I will probably be accused of ageist bias.
Well, perhaps. My last memory of my paternal grandfather studying anything was when he was in his 80s. He was reading a book on cloning and the moral issues involved. As a medical doctor who retired at the age of 78, he was astonishingly well-read and could hold his own in conversation about current issues in almost any field which he was interested in. I wish more were like him.
But that brings me to my main point. The key lies in the phrase 'information age'. I've been to libraries where they look at the average copyright date for reference books. The more current that average figure, the more likely the reference section is up to date.
Those who are older need not be disadvantaged. They already have more experience, and all things being equal, that is an advantage. They should probably have developed more wisdom, and all things being equal, that is certainly an advantage. They quite likely have some advantages in resources found in networks, community, material wealth, and so on.
Sadly, not all things are equal. But the library analogy remains useful. More senior members of society can keep themselves up-to-date. They can learn how things work, using the stored experience, wisdom and peer-to-peer networks (and other resources) accumulated over their longer lives. They can keep in touch (even as the peers drop out by attrition). And they can continue to be more productive, by leveraging against these advantages, than many of their juniors.
The point about 'information age' is that your information age need not be as old as your physical or chronological age. Grandpa was doing his own readings and research until the cancer that killed him got to his brain. My grandparents (now sadly all gone) read the newspapers (a main information source) avidly. They saw things happen, they felt the patterns of the world.
There is still plenty of the game to be played, plenty of the race to be run. It isn't over till it's over, and who knows what happens then?
Yes, people should keep updated at least in the areas they profess to talk about. That's the very least that the information revolution should be good for. I shiver when I look at John McCain's campaign, running as if their boss has not a clue about the nature of the internet or the technology that enables it. It is not good when a maverick boss, one who professes to bring change to an establishment by virtue of his outsider status, proves to be a maverick in terms of being behind the normal curve of information.
I would answer such people by saying that perhaps the answer is not generally (there are some exceptions) to be found in those approaching their 60s or 70s. This is sadly because the information revolution of the 1980s and 1990s came when they were already maturing or happy to be 'matured'. I've seen leaders in their mid to late 40s and 50s totally clueless about information technology and yet acting in the capacity of CEOs and CIOs without missing the missing beats (or even hearing the beat).
It is also tough for those in the 50s, 60s and 70s because most of them missed the neurobiological and cognitive advances of the last decade – or at least they might mouth the words and catchphrases but not have bothered to look at the research in detail. At this point, I will probably be accused of ageist bias.
Well, perhaps. My last memory of my paternal grandfather studying anything was when he was in his 80s. He was reading a book on cloning and the moral issues involved. As a medical doctor who retired at the age of 78, he was astonishingly well-read and could hold his own in conversation about current issues in almost any field which he was interested in. I wish more were like him.
But that brings me to my main point. The key lies in the phrase 'information age'. I've been to libraries where they look at the average copyright date for reference books. The more current that average figure, the more likely the reference section is up to date.
Those who are older need not be disadvantaged. They already have more experience, and all things being equal, that is an advantage. They should probably have developed more wisdom, and all things being equal, that is certainly an advantage. They quite likely have some advantages in resources found in networks, community, material wealth, and so on.
Sadly, not all things are equal. But the library analogy remains useful. More senior members of society can keep themselves up-to-date. They can learn how things work, using the stored experience, wisdom and peer-to-peer networks (and other resources) accumulated over their longer lives. They can keep in touch (even as the peers drop out by attrition). And they can continue to be more productive, by leveraging against these advantages, than many of their juniors.
The point about 'information age' is that your information age need not be as old as your physical or chronological age. Grandpa was doing his own readings and research until the cancer that killed him got to his brain. My grandparents (now sadly all gone) read the newspapers (a main information source) avidly. They saw things happen, they felt the patterns of the world.
There is still plenty of the game to be played, plenty of the race to be run. It isn't over till it's over, and who knows what happens then?
Labels: Information, Old Age, Society
etched with acid at 4:29:00 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home