Over the past eight months or so, my wife and I have been renting a house after moving from a different city. Several weeks ago we found a house to buy. We approached our landlord, who lives out of state, and proposed that if he can let us out of our lease we could help him find a new tenant and fix up the place to move-in ready condition before the new tenant moves in. To us, this seemed like a perfectly normal proposition and apparently so did our landlord.

So, for the past two weeks we have been advertising the house, letting people view the house, and handing out applications and landlord contact information. But, what has been surprising about this whole process is that the people who call and come to see the house cannot figure out why we are doing this. They can’t make sense out of why we would be advertising the house, why we would be showing the house, and why we would be discussing the terms of the lease. When they ask “why?” I want to just say, because we’re responsible adults. But, I just give them a rather lengthy rationale instead.

I don’t think people have any models for how to develop straightforward relationships with people and how to assume responsibility for situations. The relationships they encounter with housing are all adversarial and based on distrust. Gregory Bateson’s complementary (dominant–submissive) and symmetrical (competitive or adversarial) types of relationships seem to characterize the vast majority of relationships encountered in the business of everyday life. As for “responsibility,” schools don’t really address it, even though they talk about teaching it all of the time. Their parents have been caught up in the same messy relationships and have lacked any experience in responsibility. And, most workplaces are based on the same dysfunctional sorts of relationships and lack of trust.

We live in a society where the relationships are out of whack. In such contexts, a number of the social characteristics we all discuss and say that we value are just not supported. These social characteristics include responsibility, ethics, empathy, moral reasoning/judgment, and so forth. We’ve created a social context where these sorts of positive personal and social characteristics are not supported, encouraged, or developed. There are few positive models for others to emulate. The vast majority of relationships are problematic at best. What we see in the media are dysfunctional relationships. The vast majority of our politicians do not model functional (reciprocal, negotiable) relationships or any of the positive social characteristics. I’d like to say that looking at the Republican debates is clear evidence of dysfunctionality, but the same holds true for almost all politicians. It’s just that the Republicans seem have taken the bar to a whole new low point. However, the point is that the predominant model of behavior as represented in film, TV, news, and everyday encounters is one that does not value reciprocal relationships and the values and behaviors that are intertwined in such relationships. Reciprocal relationships (Bateson’s third type) are those that are based on some sense of trust, and where terms and issues are negotiated rather than becoming the source of conflict and resentment. This sort of relationship should be what we strive to achieve with our partners, our friends, our families, and our adversaries. What would Congress look like if reciprocity was the basis for interactions. Instead of blockages and other childish games, we may see adults sitting down together in serious conversation. Disagreements would be a source of negotiation, change, and growth. But, instead we are left with childish, self-centered antics that only serve to prevent growth and destabilize the whole of society.

As The Turtles said, “You don’t believe we’re on the eve of destruction.” But, here we are and not quite in the way The Turtles saw it.

We can step back from this precipice and change our ways of thinking and acting, but that will take an overwhelming desire from a vast majority of people to just say “NO MORE” to this nonsense.

An example I use as a simplistic demonstration of the limits of AI is one that involves the car I drive. It’s a 2017 base-model of the Toyota Corolla. It does not have a remote door opener. But, it does have some AI systems, such as an alarm for getting too close to an object in front of you, and it will apply the breaks, if it (AI) thinks you’re actually going to have a collision. Another AI system is the camera system for keeping you in the lane. The third system, which is related to the collision avoidance system involves radar that is used to maintain a safe distance from the car in front of you while you have cruise control engaged. And, the fourth system uses the camera and radar to lower the bright lights when a car approaches and to turn them on when there are no cars in sight.

I do like all four of these, but I don’t really need them, and I do not trust them. The lane control system often confuses tar repair lines in the middle of a lane for the “real” lane markers, so you have to muscularly override the car’s attempt to move you back into the lane, which is actually moving you out of the lane. The collision avoidance system starts blaring if you’re rounding a curve with concrete construction barriers along the side of the road. Even though you are moving smoothly around the curve, the AI system thinks you’re going to collide with these barriers. The high beam control is never more than 60% accurate. It’ll think house lights are car lights and it’ll miss many oncoming cars. And, it almost never turns off high beams, when there are cars in front of you going in the same direction. As with any technology, the information we get from the technology needs to be confirmed by us, real, thinking, human beings.

The next example is a bit more bothersome and important. I just got a notice from my home and car insurance company saying they were dropping the insurance for the home that is co-owned with one of our sons. His name is on the policy; he pays for that part of the bill; and he lives in the house. The reason for the notice was that we, the owners, were not living in the house. The reason this happened was, you may have guessed, the AI system the insurance company uses, checks for inconsistencies in policies, like home owners’ policies for home in which the owners don’t live. Such a task is far too time-consuming to be carried out by employees, so an AI system is great to have. But, when the AI system is the decision-maker, notice letter writer and mailer, there are huge problems. A human is more likely to catch such seeming discrepancies. The appropriate way to use AI is to have them send alerts to the humans who can check out and verify the situation. As it stands, AI decisions can drive customers away. I came within a few seconds of cancelling all of our policies with this company and going to another company. Pissed off customers are not good for business. Such situations are easy enough to avoid, if the corporate higher-ups cared enough.

Such situations get even more critical and more dangerous when we have AI driving cars, making medical decisions, and other life-on-the-line contexts. AI can help go through huge amounts of data and information, and alerting people to specific areas of concern. But, it should be up to the people to make sense of the information and formulate plans of action, such as a treatment plan or surgery.

The other pet-peeve area of concern I have is having AI write. Writing with a pen and paper, and writing on a computer, which is a bit behind handwriting, is a powerful means for deeper and more complex learning. As far back as I can remember, I always hated studying for tests, after which I never felt like I learned very much. But, when I had to write a paper, I felt like I had really learned a lot. And, that is still true today. I love to read and to write; and they usually go together. But, just having a computer write a paper for you is a complete waste and a huge act of aggression towards oneself. And, the same holds true of scientists and academics of all sorts, who use AI to write that paper that needs to get published. It’s just another sham and a terrible disservice to oneself and to ones’ readers.

© 2024 by Jeffrey W. Bloom

RATINGS:

During my career as an educator, which started off as a leap off of a cliff into a raging fire, I became increasingly concerned with the issue of “what to teach.” I began teaching as a middle school science teacher in New York City. It was a great environment with good, but challenging, students. However, I was generally clueless, even though I thought I had a lot to offer. With the help and support of my principal and a French teacher, I began to see the errors in my thinking and approach. I began questioning many of the assumptions I had about teaching and learning. And, then I studied with Gregory Bateson for an intensive summer program on education. That summer turned everything upside down. Bateson’s ideas slowly soaked in over many years and even decades as the processes of developing deeper understandings percolated. About 8 years after the Bateson program, I entered graduate school. I entered the graduate program with a kind of selfish attitude. I said to myself that “I don’t care about grades or the professors’ styles of teaching. I am going to learn as much as I can from this experience… just for me.” As I finished my masters degree, then doctoral degree, I left feeling like I was embarking on a path of continual learning, of challenging my and others’ ideas. And, now, having retired from the academic path, I am still learning and challenging.

But, what was it about the learning that occurred during this initial period that changed the way I approached my interaction with the world? I certainly slogged my way through many boring and seemingly irrelevant courses, which were really quite deadly. However, there were many more professors who enlivened the material being studied and who focused heavily on challenging the status quo. And, studying with Gregory Bateson was entirely a process of upending the assumptions of how we think, learn, relate, and live.

However, the big issue is how the system of education fails our children and, for that matter, many, if not most, adults going through colleges and universities. This issue has been plaguing me for decades. From the institutions of education, we get more “national standards,” more “teacher accountability,” more “testing,” and more “teacher-proof curricula.” All of these actions just continue to deaden the entire system of schooling.

Today, I started reading an old book by the noted philosopher, Alfred North Whitehead. His book, The Aims of Education, was first published almost a century ago in 1929. Below, are two short summaries with quotes about “what to teach” and “testing.” Reading books from this time period is slow going. The way the English language was used was different, so I’ve summarized most of what he wrote, but have included key quotes.

What to Teach

In teaching children, “…above all things we must beware of what I will call ‘inert ideas’ — that is to say, ideas that are merely received into the mind without being utilized, or tested, or thrown into fresh combinations.” …. Throughout history, education at one point may be “alive with a ferment of genius,” but in later times, education becomes pedantic and routine. “The reason is, that they are overladen with inert ideas. Education with inert ideas is not only useless: it is, above all things, harmful—Corruptio optimi, pessima.” [The corruption of the best, the worst — from https://www.latin-online-translation.com]

page 13 in Alfred North Whitehead (1929) The Aims of Education

Testing

Whitehead describes the issue of how best to teach as dependent upon the teacher (intelligence, knowledge, etc.), the students (intelligence, knowledge, etc.), the students’ potentialities for later life, and the contexts (physical, social, cultural, etc.) in which the students live. “It is for this reason that the uniform external examination is so deadly.” (Whitehead's The Aims of Education, page 17)

And, here we are almost 100 years later still suffering from the “deadly” approaches to schooling. During the mid- to late-1800’s, politicians and those with influence over education were quite explicit about not providing a good education for the masses. In John Gatto’s well-researched chapter, “Some Lessons From the Underground History of American Education,” he describes a pattern of control exerted over education that had the intention of control over children in order to control them as adults and keeping all but the very elite under-educated.

Here are a few choice points from this chapter:

• 1857 — effort to have schools take complete control over children through behavior modification, so that they took over the role of parent.
• 1906 — William Torrey Harris (U.S. Commissioner of Education said on page 279, “Ninety-nine [students] out of a hundred are automata, careful to walk in prescribed paths, careful to follow the prescribed custom. This is not an accident but the result of substantial education, which, scientifically defined, is the subsumption of the individual. — The Philosophy of Education (1906, p. 270)
• Just before World War I — Woodrow Wilson said on page 272: “We want one class to have a liberal education. We want another class, a very much larger class of necessity, to forgo privilege of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks.”
• 1917 — (page 272) “…the major administrative jobs in American schooling were under control of a group referred to in the press of that day as ‘the education trust.’ The first meeting of this trust included representatives of Rockefeller, Carnegie, Harvard, Stanford, the University of Chicago, and the National Education Association. The chief end, wrote the British evolutionist Benjamin Kidd in 1918, was to ‘impose on the young the ideal of subordination.’”
• And, in the contexts of present-day education, not much has really changed. We do not use the same words and phrases to describe what should happen in schools. Instead of being straight forward with our intent, we couch our language in words and phrases that may imply more positive goals, such as “raising standards” and “holding teachers accountable.” The strategies used to dumb down our children, to segregate the classes, and to control our children have become more insidious, but are still the major influences on what is taught and how that information is taught.

We have done a wonderful job of preparing our children to be adults who welcome authoritarianism, who will be obedient and subservient, who will not question authority, and whose thinking abilities have been blocked and strangled. And, here we are in 2021, in a society dying from decades of psychological violence against its citizens.

References

Gatto, J. T. (2002). Some lessons from the underground history of American education. In R. Kick (Ed.), Everything you know is wrong: The disinformation guide to secrets and lies (pp. 274–287). New York: The Disinformation Company.

Harris, W. T. (1906). The philosophy of education. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University

Whitehead, A. N. (1929). The aims of education. New York: Mentor Book/New American Library (Macmillan).

© 2024 by Jeffrey W. Bloom

RATINGS: