Technopaths

Micah Sanders has an extraordinary power. Micah Sanders is a technopath.

In the world of superheroes, technopathy is:

“The ability to manipulate technology. It manifests as a special form of electrical manipulation that allows physical interaction with machines, or some special form of extrasensory perception that allows a mental interface with computers.”

For those who haven’t heard yet, Micah Sanders is one of the characters in the TV series Heroes. To give you an idea, Micah can reconfigure his cell phone to turn it into a GPS-style tracking device and use it to find a person in danger (as long as that person also has a cell phone).

Casting a child in the role of Micah is an obvious choice, a clear allegory of children’s ability to manipulate technology.

Nobody would argue with us if we said Micah Sanders is a true digital native. He is an extraordinary kid who carries in his genes the ability to interact with every modern technological gadget.

But what holds for Micah does not hold for ordinary children, at least not in the sense Luis claims when he says:

Yes, children are “digital natives”, meaning they were born at a time when technologies seem to hold no secrets for them. They know how to use them without great effort, let alone reading complex user manuals. That’s why it is so absurd to insist that teachers – people with obvious difficulties handling a computer or the internet with equal or greater skill than the “natives” – be the ones in charge of “teaching computing” to children.

Luis makes the serious mistakes I already criticized earlier.

The mistake of those who accept the myth of the digital natives is believing that today’s children are gifted prodigies, that every one of them is the equivalent of Micah Sanders.

Luis’s reply to my remark reveals where the conceptual error lies:

“Personally I think the distinction between natives and immigrants may not be the most precise one, but it does allow an interesting differentiation that is not all that far from other processes in which children born into a given culture can develop skills that CANNOT BE matched by those who, for example, come to it as adults. I’m thinking of things like language acquisition, or skills like dance or musical performance. Think of ballet dancers, or of children who start their careers as pianists at age 5. While adults can learn, and in some cases do very well, the quality they reach is not comparable to that of those who begin developing skills very early. Apparently there is evidence from neuroscience and from cognitive psychology that could be used to back this up.”

Apparently Luis is thinking of the process of skill acquisition. If that’s the case, then the term digital natives is useless, since it names a process we have always known: “children learn anything more easily”. There’s a reason we send kids to school from a young age.

As adults we may learn more slowly, but that doesn’t mean we are incapable of learning new things. You can even teach an old dog new tricks.

The other point is merely a consequence of prolonged exposure to stimuli, together with continuous practice of the skill you want to learn.

If you spend more time exposed to a given technology, you will be better at using that technology (unless you are Homer Simpson).

But what happens if a person is not exposed to technology?

Let’s imagine Pedrito, the shepherd boy, a 10-year-old who has never used a computer, or a cell phone either. Is he a digital native?

The funny part is the answer given by the followers of this belief.

In principle, Pedrito is not a digital native, because he has not been immersed in digital culture. But after a brief exposure to technology, Pedrito will be able to talk on a cell phone, and use the computer to draw, or browse the internet. Voilà, Pedrito has become a digital native!

Why?

The reasons aren’t clear, but it seems there is some kind of Shanti virus that turns children into technopaths upon exposure to technology.

Doesn’t all this smell like pseudoscience to you?

It is pseudoscience, and of the worst kind. There is no foundation. They grab two or three correct ideas discovered by neuroscience and extrapolate, assembling a theory that is about as valid as Bach flower remedies or aura reading.

Young brains are well suited to learning quickly, because learning is recorded in connections inside our brain, which are consolidated through continuous practice and exposure over time. It so happens that young brains have more material available than adult brains. But it turns out we know that our brain never stops learning.

The other reason this digital natives theory appears to work is that technology keeps getting easier to use.

Suppose we run the same experiment with Pedro, the 50-year-old shepherd. The truth is he too will be able to learn to use a cell phone, because using a cell phone is very simple nowadays, and apart from a few fine motor issues, with patience he’ll be drawing and browsing the internet within a few hours.

The attack of the technopaths

One of the negative consequences of this thesis is that if we accept it, we start out by condemning the teachers. They get saddled with a handicap that isn’t real.

Teachers are just as capable as the children, and the interesting thing is that teachers can become better internet users than young people (in principle).

Luis is right that it’s not the teacher’s job to teach kids how to browse the internet; children will learn that on their own. But the teacher can be a better internet user than the children because he has two things the children don’t: experience and judgment.

He knows that not everything on the internet is true, he notices when sources of information are likely to be relevant, and he can tell what is useful from what isn’t.

Paradox! It turns out the digital immigrants can end up more skilled than these digital natives.

The conclusions Luis reaches in his article are true, but not because of the false premise of the digital natives. In the end the article is saved by the simple fact that it uses another premise that is true, so self-evident that it’s obvious (that’s called an axiom): computers are indeed tools, not replacements for teachers (did someone say cargo cult?).

So as long as computers don’t come with artificial intelligence, buying computers is not enough. Good thing we’re starting to realize it.

For now it seems we’re safe from the attack of the technopaths