Religious intolerance

My family and I attend an Arab church here in Jordan, where there there is officially religious freedom.  For a long time the church rented a ground floor apartment, but the pastor had constant friction with the landlord and with Muslim neighbors who opposed the church's presence in their neighborhood.  We recently moved to a new building, and the landlord actually let the pastor put up a sign last Saturday.  That night somebody tore down all the letters and cracked some of them in half.  The pastor showed me the damage the next day.

My first inclination was to get angry at intolerant Muslims, but after some consideration, I realized that this is a problem best blamed on human nature.  I would like to think that Christians and/or Americans would be above this, but look at the recent furor about the Ground Zero Mosque.  I understand why the proposed mosque is considered a provocation, but the bottom line is that the American constitution enshrines religious freedom.  And it does that for very good reasons.

I'm concerned about an emerging pattern where Western states are mobilizing to block visible expressions of Islam, whether it's the Ground Zero Mosque or minarets in Switzerland.  Yes, I find it deeply hypocritical that Muslims want the West to grant them freedoms that are totally absent for religious minorities in Muslim countries.  But we shouldn't respond by doing the same thing in reverse; we need to do be better that.  We need to stand by our liberal principles and show the world an alternative to religious intolerance.  

I'm still angry about the vandalism of my church, but I'll be even angrier if the U.S. and other Western countries descend to the same level and lose their moral credibility.  I'd like to think our ideals really mean something and can serve as an example to the rest of the world.

Bureacuracy

If you get frustrated with bureaucracy in the US, I have a guaranteed cure that will teach you to appreciate what you have: spend a day dealing with bureaucracy in the Middle East.

I am trying to switch my studies from a Master's degree program taught in English to a degree taught entirely in Arabic.  There is a prerequisite that students have a bachelor's degree in International Relations.  My problem?  I have a master's in the subject.  My bachelor's is in engineering.

"I'm sorry," one University bureaucrat told me when I tried switching last semester.  "You don't meet the qualifications."

I spent several weeks trying to find a solution and ran out of time before the semester started.  Now I'm trying again.  I was excited to discover that I could handle the switch through an entirely different office.  Surely, I thought, most people would have more common sense than the bureaucrat who turned me down before.  Nope.  I was once again informed that my master's degree does not meet the requirement of a bachelor's degree in the subject.

These are the times I just want to give up... but I suppose that if I ever expect to handle multinational, coalition planning and operations, learning to fight these battles is an essential skill.

Dana Priest brings my technology criticism back to national security

Thank you, Dana Priest, for helping me relate my last few posts back to national security.  I have expressed my concern that when individuals try to learn by consuming vast amounts of scattershot information, it actually rewires our brains and hinders learning and critical thinking.  One thread of Priest's article shows how this is happening on a bureaucratic level with the runaway, uncontrolled growth of the US intelligence community.  Government officials are expected to absorb a tidal wave of information, and it's getting worse all the time.  One officer recounts that:

for his initial briefing [on classified programs] he was escorted into a tiny, dark room, seated at a small table, and told he couldn't take notes.  Program after program began flashing on a screen, he said, until he yelled "Stop!" in frustration.  "I wasn't remembering any of it," he said.

Another intelligence officer explains his frustration:

... he began scrolling through some of the classified information he is expected to read every day: CIA World Intelligence Review, WIRe-CIA, Spot Intelligence Report, Daily Intelligence Summary, Weekly Intelligence Forecast, Weekly Warning Forecast, IC Terrorist Threat Assessments, NCTC Terrorism Dispatch, NCTC Spotlight... It's too much, he complained.  The inbox on his desk was full, too.  He threw up his arms, picked up a thick, glossy intelligence report and waved it around, yelling... the overload of hourly, daily, weekly, monthly and annual reports is actually counterproductive, say people who receive them.

The problem is made worse by the redundancy and uselessness of much of this information.  If you tie this back to Nicholas Carr's article and book, forcing our intelligence officials to consume such a vast amount of information might have consequences beyond straining their time... in some ways, it might actually decrease overall learning.  It also might damage their ability to construct the analytical frameworks necessary to process and synthesize this information.

And on the related subject of how the Web 2.0 age might be destroying our humanity and reducing us to mindless automatons, check out this advertisement that appeared on my Facebook page today.  God help us.

Some Changes

For the 1% of my readers who resonated with my two previous posts, I thought I'd share some of the changes I'm trying to make in my own life.  My goals are to reclaim my time, become a more effective student, and ensure that I am the master of the technology in my life... not its slave.  I want to enjoy the benefits of the Net like rapid information exchange and participating in online community, while focusing my time and studies on more linear forms of learning.

First, I bought Amazon's newest Kindle -- the Kindle DX Graphite.  It might seem odd to back off from the Internet by purchasing a new piece of technology, but I love my Kindle 2 and find that it's helped me read a lot more than before.  I was reluctant to make the switch to a bigger, bulkier DX but it has one enormous benefit: the large screen can accurately display PDFs.  This means I can carry all the many excellent reports that I want to read, like those from International Crisis Group and the Congressional Research Service and the Center for New American Security.  Instead of scanning these reports in an online context where I'm drowning in information, I can download them and take them someplace quiet to read them in their entirety.  The large screen is also better for nonfiction in general.

Second, I've refocused my news intake on "old media" rather than blogs and e-mail groups.  Every day I download the EarlyBird as a .mobi ebook file to my Kindle and read it almost in its entirety.  The EarlyBird covers most of the significant articles that cause a buzz on milblogs; I tend to see the same stories repeated all over the place.  By reading them linearly in one concentrated dose I find that I am reading them in much more detail and learning more.  Also, after slacking off for a year, I am returning to The Economist as my primary source of weekly news and analysis.

Third, I have drastically culled my blog list and am trying to really focus on reading the blogs I've kept.  Interesting observation: it occurred to me after I "downsized" that Foreign Policy and Wired have a very strong showing in the blogs that I kept.  These magazines really do put out excellent material, which suggests that a hybrid old/new media may--as a general rule--be superior to the anarchy of pure new media.

Fourth, I've shifted my Arabic study materials from my computer to my iPod.  Language learning is media intensive and the computer offers real benefits, but the distraction is simply too great.  By putting audio and video on the iPod I can focus without distraction.

Fifth, I've stopped taking my computer with me when I study.  I often study in coffee shops, but Internet use--even though well-intended--has sucked up a vast amount of that time.  By focusing on books, the iPod and the Kindle my productivity during these times has multiplied.

Sixth, I'm prioritizing reading books.  I've always loved reading, but now that I've backed off the net, I've been devouring books at a much faster pace. 

I'm still brainstorming ideas.  My attention now is turning to my friendships... how to break out of the Facebook trap that has trivialized many of my good friendships while providing the illusion that we're somehow staying in touch. 

What I'm Reading: Thoughtful Criticism of the Digital Age

In my previous post I discussed my concern that being perpetually "plugged in" was hindering my ability to learn.  I've had other concerns, too.  I'm less productive than I used to be.  I have a hard time seeing projects through.  My relationships with friends have atrophied; one-line Facebook notes have largely replaced the long, rich e-mail conversations I've always favored.  Overall, I've had the nagging sense that being constantly wired has made my life less meaningful and satisfying.

That got me thinking a lot about the hazards of our information age, which we are mostly blind to.  After all, information is the medium we swim in these days.  We take it for granted and can hardly conceive how to live differently.  So this week I read two books that thoughtfully examine what the Internet is doing to us as human beings.

First, I liked Nicholas Carr's Wired article so much that I bought his book.  Carr draws on modern scientific research to show how the Internet is actually rewiring our brains at a physiological level.  New technologies, he argues, fundamentally reshape how we think.  The birth of written language and the creation of the printing press didn't merely put new information into the hands of the masses; these technologies  overturned centuries of oral culture and an education system based primarily on memorization. They changed how human beings think.  The Internet has done the same thing, and while that brings many benefits, it has risks.  The research is pretty conclusive that the Internet is a medium built around distraction.  While it makes a vast amount of information accessible, deep learning and creativity is hindered.

Some Internet apologists argue that we don't need deep learning anymore, because we can look up anything we want instantaneously on the net.  Amazingly, Carr cities a Rhodes scholar studying philosophy who has given up reading books entirely.  These people argue that the function of human intelligence nowadays is to index information sources and know where to look up answers we need.  To some degree, that might be true.  But Carr cites scientific studies which show that deep learning is what creates the frameworks and scaffolding in our brains that we use to process and analyze information.  Our ability to synthesize information, place it into larger wholes, and think creatively depends to a large extent on the kind of deep learning that occurs when we read books.

Jaron Lanier's book You are Not a Gadget: A Manifesto attacks Web 2.0 culture, arguing that it is undermining us as human beings.  Lanier is no Luddite; he is the father of virtual reality and one of the pioneers of the digital age.  Lanier draws on his technological expertise to show the profound consequences that design choices can have on human society.  These design choices are not inevitable, but once the choices are made, they frequently get "locked in" and are impossible to change.  By atomizing human beings and reducing them to discrete properties that fit within tidy design patterns, Web 2.0 designs are sacrificing the uniqueness and creativity that make us human.

Lanier frequently compares Web 2.0 technologies to the MIDI music format, which was designed to digitally represent musical notes.  The technology got "locked in" early and acts like a straitjacket now, because MIDI has been so universally adopted.  The problem is that MIDI sounds... well, terrible.  The rigid digital format can't capture any of the richness, subtlety, and nuance that makes for quality music.  Lanier argues the same thing is happening to human beings.

Lanier has other criticisms.  "Cybernetic totalists" are elevating the crowd (or hive) above human beings themselves.  These totalists tell us that the hive has more worth, creativity, and intelligence than individuals.  Thus a collaborative project like Wikipedia will somehow be superior to the contributions of any one individual.  The truth, Lanier argues, is frequently the opposite.  Passion, creativity, and real art spring from individuals.  Web 2.0 chops, dices, atomizes, mashes up, and resynthesizes these contributions into something less meaningful.

Lanier also believes that Internet business models--which flow directly from design choices--are destroying art and creativity.  A handful of information gatekeepers like Google make extravagant amounts of money, while artists, content creators, and producers get nothing.  Most Web 2.0 enthusiasts bash "old media" like newspapers and the music business, blaming them for being slow to adapt to changing technology.  Lanier argues that with our current designs, adaptation is impossible; there is no alternative business model that will help musicians or newspapers survive.

Whether one agrees with these authors or not, they do a great service by challenging conventional wisdom and asking hard questions about the digital age.  What is the Internet doing to us as human beings?  We are familiar with the benefits; what are the risks?  Are these inevitable or can they be redesigned?  How do we live effective and satisfying lives as human beings in response to these technologies?  These two books have given me plenty to think about.

The merits of unplugging

Posting has been light lately.  That often happens when I'm juggling more projects than I can manage, which is the case right now.  But lately there's been another reason I've spent less time around the blogosphere.

Over the past two years I have spent less and less time reading books and journals, and more and more reading online.  Throughout my day I drink from a firehose of news sites, blogs, e-mails, and other sources.  This connectivity has brought many benefits, but I've gradually come to realize an alarming fact: although my information intake has multiplied, I'm learning less and less.

I have tried to understand why.  This article from Wired magazine shed a lot of light on the subject.  It discusses how spending time online physically rewires our brains.  I was particularly interested in studies that show how much nonlinear reading impairs our ability to learn and retain information.  The bottom line is that we learn at a much deeper level when we read in a concentrated, linear fashion.  Frequent distractions hinder our ability to transfer information from short-term into long-term memory.  The mere presence of hyperlinks can be enough to break concentration and hinder retention.

Another reason I'm learning less is information overload.  When I try to consume too many articles in a given day, I don't really read any of them.  I scan, I look for highlights, I try to dig out the gold.  But the amount of real learning is minimal.  This last week I probably skimmed 200 e-mails and 50 articles about General McChrystal's media blunder and General Petraeus' assumption of command.  I learned a good deal, but I would have learned more if I'd read 5 articles about McChrystal and Petraeus and one good book about civil-military relations.

A third reason I'm learning less is that online communities are self-selecting and tend to focus on the same sets of issues.  In the national security community that usually means current political, economic, and military events.  The world is much broader than that, and there is so much to learn, but deep immersion in the blogosphere can leave little time for other areas of study.  This myopia isn't inevitable, but I think it is common.

I'm not turning my back on the blogosphere.  I like being connected to the world, and I remain a believer in the power of new media to accelerate the flow of information and ideas.  Vibrant online dialogue can make us smarter and more adaptable--but it has insidious dangers.  Despite our best efforts to be broad thinkers, we in the military and broader national security are addicted to current events, often at the expense of deeper learning.  We can be too reactive, too obsessed with the hot issue of the day, too reliant on op eds and endless discussion.  I've noticed those trends in myself over the past two years.

That's why I'm making some mid-course corrections.  I'm spending less time online and trying to spend more time in books.  I've cut down on the number of blogs I follow.  I'm spending less time on my own blog.  I'm not totally unplugging, but I hope I can strike a better balance in how I spend my time.

Suzie Schwartz and Improving Dover

Thanks to Tom Ricks for sharing this link.  I'm a big fan of the current Secretary of the Air Force.  I saw him speak one time, before he took his current position.  His professionalism and commitment made a real impact on me, at a time when I was having a crisis of confidence in Air Force leadership.  It looks like his wife is made of equally formidable material.  She has made it a personal mission to improve the way that families receive their fallen loved ones at Dover AFB.

As a C-17 pilot I flew more of these "dignified transfer" missions than I like to remember.  I've always been impressed with the way that the military honors its fallen, and am glad to see that process is always being improved and refined.  I appreciate Mrs. Schwartz's efforts.