Another dot in the blogosphere?

Posts Tagged ‘ignorance

Two days ago, I used my first Pokémon Go (PoGo) exclusive raid experience to illustrate how social leadership emerged from a crowd.

Today I illustrate how members of a crowd chose to respond to investigative analysis. In doing so, I link a game-related phenomenon to a social one in the teaching fraternity.

Nicholas Oyzon AKA Trainer Tips is a PoGo expert, an inspiring YouTuber, and an unofficial ambassador of the game franchise. He released a video detailing the efforts of people trying to unlock Niantic’s secret recipe for Ex Raid gyms.

Video source

Here is my TLDR take on the video: A few individuals used crowdsourced data, investigative analysis, and the scientific method to suggest Niantic’s algorithms for exclusive gyms.

You would think that any PoGo player still yearning for a chance to battle and catch Mewtwo would be thankful for such data analysis and timely information. However, if the Singapore PoGo Facebook group is an indicator of lay reaction here, the response was flat or negative.

A member posted a link to Oyzon’s YouTube video.

These were the types of responses when I last made the screenshot. I have labelled them A, B, and C.

A qualitative researcher might suggest that the low number of responses could indicate the low interest to helpful information. This suggestion would carry more weight if the researcher also reported the numbers of responses to complaints, polls, show offs, etc. — these regularly garner hundreds of comments.

If we think of the Facebook group as a microcosm of how some local social media-connected players think, then they fall into a few categories.

  • A: Ignorant. “Catch no ball” is a local colloquialism for “could not understand” or “over my head”. Either the video content was too complex or people in this group were unable/unwilling to process it.
  • B: Atheoretical. Unlike category A, those in B practice without theory. They operate by “what works” and care little for “why it works”.
  • C: Stubborn or wilfully ignorant. This group may or may not possess theories, and in both cases refuse to learn something new and useful.

People belonging to Group A and B might still be open to learning something new and helpful. People in Group C are unlikely to be open enough to learn.

There are certainly other groups of people, especially when this categorisation is applied to adult learners. I have met them all — these are teachers both preservice and inservice, lecturers, trainers, and professors. What is both frightening is the number that fall into Category C.

You might assume that teachers and educators should be most aware of the theories of learning and teaching practices that enable them. You would be wrong. What is worse is that while Category C is small, this group discourages those around them and holds back entire systems from improving pedagogically.

This is why I do what I do. I battle the lack of pedagogical theory in the hope of defeating ignorance. I fight the war of wilful ignorance in the hope of defeating apathy. It is relatively easy to win battles, but the war rages on.

My open letter to #edsg lurkers received more retweets and reposts than replies on Twitter.

That is part of the problem. It is easy to republish something and not actually say or do anything. I can only hope that I am being premature in my judgement and seeing if people come back next Tuesday night to chat online.

There were just two Twitter responses.

One response referred to Twitter as a means to “enslave” while discussion forums were available “anytime-anywhere”. I do not see how any communication tool traps or enslaves unless you let it. That is like blaming bad human behaviour on technology instead of examining the people who use them.

Another was about the open discussion on Twitter being monitored and participants fearing reprisals. I live in a democracy and the 21st century and not in a police state during the Inquisition. The things we discuss and the tone we use are what bring educators forward and make us vibrant.

One response was driven by ignorance and the other by fear. These are the very things that #edsg chats can drive out by having open conversations.

Most folk would not blink on reading this tweet:

Most of the tips at the URL are reasonable but they should not be implemented as unquestioned, blanket rules.

I have different perspectives on the tweet and one of the tips.

Few question the term “cyberwellness”. I think that it is an oxymoron given how the word cyber is often paired with the words attack, bullying, threat, terrorism. Cyber is negative.

Cyberwellness is negative wellness, or to put it another way, putting up with something that is somehow inherently bad. Do a basic analysis of so-called cyberwellness tips and you will discover that most are restrictive, e.g., do not let your child play video games for more than two hours per day.

The underlying assumption that video games are bad or a waste of time should be questioned.

Why is the limit two hours and is that the limit regardless of whether it is a weekday or weekend?

Why do we have different rules for the analogue and digital worlds? The same parents that would not limit a child’s playtime with LEGO would limit a creative process like surviving and building in Minecraft.

Why do we not have rules about unnecessary tuition and completing assessment book drills? How about tips on how not to be stupefied by schooling?

Why is the analogue mostly good and the digital mostly bad?

I know why. It starts with ignorance, e.g., a parent not playing video games with their child or refusing to analyze information about gaming. Ignorance feeds fear which in turn reinforces ignorance.

But breaking this unhealthy cycle is difficult because the very things that can educate parents (video games and the Internet) are what they are already afraid of.

Video source

Click to see all the nominees!

QR code

Get a mobile QR code app to figure out what this means!

My tweets


Usage policy

%d bloggers like this: