a million monkeys typing

Who Would You Phone?

Posted October 7th, 2005 at 09:12pm

Back in 1986, during my last year of high school, there was a radio trivia contest to win tickets to a concert. I didn’t have much money, but I really wanted to go see this particular group, so I sat myself beside the radio one Monday morning, phone in hand, and waited. Now, my head has always been overflowing with completely useless information –probably more so at that time in my life– so I knew I stood just as good a chance as anybody else. Finally, they asked the question: “What was David Bowie’s theatrical rock-star persona backed by the Spiders from Mars?” I dialed as quickly as I could, but (hampered by my old rotary phone, no doubt) I was not the first, and so didn’t win the tickets. For three more mornings, I did the same, each time knowing the answer, but failing to be the first to call. On that Friday, however, the question was much harder: “Whose band did Canadian singer Gowan borrow for the recording of his Strange Animal LP?” This time I won the tickets. (The answer, by the way, is Peter Gabriel, who was recording in the same studio around the same time.)

I was proud of my accomplishment, elated by that vindication of the sheer width and breadth of the mostly impractical data stogged tight into my brain. It seems a little foolish in retrospect, but the accumulation of knowledge was –for me– the most distinguishing facet of my self-identity.

Back then, information was far less transitory. I remember reading and studying endlessly, trying to retain every nugget of information I could, whether it was useful or not. Now, I have become lazy. When a question is asked and I don’t know the response, a quick search on the Net will generally take me directly to the right information. The question answered, the details then drop away from my mind, and I usually forget it completely. I suspect most people do this nowadays, relying upon the Net far more than memory. When someone dials a friend from Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?, are they really choosing their most knowledgeable friend, or simply the fastest with Google? Who would you phone?

I have a very large library, encompassing thousands of books and covering hundreds of topics (many quite obscure), and I’m very proud of it. The problem is, sometimes I neglect to use it. The other night, I spent the better part of an hour Googling for information about tree identification. I found lots of bits and pieces, but little of any coherent and wide-ranging coverage. Then I realised… there were several books on the bookshelf behind me concerning that very topic. Yes, I can be oblivious at time, but in this case I think it was more a matter of how technology is changing the way I seek and retain knowledge. My need for a “quick fix” led me to a search engine, and not the shelves.

All of this makes me a little concerned for students today. True, the Internet is probably the best resource possible for scholars and teachers: the world’s largest conceivable library, with mostly free access to almost any snippet of information mere moments away. But with so much data, so free-flowing, has information become a mere tool, like pencils and erasers, fit for the moment and then quickly discarded once beyond its utility?

One might make the point that there was no guarantee that students would remember information culled from a paper encyclopedia, or that they might retain information of no pertinent and practical usage. But information was harder to come by, and –I believe– dissected slower. They say that in 1900, we encountered 1000 pieces of significant information per six months. In 1960, it was within one week. Today, it’s within one hour. How much knowledge can we actually retain when our “seven plus or minus two” short-term memories have to constantly filter, direct and trash most of that data?

It also begs a question: which is better, the instant access to vast quantities of lower-quality (on average, that is) information, or the more difficult access to rarer quantities of high-quality information? A Google search, or the hefty Encyclopaedia Britannica up on the library shelves? The accumulated and often erroneous perspective of thousands of writers, or the careful crafting and fact-checking by a skilled few? (This, of course, is one of the main reasons given by the Britannica company for continuing to use their rather costly work instead of the Net at large, and especially the Wikipedia.)

I wonder how long will it be before each student carries PDAs that display answers to any common question at the click of a button? (The time is almost here, I know.) Where, then, will that lead the education system, and how can it adjust to the notion of near-instantaneous research replacing memory?

I’ve been spending a lot of time recently wondering about this, how our educational tools might better compensate for new ways of learning, filtering information and retaining useful knowledge. Many minds far greater than mine are occupied by these same thoughts, I would guess.

Hmm… perhaps I can Google for them….