“I Don’t Know Anything About Computers.”
April 18th, 2010One of my biggest pet peeves is when friends say, “I don’t know anything about computers.”
This sentence irks me for a couple reasons. The first is that it is blatantly not true. I’ve met folks who have never touched anything more complicated than a solar-powered calculator. Compared to them, my friends — who use their computers constantly for schoolwork and practically live on Facebook — have considerable technical experience. It is disheartening to hear how little they value their knowledge.
Moreover, the context in which I typically hear friends say, “I don’t know anything about computers,” is as an excuse when their computer does something unexpected, they don’t know what to do, and they would rather back off and let someone else fix it than try to solve the problem on their own. My friends are afraid of their own machines. I think this sentiment is a symptom of ongoing trends in the industry towards a closed-box style of consumer computer design.
Cory Doctorow explains it better than I can in his iPad rant on BoingBoing:
The original Apple ][+ came with schematics for the circuit boards, and birthed a generation of hardware and software hackers who upended the world for the better. If you wanted your kid to grow up to be a confident, entrepreneurial, and firmly in the camp that believes that you should forever be rearranging the world to make it better, you bought her an Apple ][+.
[...] Buying an iPad for your kids isn’t a means of jump-starting the realization that the world is yours to take apart and reassemble; it’s a way of telling your offspring that even changing the batteries is something you have to leave to the professionals.
While Apple’s closed-box style contributes to the ease of use which is the hallmark of Apple’s products, I’m afraid that it is changing consumer attitudes in a negative way. Apple wants to keep the inner workings of their products a secret to the point that they want to make it illegal for consumers to alter the software running on their own property. Preventing users from controlling the software on their own devices is dangerous for several reasons, but it scares me most because it discourages users from learning about their devices. In effect, Apple is profiting from its customers’ ignorance, and the consequence is that more of my friends profess, “I don’t know anything about computers.”
Apple’s products are a timely example, but other manufacturers are guilty too, and I think it’s the generation just now learning about technology that will suffer most for it. Curious kids will never be able to tinker with the insides of their iPads as they could with the Apple][+. I think we as technophiles have a responsibility to kids to pick up the slack. Get your kids a garage sale computer to take apart together. Find out if your teenager’s high school offers programming classes. Donate to or volunteer with groups such as TechBridge, which offers after-school programs in technology and engineering for underprivileged girls in Oakland, CA. But most importantly, make sure kids are not afraid of tinkering with technology. How else can they hope to make it better?
Tags: computer, kids, school, Technology
Interesting – I too am frustrated when people say this, but only because I am pedantic. What they normally mean to say is “I don’t know enough to feel confident that I won’t make things worse when trying to fix my computer problems” or something to that effect… and actually this attitude is sensible.
Do you own a car, TV, microwave etc. and would you try fixing these yourself? What about hardware inside your computer? Just because PCs are especially easy doesn’t make it any less wrong to be afraid of tinkering IMO.
Whatever Apple does we will still have tinkerers… the iPad is no less tinkerable than most non-PC computer platforms, the problem is that people who have gotten used to how easy it is to tinker with PCs and they therefore think of themselves as “good” hackers, coders or whatever – where in reality they are just high-level PC coders who have let rapid application development (Flash, Python, .NET etc.) swell their egos.
You want your kids to tinker with computers? Get them a PC…
This irks me too because it’s another sign that people expect to use the “infantilism” card and get away with it. You don’t know computers? Oh, you don’t enjoy your iPhone, laptop, WiFi’d house with the DVR, DVD, LCD, GPS? The hell you don’t know computers, you’re just a lazy ass that wants someone else to spend the time and effort to get you back to being productive on tools you’ve become dependent on!
To claim ignorance about the tools that one uses the most is irresponsible and lazy. If you don’t know computers, then don’t come to me when they stop working. Enjoy going back to the typewriter, bitches!
It is also an expensive luxury for students to not be informed and confident about the technology that they use daily. I’m not talking about being able to replace RAM or install a new hard drive (or even a clock battery) but simply to be able to fuss with a broken URL to find the correct address or return a deleted “alias” icon to the the desktop or other similar non-lethal activities.
Our “small rural” community college spends 5% of its budget providing computer access for students (and staff). A significant portion of that 5% goes into “support” for flumoxed or fearful” users.
My mother-in-law is nearly 87. I’m her only computer support. She often gleefully tells me that she solved her own problem (“took me two hours but I finally found that folder”). She is as satisfied with her new capabilities as she is enamored with buying books on line for less than the cost of postage. The point being that instilling the excitement and confidence of being able to learn and solve problems is also creating the ability to make effective choices in all areas.
Learning how to how to use the dictionary (spellcheck, Wiki Dictionary) will mostly answer “How do you spell coincidence?”. Back in the day – list serves- I quickly learned what RTFM meant. Look it up…
I agree that Semi – that as other technologies have matured, people have tinkered with them less. The technology becomes more “closed,” as companies try to protect their ip and ALSO try to protect their customers from themselves. Remember how easy it was to hose your machine back in DOS/early Windows days? Remember dll hell? Also, most of the original computer hackers and tinkerers got what they wanted – more processing speed, better hardware, and more mainstream acceptance of what was once a hobby. But, just as the corporate world has co-opted every technology gone mainstream and made it into a packaged product, so too have they done so with computers.
I prefer stupid computer users, then I have job security for a lot more years.
Just show them this: http://xkcd.com/627/
[...] now that you’ve read that, here’s a response/continuation from a college student named Carolyn referencing Doctorow’s with some expounding on the potential issues resulting from the [...]
Have you guys ever thought about not everyone is interested to learn about computers? I find this “THEY SHOULD”-mentality really really weird. For example, I don’t want to learn to fix my car since I’m not interested in mechanics nor have time or other resources to learn (but mostly because I’m not interested). I’m glad there are people in my circle of friends who are interested in mechanics and therefore help me if I have questions etc. And I’m glad I can help them with computers, which I am interested in and they are not.
Technology is not closing down, only the forms how YOU learned to tinker are.. You don’t have to learn the innards of your computer anymore, you can dive straight into coding if that’s what you really want (open source, anyone?). I find this better, since since the world of computers have grown so much that it’s stupid to demand everyone to know the exactly same basic skills. Why not let people learn the stuff they find interesting and let them specialize? That’s the way, I find, how innovation is fostered.
Great and resourceful post, you have a sweet site.