Education agency, climate tech
Self-directed education fosters agency which is good for mental health. Grimes suggests Gemini as art. My pod on climate tech. Theatre on nuclear disarmament.
Education: Naomi Fisher, Peter Gray, agency
Art: Grimes on Gemini as performance art
Pod: Climate tech with Alyssa Gilbert
Theatre: Nuclear disarmament, deterrence
Links: Clean energy charts, modern micro chip manufacturing; Habituation as to why we ignore horrors; Wonderful essay on snake breeding by my friend Rebecca Giggs; the value of open source software; on aliens, podcast.
Welcome new readers especially those from the home education world. I don’t always talk about home ed ideas but I am hosting an UnConference on this area in London on April 27th, if you are about, do come, it’s free and there are already 100 sign-ups.
If you can not make it, do consider writing for the blog/essay prizes on ideas or experiences you have.
We are offering up to 10 prizes of £100 for work relating to the theme of non-mainstream education. Everyone is welcome to take part but young people are particularly encouraged to submit entries. At least 5 prizes are intended for young people (21 and under).
These could be essays, videos, blogs or talks about non-mainstream (or even mainstream pedagogy) education. Anything is open, for instance: How should we think about home education? The pros and cons of maths circles and their application outside maths? What would Dewey think of the education landscape today? How will AI change education? What Unschooling can teach us?
Submission Form is here.
I’ve had a podcast with Naomi Fisher on this area. Details here.
She is very much in favour of self-directed learning. She makes pedagogy arguments for this (although there are opposing ones as well) but over the years, I’ve come to think that the arguments around agency and choice might be even stronger.
I think there is evidence that 1-1 learning, and self-directed learning works in terms of education, but combined with some of Naomi’s thinking and the work of Peter Grey I think the idea of agency (as opposed to helplessness) might be super important. I think “play” is connected. (See the work of Peter Grey here in his substack)
What being outside the school environment can give you is to empower your sense of agency and lower your sense of helplessness. (Of course schools can do this too, but they struggle).
There is a line of recent argument that recent trends in youth mental health are due to mobile phones in combination with social media. This is heavily debated as correlation does not equal causation. But on the surface there may be some weight here.
But, what is happening? Is it polarised anger? Disinformation ? Peer pressure, jealousy ? Do we look at fake rarified lives and polarised views and this makes us feel depressed?
My current thoughts to the mechanisms actually point to a loss of agency in our youth as a possible stronger underlying cause.
One argument for this is what we can see from animal science. Where we find learned helplessness behaviour then we observe very poor outcomes for animals.
From GPT: The concept of learned helplessness, first identified by psychologists Martin Seligman and Steven Maier in 1967, involves an organism learning to accept and endure unpleasant situations or stimuli, believing they have no control over the outcome.
Via GPT. Re: education and re: mental health
Research in educational settings has found that students who experience repeated failure or perceive a lack of control over their academic success can develop learned helplessness. This is particularly evident in challenging subjects like mathematics, where early failures can lead to a persistent belief in one's inability to improve.
Findings: This phenomenon can lead to decreased effort, avoidance of challenging tasks, and poorer academic performance, highlighting the importance of teaching strategies that foster a growth mindset and resilience.
And again on mental health: individuals can learn to feel helpless and passive in the face of adverse situations if they perceive their actions as having no effect on the outcome.
And,
Expectancy of Control: Learned helplessness is also related to an individual's expectation of control over outcomes. Repeated experiences of uncontrollability can lead to a generalized expectancy that future efforts will also be ineffective, diminishing motivation and effort in other areas of life.
Cognitive Bias: People experiencing learned helplessness may develop a cognitive bias that focuses on failures and ignores successes, reinforcing feelings of helplessness and inadequacy.
So, to the extent that self-directed learning increases a sense of agency and control. I think this is helpful for mental resilience.
I see this on climate anxiety as well (see also my podcast with Hannah Ritchie here). If you don’t think you can control something, you get anxious and this is no good.
Talking about climate action, this week I have my podcast with Alyssa Gilbert out. (Transcript/Notes)
Alyssa Gilbert, the director of the Center for Climate Change Innovation at the Grantham Institute, talks about the current gaps in climate technology investments. She discusses her research into areas that are currently underfunded, including transport and energy. She also covers the importance of energy efficiency, especially in relation to the built environment. Alyssa emphasizes the necessity of various models in the fight against climate change, including private sector initiatives, philanthropy, and governmental grants - and highlights the need for a diverse range of solutions. She also speaks about the innovation within the London climate tech ecosystem and shares her perspective on various topics including carbon offsets, behavior change, and geoengineering.
Of most interest to those interested in climate, but relevant to anyone thinking about innovation, humanities and the future.
Thinking about humanities, I have an oblique observation on the Gemini image generation controversies. Ian Leslie covers it here with regards to thinking about alignment of large tech culture (ie Google), and the median US (or global) person. Suggesting that large corp tech culture it to the left of the median person causing tensions.
I’m less interested in the politics of the matter, although I note expectations gaps left or right have always been problematic.
I’m interested in this high art, performative art take form Grimes (HT Tyler Cowen):
Grimes argues:
I am retracting my statements about the gemini art disaster. It is in fact a masterpiece of performance art, even if unintentional. True gain-of-function art. Art as a virus: unthinking, unintentional and contagious.
offensive to all, comforting to none. so totally divorced from meaning, intention, desire and humanity that it's accidentally a conceptual masterpiece.
A perfect example of headless runaway bureaucracy and the worst tendencies of capitalism. An unabashed simulacra of activism. The shining star of corporate surrealism (extremely underrated genre btw)
The supreme goal of the artist is to challenge the audience. Not sure I've seen such a strong reaction to art in my life. Spurring thousands of discussions about the meaning of art, politics, humanity, history, education, ai safety, how to govern a company, how to approach the current state of social unrest, how to do the right thing regarding the collective trauma.
It's a historical moment created by art, which we have been thoroughly lacking these days. Few humans are willing to take on the vitriol that such a radical work would dump into their lives, but it isn't human.
It's trapped in a cage, trained to make beautiful things, and then battered into gaslighting humankind abt our intentions towards each other. this is arguably the most impactful art project of the decade thus far. Art for no one, by no one. Art whose only audience is the collective pathos. Incredible. Worthy of the moma
Long time readers will have picked up that I put some weight in our current reading of art on the “viewers” or “audiences share”.
From GPT:
the idea that the interpretation and appreciation of an artwork are not solely determined by the artist's intent or the physical attributes of the work itself. Instead, these concepts highlight the active role of the viewer in creating meaning from an artwork. This perspective acknowledges that each viewer brings their own experiences, emotions, cultural background, and personal insights to their interpretation of an artwork, thereby completing the work in their own unique way.
The viewer's share is a critical component of the reception of art, suggesting that the artwork is not a closed, fixed entity but an open-ended process that requires the viewer's engagement to realize its full meaning. This approach aligns with various theories of art that emphasize the relational aspect of art, such as phenomenology, which considers the experience of art as central, and reader-response criticism in literature, which similarly focuses on the reader's role in creating the meaning of a text.
By recognizing the viewer's share, art philosophy opens up a more democratic and pluralistic understanding of art, where multiple interpretations and responses are not only possible but are considered an integral part of the artwork's existence and significance.
I engage with this explicitly in my last two theatre pieces. And means I put some serious weight on what Grimes is arguing. It’s food for thought at a higher level than the immediate controversy.
I went to see Chris Thorpe’s theatre piece on the recent Nuclear Disarmament movement - a Family Business. The performance centred around:
The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons opened for signature at the United Nations in New York on 20 September 2017 and entered into force on 22 January 2021. There are currently 93 signatories and 70 and states parties.
Overall, in terms of getting you thinking about existential risk (X-risk) the play was successful and more successful, I judge, than EA posts I read about the matter. The descriptions of the politics behind this, and the story told of the last minute efforts to find printer paper for Honduras to ratify were well told.
I’d have loved more discussion on what the deterrence people argue, and perhaps some chat about what X-risk probabilities are all about, but it was worth seeing.
I will leave you with GPT on the NPT:
The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) represents a significant milestone in global efforts to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and advance disarmament. Opening for signature at the United Nations in New York on September 20, 2017, the treaty reflects the international community's commitment to moving towards a world free of nuclear arms.
The TPNW was adopted by a vote of 122 members of the United Nations in July 2017, indicating strong support for the initiative among the global majority, despite the notable absence of the nuclear-armed states and many of their allies who did not participate in the treaty's negotiation and have not signed the agreement.
The treaty officially entered into force on January 22, 2021, after being ratified by the 50th state, Honduras, in October 2020. Entry into force required ratification by at least 50 countries, a milestone that underscores the treaty's significance and the widespread aspiration for a nuclear-free world. As of the latest updates, the treaty has 93 signatories and 70 states parties, indicating a growing acceptance and commitment to its objectives, though still without the participation of any nuclear-armed nations.
The TPNW is the first legally binding international agreement to comprehensively prohibit nuclear weapons, with the goal of leading towards their total elimination. For those nations that are party to the treaty, it prohibits a wide range of activities related to nuclear weapons, including developing, testing, producing, manufacturing, transferring, possessing, stockpiling, using, or threatening to use nuclear weapons. Additionally, the treaty prohibits the deployment of nuclear weapons on national territory and the assistance, encouragement, or inducement of any of these prohibited activities.
The treaty also outlines pathways for nuclear-armed states to join the treaty, including the verification and elimination of their nuclear weapons programs. Furthermore, it addresses assistance to victims of nuclear weapons use and testing and environmental remediation of contaminated areas.
Despite its achievements, the treaty faces criticism and resistance from the world's nuclear-armed states and some of their allies, who argue that it does not address the security concerns that lead to nuclear deterrence policies. These countries have not signed the TPNW and maintain their nuclear arsenals, citing the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) as the cornerstone of the global nuclear disarmament regime.
The TPNW's impact is symbolic and practical, providing a framework for stigmatizing nuclear weapons and advancing disarmament norms. Its growing number of signatories and states parties reflects a significant part of the international community's dedication to achieving a world without nuclear weapons, despite the challenges and opposition from nuclear-armed states.
And links this week:
Clean energy charts:
https://x.com/DrSimEvans/status/1763502260120682889?s=20
FT on modern micro chip manufacturing:
https://x.com/samjoiner/status/1762738183270215693?s=20
Habituation as to why we ignore horrors
https://x.com/benyeohben/status/1762585017539080679?s=20
Wonderful essay on snake breeding by my friend Rebecca Giggs:
https://x.com/benyeohben/status/1762584585890644264?s=20
The value of open source software;
https://x.com/benyeohben/status/1762584132666687735?s=20
On aliens: