Kids can't use computers, and why it should worry you - <AUTHOR> http://www.coding2learn.org/blog/2013/07/29/kids-cant-use-computers/ <comment><USER2> The problem isn't that these people can't use computers. It's that they can't THINK. They do not understand what critical thinking is, or how it works. They do not know how to approach problems or explore solutions. They don't know how to do it with their computer... or their car, or their vacuuming robot, or their television, or their oven or their relationships or any thing in their life. They don't understand why the world is the way it is, they don't know how to figure it out, and they generally think that trying is a suckers game.

You mention that there are always 1 or 2 kids a year who have already picked up programming or know how to build a computer... I think I would live for them. I was one of those kids, and I would be so excited for them that I would bury them in whatever help they needed.

For the other kids, I'd put aside the computers for a bit. I'd teach them critical thinking, because it's really the only skill they need to learn (see the documentary "High School" by Wiseman for an excellent example of how reformulating every single class as being centered around critical thinking led a poor latino high schools students to accomplish the highest percentage of students to attain college degrees in the nation... while preserving their youthful exuberance for learning).

<comment><USER3> _The problem isn 't that these people can't use computers. It's that they can't THINK._

I find it's more specific than and not as serious as that. I got my first computer in 1982, first modem in 1985 (hence my username). I find that people who proudly state how not-technical they are actually purposely turn their brain off around computers. It's not that they can't think. They can and often do around non-technical things. But they automatically assume they're unable to fix anything computer-related so they don't even try. My wife is a perfect example of that. If I hear, "Printer is not working" again I think I'm going to throw it out the window. The latest time, she unplugged the printer USB cable to plug in her iPhone and then called me to fix the printer. If this was a "can't think" problem, she would belong in a group home. Instead it's a "won't think about technical things" problem.

 _I was one of those kids, and I would be so excited for them that I would bury them in whatever help they needed._

I was one of those kids too. Only my computer teacher was in his first year of teaching computers, having been drafted from the math program because "computers use math". He was completely just learning about computers. He would ask me, "Is that right, 300bps?" after almost everything he taught the class. He ended up just having me do special projects doing things like creating math games on the Apple ][e.

<comment><USER4> Hmmm, it's an interesting point. I think the reason people don't even try is because they recognize that they can't tell the difference between something that might take them 15 minutes of monkeying around to fix, and something that is beyond their competency. Worse, they are not sure that they won't make things when trying to fix the problem.

I'm sure it must be similar to the feeling I get when I'm working on a new code base that I'm not familiar with, and I need to make a modification in a function so that it calls another module correctly for some new functionality. But I can't tell if that change isn't going to break something somewhere else, so making that change becomes quite scary.

In the software development world, we handle this by creating suites of automatic tests that we can run after the change to make sure that what we just did doesn't break things. We also use config managent software so that we can back out any erroneous changes. These things aren't available to nontechnical users - they can't verify that they haven't broken anything, and if they _have_ broken something, they may not be able to put things back the way they were. This pretty much guarantees that people won't experiment with their computer.

<comment><USER5> I think part of the problem is that with the advent of the Internet, no computer comes with proper documentation that you can read to learn what a system does and how it does it. DOS was probably the last OS that could be completely described in its paper manual. Now learning about a new system has to be done through Google, experimentation and thoroughly inadequate help systems where it's very difficult to find an answer if you don't know how to describe the problem.

<comment><USER6> linux is completely described by its source code.

<comment><USER3> It's only slightly less accurate to state that Windows is completely described by its binaries.

Both statements depend on your ability to devote time and appropriate expertise to discerning the documentation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I get the feeling that the author was judging the person he was helping far more harshly than the _perceived_ judgement she might have passed on him.

Maybe she was tired, clearly she was frustrated, but it wasn't obvious that she held the author in any disdain, though the author seemed to perceive it. What we're sure of is that the author held _her_ in such low regard.

I wonder if she picked up on that. I suspect she did, and I suspect it contributes to the negative stereotypes that the author wanted to rail against by mentioning all this.

> 'Do you know where the proxy settings are?' I asked, hopefully.

> It took me about ten seconds to find and fill in the proxy settings.

Well for Christ's sake don't ask her something she almost surely doesn't know if it only took you ten seconds of looking. Look for ten seconds first.

The first rule of any educator is to never, under any circumstances, make someone feel inept. And it was so easily avoidable here.

<comment>

Of course people can't use computers. They're not trying to use computers. They're trying to get X done. The computer is a device that, most of the time, _just gets in the way of doing X_.

Just the way that cars are a device that get from point A to point B. Few poeple get in a car to drive. They get in a car to locate themselves to point B.

In this case, the person can't use a computer because people like the author condescend a bit, fix the problem in ten seconds, and don't set them up to be just a bit wiser for next time.

The important part of the story is the part where the author explains that on some networks, you need to set extra settings so the office network can communicate with the outside world network. I hope the author explained what it took him ten seconds to do, so that she might be able to help herself next time. The omission (and disdain) leads me to suspect not, or at least that actually helping her was not an important part of the story.

<comment><USER8> This guy sounds like he has a chip on his shoulder. As you pointed out:

>The first rule of any educator is to never, under any circumstances, make someone feel inept. And it was so easily avoidable here.

There are many sentences in this article indicating that this is not an isolated, unique reaction from the poster.

This paragraph especially irked me:

> I've messed up, as I'm sure many of you have. When we purchased an XBox it > was Techno-Dad to the rescue. I happily played about with the mess of cables > and then created profiles for everyone. When my son's MacBook was infected > with the FlashBack virus Techno-Dad to the rescue. I looked up some on-line > guides and then hammered away in the terminal until I had eradicated that > bad-boy. When we purchased a 'Family Raspberry Pi' Techno-Dad to the rescue. > I hooked it all up, flashed an OS to the SD-card and then sat back proudly, > wondering why nobody other than me wanted to use the blasted thing. All > through their lives, I've done it for them. Set-up new hardware, installed > new software and acted as in-house technician whenever things went wrong. As > a result, I have a family of digital illiterates.

Well, maybe it shouldn't have been "techno dad to the rescue", but rather "dad spending a moment with his kids showing them how to setup a raspberry pi/their xbox/etc.". And if the kids aren't even interested in setting up their own XBox, well then that's their prerogative. Give a man a fish, etc.

 _Addendum:_ when I was a pre-teen/teen, I spent all my free time learning about computers, reading programming books, etc. There was another kid just like me whom I hung out with, but it was just the two of us in our entire school. Nowadays, when I teach I meet kids who know python/html/php, fiddle with minecraft mods, jailbreak their android tablet so they can run a GBA emulator, etc. all the time. So I couldn't disagree more with OP's title. Having heavily worked with educators/as an educator has led me to believe that when someone complains that "kids can't X", it's more often than not their own shortcomings than the "kids'".

<comment><USER9> On the other hand, when I was a kid whenever I broke something on the computer it was my responsibility to fix it. My parents told me I broke it, so I'm able to fix it. So this particular paragraph really actually resonated with me, because if it weren't for my parents going "Well, you broke it, if you don't fix it it's going to stay broken." I probably wouldn't be nearly as computer savvy as I am today, and I probably wouldn't have gotten into programming (ok, maybe I would have, but certainly not as young as I did)

<comment><USER10> I get this, and it makes sense. But the combination of network connectivity and expensive closed-box devices means I'm not sure how to implement it.

The computer I grew up with was isolated. If I broke it, I had a broken computer. I could take my time fixing it. Nowadays, a computer is connected... to the other computers in the house, and the entire internet beyond. If my kid breaks his computer, he might get in all kinds of trouble. I can't let him play around and fix it if it breaks, for the same reasons I don't let him play around with something plugged in to the mains electricity as a way of learning about electronics.

I'm also not going to let him wire up the x-box, because I know that a busted HDMI connector that broke because I was letting my kid plug the thing in is unlikely to be covered y the warranty.

<comment><USER11> For the computer thing, that's pretty much exactly why Raspberry Pi was created, so there was a cheap open (relatively) computer that kids could play around with, and even if they somehow manage to break it, it's only like $30.

As for the XBox, couldn't you just supervise while your kid hooked it up? Hand him/her the parts, tell him/her to go to it and you'll answer questions and keep an eye on things so he/she doesn't break anything but otherwise leave him/her to figure it out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I found that the author came across as extraordinarily condescending with the whole "let's get the president on the phone" thing. I'm sure that the woman he was dealing with understood full well that the "Internet" itself was probably fine and that it was her configuration that was the problem. Though I guess he took the holier-than-thou approach because she didn't use the _precise_ terminology that he would have preferred, heaven forbid, which warranted him degrading in her a blog post.

Amusingly enough, I work in a web shop and I wouldn't think twice about asking a colleague, "Is the internet down?" and he would understand full well that I was referring to some issue between our office machines and our ISP.

<comment><USER13> The author wasn't even an IT bro--he was a stand-in whose real job was teaching.

This all said, would you expect that a doctor would have patience with somebody who insisted "My body hurts" without being willing to provide more detail?

Terminology matters, and those who think it does not are doomed to be taken advantage of by people with more nuanced ways of reasoning about the world.

<comment><USER14> I can't think of any doctors I know who would respond to "My body hurts" with disdain, rather than "Can you tell me where, and what type of pain?". If you genuinely wanted to help someone, would the terminology really get in the way?

<comment><USER13> Right, but usually what ends up happening is that the user ends up repeating (in increasing frustration) that the computer is broken/the internet is down. Eventually, IT people learn to ignore user feedback because they don't know what they're doing--which increases speed of resolution but ultimately is a bad idea.

Consider how doctors react to patients that willfully refuse to give useful feedback--talk to any paramedic, for example.

In fact, IT workers are very much like paramedics: they sit around all day being bored except for bouts of panic brought on usually by failure to take preventative measures.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> People here are passing judgement on the guy for writing the post, but in reality his point is 100% correct: People don't know how to use computers. It is way more important for us to have a generation of people that understand computers than it is for us to have a generation that understands how to repair a car. Computers bring along things like freedom of speech, digital currency, taxes, etc. Knowing how the internet works is paramount to supporting the proper policy decisions. The fundamental difference between well governed countries and the US with respect to internet legislation is the relative computer literacy of the people involved.

Beyond the political, much of our unemployment problem is less a problem of governance, and more a problem of a lack of appropriate skills. People want to raise the minimum wage, but that will not help the poor, what will help the poor is to make themselves more economically efficient. Being able to properly diagnose, design, and debug technology is a fundamental way for a country to stay competitive (read: first world).

Furthermore, the reason he (and I) are angry is that we grew up automatically freed since all of our programs ran with easily readable code (QBASIC). Kids these days don't have that opportunity. Fuck, they can't even RUN code they've written on their pocket computers without shelling out for a developers license.

<comment><USER16> > _People don 't know how to use computers._

Why should configuring a "county's proxy server settings" be an essential skill?

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> So I take it the author can fix any brand of car and would, without missing a beat, answer questions like "where's the expansion tank?"

I'm so tired of "tech savvy" people simultaneously sitting on their high chairs and large salaries dissuading anything that makes their trade less esoteric - and then talking down to those who can't pierce the veil for whatever reason (whether it by financial, intellectual, or just not giving a flying $#@! about where proxy settings are).

EDIT: Let's not build a generation of people who know how to navigate terminal. Let's build a generation of people who will never have to.

<comment><USER18> If it does not have ECU or diesel pump I could fix pretty much everything else and bring the car in movable condition. You just need to obtain some manuals and a screwdriver. And I am not car enthusiast.

The problem is that the computing devices are moving to be the center of people lives. You must know how something works just to be able to protect yourself.

<comment><USER19> Just a screwdriver? That's a bit of a simplification. Even excluding electronic components, you'd need a fair bit of skill (and machinery) to rebuild a VANOS system, install fresh synchros in a transmission, blueprint an engine...

<comment><USER18> Actually I have owned only pre-90s car (the period when cars were cars and not Playstations on wheels). They were simpler and lighter affairs. You could fire up and drive an atmospheric diesel car with all fuses blown and without any electricity and broken alternator.

But that is offtopic. I don't want people to resolder chips on their mobile devices. But we must educate to not freeze like a deer in headlights when something move from it just works to it just doesn't work.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Kids know how to use computers, they know how to make them do what they need them to: browsing, email, some text-processing. Everything else, and I'm sorry to break it to you, it's the realm of technicians. The plumbers don't expect the average joe to know how to unblock an occluded pipe, do they? Expecting everyone to know how to configure advanced settings in a computer just because you know how to do it it's very condescending on your part.

<comment><USER21> Amusingly enough, in Russian there's an expression (with a certain nuance) "You have to know everything."

It's simple: life is vast, complicated, and you will be fucked in every possible direction you are ignorant of. You have to know _everything_. Cutting off a piece of reality and saying "that's for technicians" is for schmucks.

<comment><USER22> I heard a simmilar version "Specialization is for insects".

<comment><USER23>
      A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an
      invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building,
      write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a
      bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders,
      cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new
      problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty
      meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization
      is for insects.

(Lazarus Long, in _Time Enough For Love_ , Robert A. Heinlein, 1973.)

<comment><USER24> Researching discussions of that quote, I was amazed at how many people think the sentiment is completely unattainable, and honestly view achieving just 2-3 of those points is a major achievement.

To the contrary, I _do_ expect myself and others capable of doing anything (including learning how as needed). I _do_ expect the average joe to know how to unblock an occluded pipe; I'll understand if said Joe chooses to hire someone else to do the job faster, cheaper, and as leverage to free up time for greater personal productivity...nonetheless, I expect Joe can if need be grab a monkey-wrench and a bucket and proceed to unblock that pipe somehow.

I'll admit I may not be able to do all of those things well, but dad gum I'll get 'em done. I'll also admit "comfort the dying" is by far the hardest.

<comment><USER25> I should look up the discussions for this quote, but I share your view -- such achievements are not _difficult_ or unattainable, they are a _necessity._

I pay for the convenience, productivity, and in some cases _safety_ of having someone else do certain jobs -- but I _always_ make it a point to understand _what exactly_ a professional is doing for me.

I've done all sorts of things in my two decades: I've replaced garage doors, high voltage lighting fixtures, electrical panels, theatre lighting, wheel bearings, strut towers, head gaskets, automobile brakes, ignition coils, automotive and marine batteries, flat tires. I've installed car radios, 120V 10+ Amp switches and outlets, appliances, cabinets, plumbing fixtures. I've assembled computers, shortwave radios, robots [out of legos, soon arduinos], model R/C planes, cars, etc.

I don't consider any of this _unattainable_ or even _extraordinary._ -- There are many things I hope I never have to do again, and there are many things that took me ages to do: but I'm still glad I did it, and I would _never_ put an upper bound on the number of things I _still need to obtain._

That is the key. I am not done, I will _never_ be done. I will go to the grave wishing I had accomplished more.

To say that two or three of these feats is a major achievement is laughable. _These achievements are what life is about._ Not the 8-hours I spend at my desk on a weekday, not the X-hours I spend watching television series, or reading fiction. Not the Y-dollars I spend or invest.

Life is about learning, creating, experiencing. Achieving two or three of the listed feats is no major achievement, it's the mark of a boring individual who cannot claim to _truly have lived._

\---

I don't expect everyone to be an expert on every field of study -- but I cannot understand the lack of desire to know more. You commute every day, why _wouldn't you_ want to know more about your preferred mode of transport. (How it works, how to repair it, etc.) Even if that's _walking_, there's plenty you can learn about exercise, biology, etc.

You probably get sick several times a year: why wouldn't you want to learn about modern medicine? Hygiene? etc.

How can one turn on a radio and not be _amazed_ that the signal is being broadcast from 10s or 100s of miles away? (Even 1000s in the case of shortwave radio.) The same thought applies to using a cellphone, or a wireless internet connection.

Many of my peers grew up with dial-up -- how are you not amazed that we have speeds a hundred times faster _with no wires!?_ How can you be content with the poor broadband speeds in North America when these same people have _seen first-hand_ what happens when we increase our speeds by an order of magnitude?

tl;dr: I agree with you completely.

<comment><USER26> May I suggest you use fewer dashes and underscores? Just a tad too distracting for me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Wow...

"TL;DR? Why not just go watch another five second video of a kitten with it's head in a toilet roll, or a 140 character description of a meal your friend just stuffed in their mouth. "num num". This blog post is not for you."

Snarky enough? If you start out like that I've already made the decision that you're over opinionated and probably prone to dramatic exaggeration.

<comment><USER28> Yes. I am over opinionated and prone to dramatic exaggeration. Point taken though, and I'll remove the TL;DR.

<comment><USER29> I also loved the TL;DR. My first impression wasn't "this guy is an asshole" it was "wow, it's refreshing to see someone openly reject idiots on their blog."

Maybe not idiots exactly, but I agree with the derision of short attention spans.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> The analysis is good, the conclusion is questionable.

Of course a system administrator thinks knowing about computers is the most important thing.

A medical doctor thinks kids should know about medicine to stay healthy. A lawyer thinks kids should know about the law and know how society works. An athlete thinks his kids should play team sports and learn grit and be tough.

Like with everything in life, you should know a little about everything, but you can't possibly know everything that is important.

EDIT:

My conclusions is that computers are still too hard and the future belongs to systems that have less failure modes.

<comment><USER31> I like your examples as they all apply to pretty much everyone (as computing does) but I think we need to have a minimum understanding for all of them. Health, law, economics and computer classes should each have a pretty high bar. Being able to troubleshoot your computer or installing/configuring software should be just as important as knowing how to balance a checkbook or eat healthy and exercise.

<comment><USER30> I guess we disagree where the level of minimal understanding lies. Why should kids know how to install and configure software if they'll only use Android and iOS in a few years? Knowing how an IP address works as arcane as knowing how an oscillating spindle sander works.

<comment><USER31> I may be biased as I spent a lot of time in helpdesk, but I think many of the problems most users and admins face could be easily avoided with education. An anti-virus is only good when paired with safe computer practices. Knowing about an IP address in the most basic sense (I'm not expecting subnetting here or knowing what an APIPA address is) allows many problems to be resolved in a few minutes. It should be expected when you drop off your car at the mechanic to say "the brakes squeak" or "It's making a click-clank-clank sound" instead of "it's broke, fix it." IT shouldn't have to jump through hoops to find out the user deleted system32 because they needed more space.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Author here.

Thanks for the up votes and the comments - both positive and negative. I'll take all feedback into consideration when I next post anything. I didn't post this on HN myself, just added a link in a comment to another post.

Just to clarify - I do want to try and fix what I perceive as the current problem. I'd hoped the post ended on a positive note, but maybe people stopped reading. (It was rather long)

The TL;DR did have a question mark after it (although the rest of the punctuation left little to be desired). I've had positive and negative feedback with regards to this, so I'm leaving the post alone, warts and all.

I completely acknowledge that my post comes across as arrogant and condescending at times. Please realise that I spend all day being patient, polite and helpful to both my students and colleagues. My blog allows me to blow off a little steam every once in awhile.

Anyway, I'm very flattered to have made the front page of HN and I'm sure it'll never happen again. I love this site and the community. If you want to berate me or support me then feel free to do so by replying to this thread and I'll endeavour to reply.

<comment><USER32> I took away from your article that the problem was that we teach kids to use computers through UIs that conceal the computer from the user, and so we teach kids very nearly nothing about computers. Excellent point, thank you for making it, and made on the basis of your experiences. Better be condescending than fail to make the point at all for fear of being rude.

A practical point about teaching: apparently we are soon to see desktop- quality computing machinery for sale under the $100 price point. This might change the viability of the "get a computer just to learn about computing" (as opposed to a "general-purpose" computer that means access to Windows /OSX software ecosystems) for many families. For schools, it might become practical to ask families to buy/ rent such machinery in order to take part in the Linux-based "Inside Computers" course.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> "the problem is usually the interface between the chair and the keyboard."

Loved reading this. Well said [1]. I am sure this post resonates a lot with many of us. I remember a joke where someone calls the tech support of a computer company and it goes like this:

      Person: "My computer does not turn on".

      Tech. guy: "Whats the problem. Did you press the ON switch? "

      Person: "Yes of course. I pressed it twice already"

[1] EDIT : As other pointed out, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_error](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_error)

<comment><USER34> "Loved reading this. Well said."

Not to take too much away from the article, but this is a slight variation on a saying old enough that it has an "AFAICT" style Usenet-era acronym:

[http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/PEBCAK](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/PEBCAK)

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Before everyone gets out their pitchforks and dictionaries, lets look at what he's attempting to say.

I think he's arguing that there needs to be a basic level of competence that we are teaching the next generation about computers. Not just how to browse the internet, but to do basic problem solving one something they own.

I believe this is true of anything you own. If my car dies, I can fairly easily determine the severity of the issue and if it's simple, fix it myself. If my shirt gets torn I know how to put a patch on it or sew it myself.

I don't think he wants everyone to be computer technicians (although that seemed to be the tone of his article). I'm assuming he was telling an exaggerated story from an exasperated perspective. Hey may have even been speaking in hyperbole to make a point.

My brother, who I love very much, is dependant on everyone around him. He can't cook, clean, or navigate in the car. I do not exaggerate, I've recieved at least 4 or 5 calls from him (before GPS were packaged into phones) that he needed directions from X, Y cross streets to _insert address here_. He expected me to give him directions.

The sad thing is I did. I love my baby brother. I'm proud of him in many ways, but he has never HAD to do anything because we all fix it for him.

I recently just stopped helping him in these situations, and you know what? He now knows how to stop the car and get directions, or better yet take a GPS/Map with him.

This isn't a new issue, it's been around for a long time. Teach a man to fish, vs. give a man a fish. <joking>I'm sure that quote was taken from someone else, but I don't have the citation. </joking>

</comment><comment><USER36> I feel like the author defeats his own central thesis in his conclusion:

 _It didn't used to be like this. Using an OS used to be hard work. When things went wrong you had to dive in and get dirty to fix things. You learned about file systems and registry settings and drivers for your hardware. Not any more._

In other words, people used to be technically literate because they had to be. Now, it's possible to utilize technology without knowing how it works. Think for a moment about what that means.

This sounds very much like a case of a species evolving to meet its own (lack of) need. People aren't tech literate because you don't need to be tech literate to check your email on an iPad, just like I'm not very proficient in spear hunting because being able to hunt a wild animal is no longer necessary to feed myself.

Not everyone needs to be good at everything, and mastering skills has an opportunity cost. Yes, it would be nice if every teenager could spend the hours required to know how to install Linux and work around the Linux desktop environment, but how many hours would that take them? Every hour that they spend learning how to install and use Linux is one hour less that they have to spend on guitar lessons, or learning a foreign language, or automotive repair, or oratory practice, or whatever other pursuits they might choose to invest themselves in.

<comment><USER37> Not everyone needs to be good at everything, but it would be a nice change to stop pretending that "digital natives" are all computer wizards. They aren't, not even close - some of them fail with turning on their machines.

_If_ pepole need to computer wizards is an entirely different question, and it also depends on what they do.

As per the article: > I have one question for these policy makers: > Without reference to Wikipedia, can you tell me what the difference is between The Internet, The World Wide Web, a web-browser and a search engine? > If you can't, then you have no right to be making decisions that affect my use of these technologies.

I'd expect people deciding on "computer things" to be experts on their decision matter. Unfortunately in our society it's possible for one person to show utter disdain for those concerns and decide about mandantory internet filtering at the same time and not be laughed out of the room.

And this problem _won't_ be fixed by the current teen cohort eventually entering positions of power.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> I don't know if it was necessarily any better when computers were "new", most kids in the 90s knew how to plug in a SNES cartridge and maybe launch a few games from DOS but the oft required "boot disks" were still a mystery to most.

Computers were much simpler then in terms of there being fewer moving parts in the software. Modern computers might be "friendlier" in some sense, but that's only because we have had to build grand abstractions out of necessity. Once these abstractions break down it can be often difficult for even relatively tech savvy people to understand what is wrong.

</comment><comment><USER39> _Tomorrow's politicians, civil servants, police officers, teachers, journalists and CEOs are being created today. These people don't know how to use computers, yet they are going to be creating laws regarding computers, enforcing laws regarding computers, educating the youth about computers, reporting in the media about computers and lobbying politicians about computers._

I feel like this may worry some, but for others who have no power in the societies we live in today (increasingly employing the use of computers), might find solace in that there is a future where they might be valued…

</comment><comment><USER40> We have English classes since we need to read and write on a daily basis. We have math classes since we need to add/subtract/multiply on a daily basis.

But why don't we have a technology literacy course where kids can learn about devices we interact on a now daily (hourly?) basis. It could be taught at a low enough grade level before the geeky become geeky so-to-speak. Something beyond just typing skills.

Demystifying the magic behind a computer/smartphone/tablet may even encourage those who wouldn't give a second thought to coding to now jump right in.

</comment><comment><USER41> The fact that I am working in the same industry that has these characters as stereotypical archetypes depresses the hell out of me, the fact that this is an attitude thats likely being passed on to impressionable children outright scares me, sometimes I wonder if I got into computers for the opposite reason of everyone else.

Most people dont care about using an open source phone that is entirely useless as a phone, most kids dont need to know how to format a boot partition. The kids that are interested in it are amazing and get so much done precisely because they arent worrying about how to patch their graphics driver.

Also if you are going to be so exceedingly patronising[1], at least learn to configure a network that doesnt need you to manually enter a proxy.

[1] no, even if you do do that, please dont be so exceedingly patronising.

</comment><comment><USER42> This got me thinking. I share many of the authors frustrations, but I realise that people are just trying to get a thing done, and they really just want to outsource all the IT knowledge, just like I want to outsource car maintenance and food production.

The real problem here is that the IT literate have historically been very bad at communicating how valuable their knowledge is to others. Just like the author, I do a hell of a lot for people for free.

I think the issue stems from the newness of IT, most IT literate people grew up in families where they were the computer whizz kid, and enjoyed showing off what they knew to their extended family, friends and neighbours. When we were 12, the praise, and maybe a bit of pocket money was all the thanks we needed.

Actually though, comparable fields of expertise charge a lot of money per hour and I therefore tend to approach them with respect. When I want a lawyer to arrange a house purchase I expect to pay a lot of money and even though I may just want the darn thing sorted, I know I have to listen and fill in forms correctly because holding up a whole house purchasing chain can have big consequences.

Like the author, I have been too willing to insulate others from the consequences of their computing mishaps without charging them for my time or making them listen to me while I explain what they should do next time. If more of us did that then perhaps people would be less casual about dumping their problems on us and expecting it to be fixed.

</comment><comment><USER43> The title is better phrased as "should you worry that lots of people can't use computers?". Because of the obvious "no" response. No, you shouldn't worry.

We've had computers for two generations now and the existence of people who can't use them hasn't made the world stop turning. People who do not understand things in general have always existed. People who make decisions about things they don't understand. Politicians who make decisions about things they don't understand. Always has been, always will be. Trying to educate them is a futile effort, we're better off trying to find ways to get what we want or route around the damage. I would of course prefer it if that wasn't the case, but it's like wanting pi to be exactly 3.

Think of it like driving a car. I cannot drive a car. I have a license, I have taken classes, I have put in effort, but it's just too complicated and unnatural for me; and I deem myself too dangerously inept to drive. To commute, I ride my bike, take public transport or pay other people to drive me. Same with computers - if you can't use them, either do your job without one, or pay someone to do stuff for you.

You'd find it easier to make the earth spin in reverse than to make sure everyone knows how to use a computer.

</comment><comment><USER44> We assume that growing up with computers makes you expert with them, when it doesn't. I wrote about this last year [1].

Since then, I've realized something important: things fall apart. Always have, always will. It's just thermodynamics. This means that we have to keep rebuilding our world. Which means that the people who build things really control the world. Remember that the next time a techno-illiterate sneers at you: you are building the world they inhabit, you get to decide what it looks like, so pity them.

[1] [http://javajosh.blogspot.com/2012/06/note-to-parents- compute...](http://javajosh.blogspot.com/2012/06/note-to-parents-computers- arent.html)

</comment><comment><USER33> A lot of people are bashing the author and the article saying that the tone is condescending, kids _do_ know how to use computers etc. I think his point is that kids do know the "what" part (browsing,texting,fb etc). The question is: do they know or care about the "why" and "how" part ? Should they care ? Should they not care ?

<comment><USER17> There's no inherent reason for them to care and it's incredibly insulting to presuppose that an entire generation should care about the same things he does - especially when these types of people purposely make it more difficult for people to care (example: being sarcastic, condescending, and "calling the President")

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> Not only did he not really help by not politely showing her how to select a wifi network... "Here, this is easy watch, you get on wifi by..." (He's a teacher dammit. That's his freaking job), his idiotic network settings and bungling "proxy" just broke her computer for later when that proxy is stuck in there and she can't get on her network at home where there is no-one to help her set it back the way it was. How hard is a transparent proxy in 2013!?

He made _everything_ worse and is now complaining about his _victims_.

TFA is like reading a "User Friendly" from 1998.

</comment><comment><USER46> It's amusing to me that several of the top level comments here only reference the author's initial story about helping another teacher, completely ignoring the latter three quarters of the article. It's almost as if you guys didn't bother reading past the first page to his actual point.

</comment><comment><USER47> >"They click 'OK' in dialogue boxes without reading the message."

This. And you know what, as software developers, it's partially our fault. Even I, as a "kid who grew up in the tech age", do this (albeit rarely) as a force of old habit. Before I knew anything about computers the error messages that would pop up would sometimes be so obscure that there was really no other choice, you just get used to them being implicitly unhelpful. The other part of this is that society is so _rushed_. Who can spare a moment to read and troubleshoot an error message? "Why won't this thing just _work_!?"

As far as people being able to "use computers": I'm not completely aligned with this but I do question whether or not they should have to be a sysadmin to do so? I don't have to be a mechanic to driver a car (as several comments have already pointed out). Computer's are just tools to most people. They expect them to work and when they don't do what people expect they call someone who knows about them to fix it; there is literally an industry built on this need. Don't most of you who build software work to create something that solves a problem for a user? Makes it EASIER for them to do something that was previously complicated/convoluted/impossible? They're just users, not domain experts.

</comment><comment><USER48> As someone that grew up with computers and the internet I have numerous issues with this article. Mostly the expected level of knowledge about computers.

Most teenagers are decent typists, can navigate a well done website or application, can use word/other programs to get work done, and are comfortable being on a computer. That's what they should know how to do.

It's us in tech who need to make things work for users, not users jobs to know how to install linux from source code. I'm going to go against the author and say that most users _shouldn't_ learn linux, and should use easy to use software like iOS. It lets them get work done.

Most people don't and shouldn't have a reason to have a deep understanding of python, html, and the command line.

>A hundred years ago, if you were lucky enough to own a car then you probably knew how to fix it. People could at least change the oil, change the tyres, or even give the engine a tune-up. I've owned a car for most of my adult life and they're a mystery to me.

This is actually a great metaphor to show why the article is wrong. Cars became reliable enough and abstracted enough that you can confidently use one _without_ knowing how to fix it. Technology should be reliable enough that the average user doesn't need to know what's under the hood to use it, and that's what we've seen happen with things like iOS and web apps.

</comment><comment><USER49> I agree on a lot of the points. I think a key here is that I don't really think anybody knows what to teach people when they do teach them, and your beginning example shows it extremely clearly. You, having almost zero knowledge of OSX, managed to get things going for someone else who's been using it far longer then you have. It's not that you knew specifically how to fix the problem, it's that you knew the basic idea of what was wrong, an idea of things to look for, and enough critical thinking to figure your way through it. Most people miss that point.

While a wifi problem may be harder to fix then others, in most cases a problem can be solved just by knowing the right info to type into Google and then be able to do a bit of thinking over the results and which seem reasonable to try. Not only that, but a bit of knowledge of some basic symbols (Like, Ex. The various Wifi Symbols, or USB Symbol) and some basic UI knowledge (Like, Ex. Knowing what a bar or panel usually look like, and what a normal OS UI look's like. Text-Boxes, Scroll-bars, Check-boxes Vs. Radio-Buttons, Menus, etc....) go a long way.

I in no way expect everyone to become experts (I wouldn't really expect people to become good enough to reinstall the OS, for example. At that point, you'd want to show someone who knows what they're doing before going further). But, taking some time to teach some basics of more generic concepts, _how_ to go about troubleshooting instead of just learning how to fix some basic problems, and some basics of where to look for various things goes a _very_ long way.

</comment><comment><USER50> Excellent article.

Many people here are missing the point of the article and are instead busy attacking the author's writing style and some random lines in the article. It's terrible to not try to understand what the author is saying and attack an article line by line. Please don't fall into the trap of what many non-authors do: criticize line by line and miss the point. The author is a normal human like you and me and not some "professional" writer who earns his career by writing books.

I hope you get my own point in the previous paragraph and not shred my writing line by line.

Back to the article, what the author is saying is that technology is such a fundamental part of our lives now. Much more than a fridge or a car, because these haven't become general purpose devices yet. Our laptops and devices store personal information and it's critical that we are all educated on how the internet works and how our laptops work in general.

I love teaching but I am not a teacher. When I taught computers to my (50's) mom, I spent the first few days just telling her the story of the internet, microsoft, linux and all that. She really uses the computer now. While she may not be able to fix the problems, I am surprised how capable she is to diagnose the problem and try to pinpoint the problem. It was just a matter of arming her with enough information to get her interested.

IMO, the main problem to be solved here is to teach computers in a way that it's interesting to them. That's it. Human nature will take care from them on - curiosity and knowledge.

</comment><comment> B-Con > I watch him type in his user-name and password. A message box opens up, but > the kid clicks OK so quickly that I don't have time to read the message.

Computer sends message to user. User quickly dismisses it without thought. This evokes mixed feelings from me.

First, unfortunately, we have spent a long time training users that computers output cryptic messages that they don't need to understand. Anyone who used XP for more than 3 years is probably used to seeing odd pop-ups or error boxes from some application that's spitting out some message (possibly too often) that the user doesn't know. They're used to seeing things crash, and they're used to messages being too technical to be actionable. That is in part our (development) fault.

However, things are better now. If a message box pops up, you probably should read it. You should pay attention to what the computer says. I think that people so often just don't care what it is because they guess that it won't get in their way for their _immediate_ task so they don't want to bother. Or, worse, they're afraid it will require some thought/energy (even if it's small) to understand and take appropriate action, and they're crossing their fingers and hoping that ignoring it is for the best.

<comment><USER25> Even as a developer I've caught myself dismissing errors too quickly; so I can hardly fault users for it.

(However, when I dismiss an error too quickly, it's usually followed by an audible: "oh crap. I hope that's in a log somewhere.")

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> > _a kitten with it's head in a toilet roll_

 _its_ head

If your plan is to insult readers before they even start to read your rant, can you at least make an effort to spell your insults correctly?

<comment><USER28> Oops. I'm sure you'll find lots of other grammar and spelling errors.

<comment><USER52> Not to mention the fact that aleph isn't anything. The _alephs_ are indexed by ordinals, the smallest being aleph_0.

Because of this mistake, I shall dismiss all arguments made in the blog post.

<comment><USER28> And you're probably wise in doing that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> I am laughing pretty hard at all the comment here that rants on the first few paragraph and then brings points that are actually covered later on in the article...

Yes, he is being harsh with the teacher. Yes, cars are complicated.

That's not the point. Read the full article...

</comment><comment> cupcake-unicorn This article was helpful for me. Why? Because I guess I "know" this in theory, but I surround myself with very intelligent people, mostly who are in the field of IT, and I don't so much hang out with younger people from the age of 20-25.

I grew up with computers, and unlike now, when things were starting out, you actually had to be a little bit clever to use one. I rolled my eyes at my dad as a kid when for fun he typed "DEL _._ " at the C: prompt of his new DOS machine. Doing command line stuff like that, while not at by any means an advanced level of computer sophistication, is a far cry from people growing up with extremely user friendly things like Ipads, only having to press a few buttons to get things done, and very idiot proof.

But at the same time, since it comes so naturally to me, I do tend to forget that the skills I have are that technical or unusual. Reinstalling Windows? Installing Linux? Putting together a computer from scratch? I mean..even if you don't know how to do it, you can Google it. But then I get snapped back into reality, like when my parents call me up and say they hired their friend's son to fix their PC, a "computer whiz", who obviously about a minute or so into the conversation has no real or deep understanding about computers whatsoever - probably just some gamer or something.

It's awful too, since I'm a woman and I see other non tech savvy women perpetuating that sterotype. I went to get my hair cut, and one of the employees was trying to get a Netbook to work. "This thing is so slow. It doesn't even have any RAM!" she claimed, loudly. Since I was waiting on the stylist, I told her that I could take a look. "No thanks," she said while barley looking my way, "My husband's in IT, so I'll just call him." I then had to to listen to an excruciating phone call while she called up her husband which made it pretty clear also that the husband also "can't use a computer".

Sigh.

</comment><comment><USER54> "I looked at the MacBook. I had no experience with OSX at the time. Jobs wasn't an idiot though, and displayed proudly in the top right hand corner of the screen was a universally recognisable WiFi symbol. It took me seconds to get the device on the network.

I handed back the MacBook and the woman opened up Safari. 'The Internet's not working.' she stated with disdain."

This, while I may be reading WAY too much into it, is a great display of how I used to think about what I do for a living, and conduct business. You are asked to do X, so you do X. What your client really wants is Y. She wanted to browse the web, not getting her there before you hand the laptop back is fruitless and frustrating to her, the same goes for a client.

</comment><comment><USER55> The problem is people are ok or are even proud of not knowing how their stuff works, even the author isn't ashamed that he has to ask a salesmen what car to buy. People in Africa can take apart your car and put it back together, people in India can become experts in computing from a computer stuck in a wall[1].

Rich lazy first world humans are proud of the fact that they have advanced technology they don't need to understand, its a sign of luxury and 'success' like new clothes you just throw away as fashion changes.

1.[http://www.ted.com/talks/sugata_mitra_the_child_driven_educa...](http://www.ted.com/talks/sugata_mitra_the_child_driven_education.html)

</comment><comment><USER56> I had some good laughs reading this article, and I agree with almost everything the author wrote.

I then came here to read the comments and it's just everybody complaining and nitpicking about every single comma in the article. GOD, this is getting tiring.

</comment><comment><USER57> Technical literacy for the avg computer user could be better, but the examples cited aren't surprising because those situations ARE confusing. Let's break it down:

* Someone's MacBook doesn't connect to the internet. This is because 1) the wi-fi is turned off and 2) the school has a burdensome proxy policy. On (1), there is a huge disconnect between understanding that wi-fi functions like a radio with an on/off state and how many devices today are persistently connected via wi-fi or 3g/4g cell networks (tablets, phones). On (2), the proxy policy deliberately conflicts with how people expect to connect to and use the internet and entering proxy details is not a common activity for most people.

* Someone has embedded a YouTube video into a powerpoint presentation. The user has saved this ppt on a flash drive and is confused as to why the video will not load. There is already a disconnect between the fact the video is embedded while the ppt file itself is portable. This is a failing of the design of PowerPoint, presentations are very often to be considered portable once saved even though the content in the presentation may not be portable. Further, the proxy blocks YouTube streaming (why god why) so this user would be unlikely to find an app/add-on to rip the video and then pack it into the PowerPoint because this is entirely contrary to how you expect to use YouTube.

* A user's laptop is running very slowly due to virus infection. The user didn't get anti-virus automatically included on their machine even though they are downloading tons of content. This is a massive design fail, anti-virus should be automatic and transparent on new installs.

* A user complains of a computer not turning on, but it turns out the machine is on and the monitor is off. There is a reason why Mac desktops are designed as single machine/monitor units, the disconnect between machine and display is not intuitive or well understood, esp. in the age of tablets and phones that are single cohesive computers with displays. Just try and watch the average person set up a TV set to various peripherals and you'll see this same thing happen.

* A user cannot connect to the internet even after trying various software settings. It turns out the hardware wireless toggle is off. Either the hardware or OS itself didn't inform the user of what was going on, this is a massive design fail.

* A user attempts to log in to a network site/computer. The user dismisses error dialogs instantly. The problem is the machine is not connected to the network via ethernet. This is already a nexus of various design problems: dialog fatigue, the concept of network login vs. local login, and assumptions about connectivity being automatic through wi-fi vs. cabled network connections. The vast majority of people, including programmers, make huge mistakes about this kind of thing all the time, do we expect the average person to get it?

* A user has a new iPhone and is sad about loss of contacts. When plugging in to the user's laptop, the iTunes backup is able to be restored to the phone. iTunes does make the backup process transparent, but terrestrial backups are not nearly as good as cloud backups for this kind of thing. Android makes this much easier for the average person, restores are opt-in by default when setting up new devices and there's not need to physically connect to a computer.

* A user complains of not having internet access. They have associated the browser shortcut icon with internet. As more items were saved to the desktop, the icon shifted from its original location. Mechanics of file systems and browsing file systems isn't well understood by the average user. This is why whole volume backups are the easiest kind of backups to get someone to performs (esp. if those backups are automatic). This is also why Android and iOS devices try to hide the underlying file system, it is confusing and not well understood (apparently even by devs judging by the assumptions on file systems on StackOverflow).

* A user thinks they have a virus. What they are actually looking at is a spam ad designed to mimic native UI of an older Windows platform. There is a reason why scammy malware ads and sites do this, it is effective because users do not conceptually understand the difference between the browser and websites as separate entities from the OS they use the browser on. In fact, most people don't even conceptually understand how browsers and webpages work at all.

<comment><USER13>
      Someone's MacBook doesn't connect to the internet.

At this point, connecting to different wifi networks and turning on and off the radio should be considered basic knowledge--if you'd like to argue to the contrary, please save us the trouble and acknowledge that you want to remove any semblance of security for users.

The proxy probably threw up a message describing that it was working properly, and that the requested content was blocked because of $reason.

Things were working as expected and designed, and the user tried to do something that was outside of that envelope. If the user wants to do more, the user should learn to do more.

      Someone has embedded a YouTube video into a powerpoint presentation.

User did not understand the idea of remote content. User should be made aware of difference in remote content, possibly even later going on to use it to make smaller presentations where appropriate, or to guarantee operation in network-limited situations.

       A user's laptop is running very slowly due to virus infection.

User acknowledged that they were aware of virus scanners, used file-sharing programs, and voluntarily did not take prophylactic measures.

      A user complains of a computer not turning on, but it turns out the machine is on and the monitor is off.

User has apparently never used a television with a separate cable box, or a car with a radio, or a projector with a laptop. User now knows better, and can teach others!

      A user cannot connect to the internet even after trying various software settings.

User did not understand function of all buttons on machine. User now understands function of wireless toggle on machine, can help others.

      A user attempts to log in to a network site/computer.

User deliberately skips impatiently past diagnostic information sufficient to immediately ascertain source of issue and enable rectification.

User will go on to one day become stranded in traffic having ignored "low fuel" light in car.

      A user has a new iPhone and is sad about loss of contacts.

User bought into frictionless ecosystem, and was not notified that the needful was already happening automatically--though pondering the question "what if my phone breaks?" would've prevented this.

(To be fair, this is outright poor software design.)

      A user complains of not having internet access.

User never bothered to learn difference between shortcuts and files. User now knows difference, hopefully.

       A user thinks they have a virus.

User does not notice telltale UI mismatch, and does not know machine well enough to catch that. User hopefully now knows better.

<comment><USER57> > At this point, connecting to different wifi networks and turning on and off > the radio should be considered basic knowledge--if you'd like to argue to > the contrary, please save us the trouble and acknowledge that you want to > remove any semblance of security for users.

I'm just trying to point out that expectations on connectivity are not consistent from one machine or platform to the next and that inconsistency makes it difficult for a user to understand what is going on.

> The proxy probably threw up a message describing that it was working > properly, and that the requested content was blocked because of $reason.

> Things were working as expected and designed, and the user tried to do > something that was outside of that envelope. If the user wants to do more, > the user should learn to do more.

I would argue that things were not working as expected for the user but the proxy was working as intended and designed by the network admins. That mismatch is what makes using proxy or feature limited networks hard to use.

> User did not understand the idea of remote content. User should be made > aware of difference in remote content, possibly even later going on to use > it to make smaller presentations where appropriate, or to guarantee > operation in network-limited situations.

Having worked with video troubleshooting for a variety of people, some folks understand that the video is remote and some do not. PowerPoint definitely should be designed in a way that helps the user make the distinction better than it currently does.

> User acknowledged that they were aware of virus scanners, used file-sharing > programs, and voluntarily did not take prophylactic measures.

Relying on user behavior for this is a bad idea and brings down the security of the network. By default, always updated AV is a far better option for most people.

> User has apparently never used a television with a separate cable box, or a > car with a radio, or a projector with a laptop. User now knows better, and > can teach others!

That is probably true. I've done TV sales and installation before and the mental model of displays and input/output is not well understood by the average person. Moreover, connecting different kinds of screens and devices can result in different behavior and may need different troubleshooting steps. That inconsistency makes it difficult for people to use those devices and displays, esp. in the context of how many all-in-one computer and display devices the average person will use.

> User did not understand function of all buttons on machine. User now > understands function of wireless toggle on machine, can help others.

The button has a use, but perhaps the hardware and/or software should more clearly communicate that the hardware is disabled.

> User deliberately skips impatiently past diagnostic information sufficient > to immediately ascertain source of issue and enable rectification.

> User will go on to one day become stranded in traffic having ignored "low > fuel" light in car.

It is well understood now that user do not read dialogs. Relying on dialogs as a communication method is a poor design and shouldn't be relied upon. Moreover, cars do suffer issues with users understanding error indicators, so I'm not really sure what you are trying to say.

> User bought into frictionless ecosystem, and was not notified that the > needful was already happening automatically--though pondering the question > "what if my phone breaks?" would've prevented this.

> (To be fair, this is outright poor software design.)

The tethered backup/restore for iOS devices via iTunes is not frictionless. It would be frictionless is the backup/restore was automatic through the web rather than requiring a specific step of steps. You are right that this is poor software design, absolutely.

Also, pre-iPhone a lot of people did expect to lose their contacts, esp. for those cell phone owners that didn't use devices with sim cards that can be moved from device to device.

> User never bothered to learn difference between shortcuts and files. User > now knows difference, hopefully.

Even users that can click the correct icons may have trouble understanding the difference between files and shortcuts. To be fair, this may be one of those things that just needs to be taught in a direct fashion, because I'm not sure any software design change could really accommodate this misunderstanding (not even file system hiding OSes like Android/iOS do this right).

> User does not notice telltale UI mismatch, and does not know machine well > enough to catch that. User hopefully now knows better.

The UI mismatch is not telltale to the average person. UI designs and paradigms change very often and the basic mechanics of windowed GUIs aren't well understood by the average person outside of the most basic operations. Again, there is a reason why malware ads and spam ads use these techniques, they are seeking to take advantage of the average level of information literacy.

It is easy to blame users for a lot of the issues they encounter, but that is completely unproductive. If computer hardware and software cannot work well and easily for the lowest common denominator then they are not improving people's lives, they are making them worse or putting those people in a position to have their lives made worse (virus infection, identity theft, loss of important documents/photos, etc.)

<comment><USER58> > Having worked with video troubleshooting for a variety of people, some folks > understand that the video is remote and some do not. PowerPoint definitely > should be designed in a way that helps the user make the distinction better > than it currently does.

Those who don't, can't use computers.

I mean come on. "PowerPoint doesn't work" when referring to a video on one of the slides not loading?

<comment><USER57> If you were a user who didn't understand the difference between embedding the video and actually downloading it to local storage, it doesn't seem unreasonable to say "PowerPoint doesn't work", that program isn't loading the resource you thought you had.

> Those who don't, can't use computers.

The trend for the last decade or more has been to put more and more resources online or tie them to computer systems. In the US especially, libraries and social programs are underfunded and cannot meet the need of those that must use a computer to access something they need while not being able to use a computer. Applying for unemployment, handling documentation, finding work, and more are very computer centric now. In a perfect world, there would be options even for those that can't use a computer. However, we don't live in that world and as designers and implementers of hardware and software design we have a social duty to make the situation better for every user and potential user.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> "I want the people who will help shape our society in the future to understand the technology that will help shape out society in the future."

The people who shape our society will know what they need to know. I'm not sure a great understanding of a desktop PC is going to change this.

On a separate note, the author is demanding that everyone be super knowledgeable about a set of devices that is on it's way out. I think it's far more relevant for people to understand how their phones,tablets, and the internet work than understanding how to re-install windows...

<comment><USER60> > The people who shape our society will know what they need to know. I'm not > sure a great understanding of a desktop PC is going to change this.

If you define "what they need to know" as "what's necessary for vaguely close to optimal job performance", then no, they won't. They will know the minimum they can get away with. They will know as little as we let them know. It has always been this way. The USA was founded by some of the brightest men of its day because the prevailing view demanded that this be so. Today, we do not demand that our leaders be our best and brightest. We have no idea how we would go about measuring such a thing. Instead, we've been taught to support the candidate that fits our preset ideological subset. This leads to parrot leaders who do not think strategically about the management of a country as much as they think strategically about the appeasement of their sources of votes and campaign contributions.

It comes back to understanding the basics of asking good questions and thinking about one's surroundings. This process is what humans did well to succeed: we should be encouraging it as much as possible. I do not ask that the average person, or even our decision-makers, already know how to re- install an operating system. I ask that they know how to find out, and think about the problem well enough to gather information and come to a conclusion about what's wrong. I ask that they look at the world rationally and scientifically. This is the failure of our educational system. Because we have not taught basic thinking and reasoning skills, because we have not taught that this is fundamentally necessary as a basic part of being a human, our leaders will say things like "The internet is a system of tubes". Because we do not expect or teach our citizens to think rationally, because we do not expect and verify that our leaders are informed about the mechanics and consequences of the decisions they make, bad laws are passed with great frequency.

This is our cultural, educational, and societal failure. No, I don't expect everyone to know how to re-install Windows. I expect them to look around them and see if they have any resources to get closer to a solution before expecting a free fix. And if they decide it's not worth their time to do it on the regular, I expect them to conceptually understand it on a basic enough level to provide information when asked probing questions by the person they're paying to fix it. Think, then act. It's not hard, we just gave up on teaching it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> I personally thought this was a very good article. It definitely gave me a lot to think about with regard to how much I help my family members fix their computer problems instead of "teaching them to fish" so to speak.

First thing that came to mind for this:

> When they hit eleven, give them a plaintext file with ten-thousand WPA2 keys > and tell them that the real one is in there somewhere. See how quickly they > discover Python or Bash then.

Was "How will they learn Python without Google"? Only to look to my right and see my Python book. _facepalm_

Agh, the dependence.

Well done!

</comment><comment><USER62> While I do kind of agree with parts of the article, the author proposes some seriously nonsensical "solutions".

Especially this gem:

""" Mobile [...] I use Ubuntu-Touch, and it has possibilities. [...] Okay, so I can't use 3G, it crashes when I try to make phone calls and the device runs so hot that when in my jacket pocket it seconds as an excellent nipple-warmer, but I can see the potential. """

To learn more about "mobile" the author proposes using a something that's not functional ... yeah, that makes sense.

</comment><comment><USER63> I worked help desk in my university's computer labs for several years, and got consistently good reviews. When I fixed someone's problem, I made a point of explaining what I was doing as I went. I wasn't just pretending to be polite; I really do enjoy helping people to get a better understanding of their world. Sure, it's obvious to _me_ that you need to empty the recycle bin before the space is really freed up, or that saving a shortcut to a file won't let you access the original from another computer. I'm sure my users know any number of "obvious" facts about math or architecture or medicine that would've left me dumbfounded. What right do I have to claim that my domain of knowledge is more important? If I'm pleasant and helpful and educational, then the student can solve their own problem the next time and my job is easier.

I'm pretty sure I was the only person in the entire campus-wide computer lab system who felt that way. Sometimes students held on to complex problems until my next shift because they knew I was the only one who would actually explain the problem. Techs all over the world seem to treat clients as unteachable idiot annoyances to be shuffled through as quickly as possible, so they can get back to what's really important: complaining on the internet about how nobody understands computers.

</comment><comment><USER64> _The county proxy is there to ensure that the staff and students can't access porn on the school network. It also filters for violence, extremism, swearing, social networks, alcohol, smoking, hacking, gaming and streaming video. Ironically, if you were to perform a Google search for "proxy settings OSX", the top results would all be blocked because you used the word 'proxy' and that is a filtered word._

That was the most interesting part for me. It's crazy that people are ok with it.

<comment><USER65> When I was in high school, a similar filter meant the kids who didn't normally have the time of day for computer geeks were doing all kinds of independent research into proxy and VPN technology.

Of course, this effect wasn't _intended_ , and I doubt the teachers knew about it (AFAIK nobody told them, and even if they had, I doubt the message would've been understood).

I think the reason they do it is liability: The school wants to be able to tell parents that they made commercially reasonable efforts to ensure their kids weren't exposed to inappropriate materials in school.

> It's crazy that people are ok with it.

Not really. A school library wouldn't have hard-copy Playboy magazines for students to peruse. Choosing not to allow access to the online equivalent isn't that much of a step. Parents who trust their kids with uncensored Internet access can still provide it at home.

<comment><USER66> I think that a better analogy would be that shops should not sell knives because one can hurt someone with it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER67> This really, really hits close to home. I'm the oldest of 3 brothers, me 26, the youngest 21. I was always an 'experimenter' with computers, meaning I had no problem toying with the settings or clicking through unknown menus to find the solution to a problem. I toyed and tweaked until something worked, and that willingness to explore has helped me innumerable times throughout life.

My brothers, for some strange reason, did not develop that ability. The _second_ something goes wrong on their computer, they freeze, deer in front of a lighthouse. Everything from installing apps, to fixing wifi settings, to customizing their desktops, to updating their iPhones, is a situation that causes panic. These guys are otherwise very functional, and very educated. One of them went off to grad school the other day with a new macbook, and after already having one for 4 years, asked me to "set up" his computer, which consisted nothing more of going through the walk-through for new OSX users.

It is one of the most frustrating and mind-boggling things. You can often hear me yelling at them, whether in person or over the phone, "You need to figure out yourself! Just play around with the damn computer! It's not going to explode!"

<comment><USER68> I'm the oldest as well and the most computer literate of my siblings. Have you considered that because we were there to fix their computer problems when they were young we eliminated the need for them to develop the skills (and comfort) we have with computers?

<comment><USER67> I've been yelling at them since the beginning to figure things out on their own! I'd give in occasionally to help them out. Maybe it's that staggered reward effect.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> Regardless of the attitude of the author, I loved this article. I'm 30, been in IT since 1999 or so and recently I've thought that maybe the younger generation would start filling positions that I'd normally be a shoe in for. This is not the case, they're great at web apps and wasting time online, but when it comes to hardware, networking concepts etc.. they're lost. It's sad, but it also makes me feel secure :)

</comment><comment><USER70> The TL;DR makes this guy sound like a prick.

<comment><USER28> Sorry you feel that way. I'll edit it out when I get back to my computer. I wasn't trying to be a prick, but I get your point.

<comment><USER35> I thought it was clever and resonated with the tone of your article, but you could tone it down a little bit.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER71> I love hacker News and wouldn't consider posting this unless I were certain that it applied. My friends and I are working on a game that will teach players (mainly kids) how to code. We have done workshops in NYC, Philly and Sheffield, England. I'd love for you guys to take a look at it and give feedback, we think we're making something pretty cool. www.betathegame.com

</comment><comment><USER72> The authors' attitude, while polarizing, is not really as important as the underlying issues that the article is trying to address. I agree and disagree with a few of his points, but just understanding the current environment in education, there are too many obstacles to overcome systematically.

How do you strike a balance between budget, administration, curriculum, and execution. Inevitably, one of these stakeholders prevents change and growth.

In the end, it may fall upon us tech professionals to continually improve UX. As far as the masses are concerned, that is the point of our professional existence. When a car breaks, they want a mechanic. When a computer doesn't connect to the inter-nets, they want a tech professional.

Just to throw it out there. Think of how much tech has advanced in the last ten years (Google is only 10yrs old)... do you really think, knowing what you know about agility in education, that public schools could have kept pace??? There are tech giants that have fallen by the wayside over the same period of time.

</comment><comment><USER73> Having been that kid that plugs the Ethernet cable back in for the kid sitting next to him, and figures out how to connect the projector to the computer at the start of class, I understand where the author is coming from and I am similarly concerned that people are not more up in arms about Internet censorship in the UK, yada yada.

So, yeah, the tone is a little harsh, but if I had to deal with these sorts of user support requests every day on top of teaching class, I'd be grumpy too.

Managing a network when all the users BYOD and/or have administrator access isn't as trivial as the author makes it out to be; I remember wiping "Deep Freeze" off of a school computer unintentionally once when I installed Ubuntu on it in dual-boot from a CD. Eventually the school district moved to a thin- client solution; wasting the thousands of dollars they had spent buying (then) cutting-edge general-purpose computers in the first place. But it's certainly the ideal; it's what I think we should be aiming for.

</comment><comment><USER74> This really resonated as I am probably technology illiterate in a lot of things and I would hope my son isn't. Thanks for some ideas.

</comment><comment><USER75> Interesting comments. I got that this guy was burned out. I know that feeling, how many times can someone say "The Internet it down" and you have told them the steps to identify what is the problem and often fix it?

I really applauded Microsofts work on "Trouble Shooters" which would walk you through those steps. Each one saying "Is it better now?" and if you got to the end it would send a report to Microsoft.

More importantly the message though is that a large number of people use "computers" when what they wanted were "appliances." Specifically it always does what its job. No programability required. This is what makes the Chromebook and things like it so powerful for those people. Turn it on it works, if not you get a new one.

The dissonance of people who use a software tool, and that forces them to use a computer to run it, versus the people who use a computer that has a number of different software tools is getting stronger.

</comment><comment><USER76> I could also add that nowadays people don't know how to use cars. They might as well be magical boxes that take us places and nothing that happens underneath the bonnet is important. And just like in this article - there are people who are perversely proud of it. They are proud that they don't know how to change a wheel, how to check oil level, or even refill the washer fluid. In fact, they don't even know HOW to open a bonnet. I know people who could ignore the most obvious of signs that something is wrong - loud noises, visibly low pressure in the tyres, high/low running temperature......

In fact, I imagine we could write an article like this for pretty much everything. I knew a guy who would call an electrician to change his lightbulbs. People don't know how to use anything, and there is nothing we can do about it,since most people are incapable of being mentally engaged in something they don't care about.

<comment><USER77> You must not have read the article, because it explicitly mentions cars.

<comment><USER78> Yes, but he moved the goal-post when it comes to his car example. He's imagining a future where nobody knows how to drive. In the present, we already have people who can't maintain their own cars (and don't want to) just as we have people who can't maintain their own computers (and don't want to).

<comment><USER77> I agree - I was unsatisfied with his conclusion about cars. It seemed a good counterargument to bring up, but then he didn't resolve it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER79> People may not like how this message is delivered, but I've worked support at a university full of supposedly smart people and saw the same sort of things. It's a real issue that I hope the raspberry pi and associated efforts do something to address. My favorite IT request was someone asking to put the internet on a disk for them.

</comment><comment><USER80> This article gets so much right. I was initially offended by the TL;DR; I read it hoping to get a quick gist of what it was about but instead was told that I should go watch kitten videos. Reading on, it shares so many of my opinions. Even the small paragraph about driving your own car or having Google drive it for you strikes home. I've talked about that with people and everyone's still like "I'm sure we'll keep driving for a good while because it's fun". I fully agree with the author on every point he made in the article.

One of my favorite parts:

> _Cameron announces that ISPs are going to start filtering The Internet. It's > described as a 'porn filter', but the Open Rights Group's investigations > implies that far more than porn will be filtered by default. Then to top it > all, Cameron's chief advisor on this issue has her website hacked and > displays just how technically illiterate she really is._

</comment><comment><USER81> first thing that struck me, the author complains about a stigma attached to knowing how computers work: >>"Rather than being some faceless, keyboard tapping, socially inept, sexually inexperienced, network monkey, she now saw me as a colleague. To people like her, technicians are a necessary annoyance. She'd be quite happy to ignore them all, joke about them behind their backs, snigger at them to their faces,"

AND THEN, goes on to declare that yes, he is normally a sarcastic bastard who makes big deals out of inane verbiage: >>"Normally I pull out my mobile phone and pretend to tap in a few numbers. Holding the handset to my ear I say 'Yes, give me the office of the President of the United States… NO I WILL NOT HOLD, this is an emergency… Hello, Mister President, I'm afraid I have some bad news. I've just been informed that The Internet is not working.'"

And you wonder where the stereotypes come from....

</comment><comment><USER82> Why didn't the MacBook just configure itself?

What basic computer skills should everybody possess? In my view, the answer is: None. My rationale is that any skill considered to be universal enough for everybody to know, should be taken care of by the computer -- especially if the computer is sold on the premise that "it just works."

I've been hacking since 1981, and I wouldn't have guessed the need to configure the MacBook for a proxy server, or that the proxy was blocking the embedded YouTube video.

On the other hand, I want my own kids to learn how to hack. We have 4 Raspberry Pi's in the house. The kids are learning HTML and Python. But why? My motive isn't to teach them "skills," but just to see if it sparks their interest. Also, I think that given the ubiquity of programming as an intellectual pursuit, and its impact on society & history, it ranks as a "liberal art" alongside calculus.

</comment><comment><USER83> Making things foolproof results in better fools.

But, I really would like to admit that things like "WPA2 Enterprise" or "Proxy" are really at least more than special in terms of common language. Looking at the TV analogy OP made, I would like to throw in this piece of information:

Even getting a new TV up and running is some kind of rocket science nowadays. This is what it is like in Germany right now:

Step 1: buy TV at local dealer.

Step 2: At home, the TV is asking you to tell him what kind of signal you have:

       * Cable, analog
       * Cable, digital
       * DVB/T (terristical, antenna on roof or indoor)
       * Sat, satellite analog
       * DVB-S, satellite digital
       * DVB-S2, satellite digital h264 HD

Step 3: Call son or husband of daughter to setup this strange device: "All I wanted is to watch TV!!!!eleven!"

And that is not even close to the confusion happening when the wifi and apps settings are popping up.

</comment><comment><USER65> I was one of the kids who could use computers. I got a lot of negative reactions from teachers whenever I used the DOS prompt for anything. Kids in high school who know programming or other advanced tricks learn quickly that the teachers finding them using what they know often leads to censure or even punishment.

So the "good kids" who follow all the rules will leave that stuff at home and play dumb in school. The "rebels" who like to push boundaries will make sure the teachers don't find out.

So I'm betting there are plenty of bright kids who know a lot about computers in the author's classes, and they're all keeping their heads down. Doubly so if the author has a reputation for being angry and judgmental. (I didn't think this article was particularly offensive, but other commenters disagree.)

</comment><comment><USER84> I don't really think it's as big of a deal as the author thinks it is. Computer systems are often extremely complicated and confusing. Yes you might not think so because you are familiar with them, but things that seem obvious to you through experience do not to everyone else.

Anything that makes them simpler, easier, or cuts through the confusion is a good thing. My analogy would be how most programmers don't work with machine code. Even if they are familiar with it they probably don't have any experience. And you get any more low level than that, like the cpu design.

Specialization is a good thing. It's how we built modern civilization and how we are able to build computers in the first place. For most people there isn't really any benefit of learning the details of their operating system, if they don't have to deal with it in the first place because it's well designed, isn't that a good thing?

>I have one question for these policy makers:

>Without reference to Wikipedia, can you tell me what the difference is between The Internet, The World Wide Web, a web-browser and a search engine?

>If you can't, then you have no right to be making decisions that affect my use of these technologies. Try it out. Do your friends know the difference? Do you?

Legislators also aren't familiar with the vast majority of other industries they regulate. Stupid regulations aren't unique to technology. You just happen to know enough to see problems with them.

>We should be teaching kids not to install malware, rather than locking down machines so that it's physically impossible.

What's wrong with more secure systems? I mean I don't think we should lock out general purpose apps entirely, but it's great that people can generally trust random apps, and that it's much harder to create a virus.

And for what it's worth, computercraft for minecraft is a great way of introducing programming.

</comment><comment><USER85> _> "A hundred years ago, if you were lucky enough to own a car then you probably knew how to fix it. People could at least change the oil, change the tyres, or even give the engine a tune-up. I've owned a car for most of my adult life and they're a mystery to me."_

I wonder if this guys mechanic/dealership is as much of an assumptive, condescending douche towards him as he admittedly is toward everyone who seeks his help?

There are good points in there, but they're buried among 4000+ words of rambling tripe.

Personally, I agree with bits of what is presented. Thing is, I don't think these are things which necessarily need fixing. We're in a period of transition where this kind of mismatch is apparent, but it will fade quickly with time and I'd question the impact of widespread low-level literacy on progress.

</comment><comment><USER86> Wow, I have a completely different take on this article. Us techno-geeks that can fix proxy settings are low-end commodities nowadays. (Outside of a tech company) - the lawyers, doctors, salesmen that want to work and drive revenue don't need to mess with that. Newer computers and OS's do shield a lot of that, and that is a good thing. They can hire a few IT dorks to plug things in if needed. That is the future. There was a time that a car mechanic was looked at as an engineer or scientist. Now he is a wrench turner. Get used to it. Now, should people dump tech problems on you? No. Just like it is not considered right to show your rash to your doctor friend while at Starbucks. That is a different issue.

</comment><comment><USER87> Perhaps the issue is that there is this expectation that everyone should know how to "use" a computer. We forgive older generations, because it's something they never grew up with while being appalled at younger generations because they're not using computers to do technical stuff. News flash: computers are not the end all be all of the world. It's simply an aspect of it, and while some kids won't give a crap about how computers work, others will be wildly passionate about it. Some kids will grow up to be doctors, lawyers, scientists, teachers, artists, philosophers, and excelling in their domains does not come with a requirement of knowing how to connect to a wifi network.

</comment><comment><USER88> By the way, the counterpoint to that Cory Doctorow quote how everything is a computer (airplane is a flying computer) is that the EXACT PROBLEM with software is that damn near everything is a computer. And when you add a computer to anything, it tends to go to shit. Things that worked just fine without it, now saddled with the typical software engineering mindset, are suddenly not so good. BMW iDrive, Ford Sync/MyFord Touch case in point.

Read the preview of this book:

[http://www.amazon.com/The-Inmates-Are-Running- Asylum/dp/0672...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Inmates-Are-Running- Asylum/dp/0672326140)

The part that says "what do you get when you cross a computer with an airplane".

</comment><comment><USER89> I am horrible at being patient with others' technical difficulties. I've run into the "Where's the Internet Explorer icon" problem at my elementary school before; I honestly do not understand why the desktop folder was invented.

Yes, the article was a bit harsh, but you have to admit there are a few real issues the author is pointing out. Why the hell are schools being taught Microsoft Office from junior high all the way to senior year? Why can't school systems set up a GNU/Linux distro on their networks? Sure, it takes a bit more work to install, but it's free and technology classes would benefit heavily from it.

I know somebody is gonna reply and say that Linux has no real-world use.

</comment><comment><USER90> In a lot of the discussions I'm seeing on here, it seems like a lot of the disagreement is around the question of whether it is reasonable to expect that people should be expected to know how their tools work.

I would have to take the position that people should have some in-depth knowledge of how their tools work. Why? All abstractions are leaky. Would you expect a carpenter to use a (powered) saw without knowing how it is designed and how the blade is driven (for safety and making smooth cuts)? Would you expect a radiologist to interpret x-ray photos without having an understanding of the impact that different energy (KeV) radiation and film/sensor technology has on the resulting image?

</comment><comment><USER91> The blog doesn't do a very good job of explaining why this should worry us. For shits and giggles, try replacing every instance of "computer" with "car", and every complaint about not being able to reinstall the OS with not being able to replace the carburetor.

Guess what? The vast majority of people don't _need_ to know how to replace the carburetor, or know how to reinstall the OS -- they're happy with something that Just Works 99% of the time, and to consult professionals the rest of the time. And that's just fine: in the same way that not everybody needs to be a car mechanic, not everybody needs to be a computer guru.

</comment><comment><USER92> This just sounds like the rantings of a disgruntled "computer guy" (sorry for the gender bias). The suggestion here is that the ability of users to handle their own inane tasks EQUALS the ability to use a computer. Nothing could be further from the truth.

FWIW, my kids can use their computers quite ably. They use the command line, they know the difference between wireless vs. physical connections, and they know their file system. And, wouldn't you know it -- sometimes they still ask inane questions for help.

Reading some of the comments, it's apparent the author takes his teaching seriously. I hope it comes through as teaching, and not as disdain for the future.

<comment><USER93> lol ... sounds like this guy is Nick Burns the company's computer guy - [http://vimeo.com/24762526](http://vimeo.com/24762526)

</comment></comment><comment><USER94> I've had some experiences in the opposite direction.

A neighborhood kid, about 12, asked me for some computer help with Minecraft. My jaw hit the floor when he started asking about stuff I didn't learn until college -- he was doing this crazy redtone circuitry (stuff like [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oc6spHvGPtQ](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oc6spHvGPtQ)) to program the doors in a castle according to timers and various inputs.

The kid was basically teaching himself hardware design just to play a game. And it wasn't considered that weird, this was just what you have to do in Minecraft.

</comment><comment><USER95> This is a stretch for me... Should every kid know how to install Linux? And troubleshoot a proxy? Hmmm.... And is this important if they can't read or write well?

I view computing as a great topic for those that are interested, but technology is getting easier. I want my kids to learn about it, and consider it for a career. But mandatory? I won't turn my nose up on anyone who doesn't understand proxy settings.

That said, I recall a finance professor bemoaning that most Phd students in his department don't program any more. "This will limit the kinds of research that they can do."

<comment><USER96> I'd rather them know how to install Linux than write well. It's far more useful.

<comment><USER95> I disagree. For 95% of the world who doesn't work in the guts of computers, clear communication is more important.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER97> I have only read the TL:DR.

If you're going to be a condescending jerk, why should I read anything you have to say? You know what makes it obvious that an article is too long for me to read? I start reading it and notice it is too long for me. No condescending presupposition about how I use my free-time is necessary.

I infer you are trying to get a point across. I recommend you cut out anything that both has no chance of improving your chance of reaching people with that point and also reasonable chance of increasing the amount of people who will ignore your article. Focus on the point.

</comment><comment><USER98>
      "Without reference to Wikipedia, can you tell me what the
       difference is between The Internet, The World Wide Web, a
       web-browser and a search engine?"

uh... well the last two are pretty easy, but... the first two.

I actually don't know, I've used those two terms interchangably to be honest. I guess if I was pressed I'd say that the world wide web is what the colloquial internet actually is, and the internet is the package of protocols the world wide web runs on? I can't imagine many people are going to get this one right.

<comment><USER99> The "world wide web" is the stuff you get from http. Simple as that. The internet would be the global network that lets you get your port 80 (http) packets from one place to another.

<comment><USER98> that seems obvious in retrospect now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> > defeated by their school laptops because they don't have administrator > privileges

Physical access is usually game-over from a security perspective. Unless you're doing hard-core encryption and TPM stuff, I bet someone who knew what they were doing, and was allowed to take a laptop home overnight, could root it by morning.

I'm sure that some students have done this.

I'm not going to detail the attack vectors, because I respect those hackers more than I respect the school that gives people crippled hardware, and I want those doors to remain open for others like them.

</comment><comment><USER100> I am under 25 and I can use a computer. Why? Because my parents bought me only my first computer and refused to upgrade after that. At one point my need for playing new games got the best of me and I started experimenting. First OS cleanup, first format, first memory upgrade, etc.

I have never really learned how do deal with computers. Its just 10+ years of just fixing whatever is broken/not working, because there was no one to fix it for me.

Now I just have to find a job where I can do this problem solving for money

<comment><USER101> That's the point the author tires to make :

>Techno-Dad to the rescue.

That's the problem. You need to let your children experimenting. But you have to make sure it's safe for them : Don't let them install the playstation themselves if plugging the wrong wire could blow up your house (fortunately that's not the case)

Your parents let you discover by yourself, but you took the initiative because you wanted to play games, that was your goal. But people who don't care about playing new games would not have this tech-curiosity

<comment><USER100> This was just for a real life example, to support author.

For us it was the economy. Upgrading was too expensive.

I don't think in IT there is much a child can do wrong. Only giving up personal information should be prohibited mostly. Other than that, its pretty safe. I managed to light computer on fire only once.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER102> TL,DR? You write a rambling article containing basic factual inaccuracies and switching writing style without warning and you dare make it sound as thought not wanting to finish it is somehow _my_ fault?

The bits in italics were well written. The first paragraph headed "parents" was a nice conclusion. That would have made a great post.

The bit about the UK going to MS for it's initial computing curriculum seems to wipe the BBC / Acorn / ARM story from history.

</comment><comment><USER103> "It's no longer necessary to be a computer person in order to use a computer, and that means lots of people are using computers who aren't computer people!" TRAGEDY!

Lots of people use cars and don't know how to fix them. Lots of people live in houses but hire people to repair the plumbing or the electricals when those things break. You don't have to completely understand something to use something, and that's OKAY.

<comment><USER104> Alright, a lot of people don't understand where the wiper fluid goes and never pop their hood, and they drive around just fine.

But let me turn the argument 90deg: would you say the same thing about math or about reading? Yes, people DO live life without learning arithmetic or how to read, but they probably also have a higher likelihood of poor outcomes in life.

I think the argument being made is that, because computers are so vital to our existence today, fostering computer hacking as a skill and having a real understanding of the computer is a fundamental that must be taught for society to keep advancing.

The snark of the article muddies the waters, but I tend to agree with the sentiment. IMO, having kids get a deep understanding of computers and making scores more tinkerers/hackers is more important than teaching the next generation to drive cars.

</comment></comment><comment><USER105> I didn't agree with most of the article, but the bit about the Microsoft Office curriculum is completely true.

In high school, I wanted to take my school's generic AP Java class. To get to even such a basic level of CS education, I had to sit through _years_ of MS Office and Adobe classes. Thankfully, the workload was so low, I was able to teach myself TI Basic and Actionscript, but those classes were jokes.

</comment><comment><USER96> Wow, what a badass, you can connect to a wifi, turn on a monitor AND find an IE icon on the desktop? How does one acquire such advanced skills?

</comment><comment><USER106> Wow, this guy sure trolled HN good..

If someone asks you "can you fix my computer", a good response could be "I have some time next Tuesday, it'll be $50 to figure out what's wrong, plus $100/hr to fix it".

And yes, most people are lazy and do the minimum to get by in their lives, whether in context of computers of otherwise. Don't kvetch about it, use it to your advantage.

</comment><comment><USER107> He's mastered the arcane and delicate technology that we software people work with every day, but that doesn't make everyone else a moron. His experience blinds him to how bad the user interfaces are for most things we use. The sad fact is that most software products are simply not good enough if the general population is expected to be successful with them.

</comment><comment><USER108> Even the most savvy computer user will make stupid mistakes... For example I once wondered why my display didn't work when I had apparently accidentally hit the "Input Source" button so the display was no longer set to DVI and didn't know how to get it to work... I guess I "can't use a computer" in the author's mind?

<comment><USER78> I assume you eventually fixed it yourself. So therefore you can use a computer.

This is not about stupid mistakes.

<comment><USER108> No, I called IT support and they fixed it for me.

<comment><USER78> But you did understand the problem and given enough time you would have figured it out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER109> Article could benefit from a blog post version of the Wadsworth Constant.

[http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/the-wadsworth- constant](http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/the-wadsworth-constant)

By my count the first 15 paragraphs had nothing to do with the title and served mainly to illustrate the author's projection of his disdain for others.

</comment><comment><USER110> Get out of the driver's seat you git! If you don't set the manual choke properly you'll flood the engine!

</comment><comment><USER111> The 30-50 age range can use computers because they spent the early half of the 90s trying to get VGA games to run reasonably well on their 386s. Or they were laying in front of the commodore, recreating code from a magazine. Me and my friends tried to recreate songs on it.

At least that's how I got my start. What's your story?

<comment><USER112> I'm interested in that point as well -- are people in that age range an aberration in history? Are they more likely to be able to troubleshoot than the older grumps and the younger kids who only had one-piece gadgets? Likely not, but it'd be interesting if the generation that had to tinker with their PCs was unique to other generations.

</comment></comment><comment><USER113> This post made me realize I've come to use "TL;DR" as "thesis" or "abstract" \- giving me something of a sense of what the writing promises and where it's going before I dive in - and I found it somewhat jarring when this one didn't meet my expectations.

</comment><comment><USER114> I have a lot to say in response to this article, but for now I'll just share a quote from one of my computer science professors that I'll never forget:

"Just because you're a computer science professor doesn't mean you know how to use a computer."

</comment><comment><USER58> Yyyyyyup, that's a lot of comments by people complaining about the tone of the article (and misunderstanding it to boot) and ignoring the content.

<comment><USER115> Tone affects the perceived meaning of content. The same statement delivered with different tones will come across as genuine or enthusiastic or sarcastic or puzzling etc

</comment></comment><comment><USER116> This is one of the most fantastically insightful and legitimately important posts I've seen on Hacker News in a while. It's refreshing.

</comment><comment><USER117> helpdesk/support guy here-- I think a small part of this is a weird desire to be liked by the person asking for help-- the 'wow, thanks!' after you flick their wi-fi switch back on. You often don't make friends by telling them to google it, or maybe pointing them to the appropriate documentation, especially if they don't care to learn.

</comment><comment><USER118> It sounds like you want everyone to be a system administrator. That is not going to ever happen.

The human history of inventing has one very consistent theme: making things easier for ourselves. "Computers" will only become easier to use, and require less knowledge of the humans that are using them.

When "computers" go wrong, a human with that specialty will fix it. You have that specialty. Why can't everyone fix their own cars or HVACs or bake their own bread?

</comment><comment><USER119> When I read _kids_ I was expecting actual kids, a "twentysomething" may already have kids of their own.

</comment><comment><USER120> Great post. Looking forward to hopefully having beers with you and Phil in Edinburgh sometime soon again.

</comment><comment><USER121> If you don't know how to spell "tires", you don't know how to use a computer.

</comment><comment><USER122> Kids will just use tablets instead.

</comment><comment><USER123> When I was a kid, none of the other kids could use a computer. I couldn't, either.

</comment><comment><USER124> maybe we need a license to use a computer to e entitled to technical support? So many Personal Computer users are just about clueless about the so simple things.

</comment><comment><USER125> the real tldr: "i don't know how to properly configure a network and now everybody and me has to suffer"

</comment><comment><USER120> I had the same Fisher Price toy!!

</comment><comment><USER126> Thank you for writing this.

</comment><comment><USER13> So, here's some different themes in the thread so far, some ideas spawned from the article, and thoughts on them:

      Author is a jerk for the TLDR at the beginning

Sure--it's unfortunate that such a red herring was thrown into an otherwise excellent article.

      Normal people shouldn't have to learn how to into computer.

This is unreasonable. "People don't want to learn how to computer, they want to learn how to get X done" is a great statement, but there's a distressing endpoint to it: if you simply learn how to get X done, instead of the framework for using resources that enable things including X, you become a technician, a cog. One day I'm going to write an Excel spreadsheet VB macro, and your whole department is out of a job. One day somebody will release YourJobaaService and then you are useless. And because you spent your life becoming a technician, you won't be able to enjoy your newfound free time, because you can't do anything other than blithely consume the content others have created.

      People still treat computers as new things.

We've had personal computers for nigh-on three or four decades now, and the fact that they're still treated in popular culture as magic black boxes is a failing on our part as techies for not educating better the rest of the population. We probably did it to curry favor, to enjoy the power of knowing something they didn't, but damned if it isn't going to bite us in the end.

As the author deftly points out, these folks are going to become our political leaders--and however little we think of their policies in regards to technology, they'll be that way because we failed to impress on them the knowledge that they needed. For anyone who's been paying attention to the darker subtext of the PRISM scandal, you can draw the uncomfortable conclusion that the government is saying: "Hey, tech sector, guess what--the halcyon days of your industry ignoring us are over. We matter, we command, and you obey. Get back into line."

Things would be different if any politician making clearly false claims about technology and the way it works could be and was mocked publicly, much as we mock US politicians with too much of the Jesus.

      IT front-line people are seen as janitors and treated accordingly.

Many of us have been there, many of us have probably chatted up a member of the preferred sex and tried to display value as somebody who can Fix Things (tm) or just stepped in to help a friend unfuck a colossally broken setup. This gets you quickly shunted off into the IT monkey box. You become not a person, but an annoyingly human interface over a set of skills that can be tapped on command to make problems go away. You aren't seen as a person, you're seen as a vending machine of computer repair. Again, this is probably our own fault--instead of teaching people how to fix their own problems, many of us used our positions and social skills (or lack thereof) to cultivate exactly this caste. Mistakes, mistakes.

      People don't know how to use computers as engines of computation.

The rise of the Web and the mobile device is mostly to blame for this, though the idea of a Mac as something your grandmother could use goes back many decades.

The problem is, knowing how to use a computer isn't like knowing how to fix your car, how to change its oil, or how to replace your water pump and radiator--a simple mechanical task that one could argue is redundant. It's about a way of thinking, about a way of abstracting problems and creating generalized solutions, about recognizing patterns in a system and applying just enough force to overcome your issue in an elegant fashion. This mindset is important to cultivate, and carries over to solving other problems and enriching your life.

Mankind is foremost a tool-user, and to deny that basic responsibility to our fellow humans is to tacitly acknowledge that they are subhuman.

<comment><USER127> > _Author is a jerk for the TLDR at the beginning_

> _Sure--it 's unfortunate that such a red herring was thrown into an > otherwise excellent article._

No, he comes across as a jerk for about 75% of the entire condescending article. "I'm better at this stuff than some people and thus these people are less than me" is the overriding theme here. There is a kernel of an excellent point here — that we would benefit from better teaching computer literacy — but it's buried under miles of condescension, dismissiveness and outright animosity.

Many of his "This person can't use a computer" statements are overly dismissive and imperious. "This stupid kid saw a dialog box saying he had a virus and thought it might mean he had a virus! What a numbskull!" "A teacher doesn't know off the top of her head how to set some stuff that nobody ever needs to set! How embarrassing!" It is no wonder that his point gets lost when he goes on for paragraph after paragraph deriding people and impugning their character for such silly reasons.

If you want greater computer literacy, my experience is that one of the first steps is making people feel comfortable working their way around their computers. This "h4h4 n00b" attitude is counterproductive.

<comment><USER13> First, he was coming at it from the position of being a fellow teacher, not designated IT-bro.

Second, you dismiss the problems as things "nobody ever has"\--guess what? Somebody had them.

Third, he mostly listed examples where a cursory bout of reasoning or just a bit more experience in computers (gotten through doing something other than delegating to the mystical IT wizards) would've solved the problem.

And no, he didn't say the kid was stupid or a numbskull--he said the kid didn't know how to use computers. Stop putting words into the dude's mouth.

<comment><USER127> > _First, he was coming at it from the position of being a fellow teacher, not > designated IT-bro._

It's even less OK for teachers to take a condescending attitude than it is for normal people, so I'm not sure what your point is.

> _Second, you dismiss the problems as things "nobody ever has"\--guess what? > Somebody had them._

Don't be obtuse. It is not conducive to good conversations.

> _Third, he mostly listed examples where a cursory bout of reasoning or just > a bit more experience in computers (gotten through doing something other > than delegating to the mystical IT wizards) would 've solved the problem._

Even people who have a lot of experience with computers will often not have had occasion to mess with their proxy settings. I have managed labs and offices with dozens of computers and the number of times I've needed to change the proxy settings on any machine is precisely zero. And I didn't know until pretty recently that some computers have a small, unlabeled switch that exists only to trick you into turning your Wi-Fi off on accident. That would have stumped me too, at least for a while. These are hardly fundamental failures of computer literacy.

> _And no, he didn 't say the kid was stupid or a numbskull--he said the kid > didn't know how to use computers. Stop putting words into the dude's mouth._

Why? He has no problem putting words in people's mouths (e.g. "Fix my computer geek, and hurry up about it"). And unlike him, I at least have multiple people confirming that this was the impression he gave. My intent was to clarify why people are responding negatively to his tone — you seemed to think it was just the "TL;DR" portion, so I was explaining how the rest of his post sounds to many of us.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER128> This is one reason I'm against the current GUI trend in Linux. By copying Apple and Microsoft blatantly, they forgot that when using the command line that they are replacing user must first understand the concept of what they are doing.

Most guis i contributed to opensource have at least the console output so the user is not 100% oblivious to the concepts that are happening underneath.

<comment><USER129> I didn't downvote you, but a novice's most successful way to solve a problem using a console is "use Google to find magical incantations to type into computer", which is actually a less useful level of abstraction than navigating your way through a list of options offered by a half-decent GUI.

</comment></comment><comment><USER130> Obligatory xkcd: [http://xkcd.com/627/](http://xkcd.com/627/)

</comment><comment><USER131> No, this is why it worries _him_ : his salary depends on it.

Frankly, I have never seen a good reason why kids need to use computers or the internet aside from peer pressure, especially in elementary school. There's nothing that requires it until at least high school, at least as much as they should learn to frame a house because they might be a construction worker some day.

<comment><USER31> Computers are used in most industries today. Framing, not so much. The ability to use a computer is becoming nearly as important as being able to drive. Sure, you can do without it but you're probably not going to go very far.

<comment><USER131> Then why don't children learn to drive in elementary school?

<comment><USER24> They should.

In elementary school, children should be introduced to the bare essentials of vehicular mechanics, say with simple rubber-band powered Lego cars. Over time, increase the sophistication of the science, engineering, and even social aspects of vehicles - eventually building go-carts and learning to drive them as a subset of state driving regulations, and working up to real cars and getting a driver's license. BTW: most jurisdictions only impose driving age limits on public roads; kids certainly are allowed to drive on public property (I've known kids who learned to drive at 14 or earlier).

They should also learn cooking, sewing, carpentry, welding, shooting, fieldcraft, and every other variant of the Boy Scout Handbook and Heinlein's "specialization is for insects" quote. Dang straight they should learn the essential basics of driving early on.

<comment><USER131> Yet they don't, and driving affects their lives and their driving has a potentially disastrous effect on other peoples' lives to a much greater degree than their computer use and level of skill does.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER132> I hate these idiotic titles. It feels like I see at least 5 titles a day that are broad sweeping generalizations that all have the same tone. Of course kids can use computers, don't be stupid. Maybe a small subset can't. If that's not what the article is about, then don't put it in the title.

And also.. I went to read the article, saw the extremely arrogant TLDR and closed it.

<comment><USER13> Go back and read the article and come back when you've got something useful to say.

<comment><USER133> He's right though this article is complete garbage, having a blog does not automatically validate your opinion. All people can be inspired to learn in some way, and this guy is a teacher, wtf.

<comment><USER13> I've written several paragraphs elsewhere in this thread explaining my feelings on the article and on other comments--try to hold yourself to a higher standard than merely saying "other guy is right article is bad" without backing up your points.

Having commenting privileges on a forum does not automatically validate your opinion--at least give us a stacktrace.

<comment><USER133> The fact that you think that verbal regurgitation of pedantic bullshit is more of a response than my "this guy is a teacher, wtf" response is probably the same reason this guy felt able to judge someone who had trouble with her computer when he couldn't configure a proxy on a Mac. You calling content filtering on a school network draconian is also ridiculous, this article blows.

<comment><USER13> So, again, would care to explain _why_ my classification of content filtering as draconian is bullshit? Or in what ways the article blows?

You're coming off as a stupid troll, unable to articulate thoughts of disagreement and using cursewords in attempt to lend weight to an otherwise vapid position.

So, how about this: try to come off as a smart troll, and do a better job of explaining yourself than just simply bleating "bah pedantic bullshit bah bah". Use your words.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>