What kids learn in virtual worlds

I am drawing these quotes from Doug Thomas, Annenberg School of Communication, who is cited by Stefanie Olsen in a special feature of CNet's news.com:

Knowledge is changing. It (used to be that it) was a set of facts, now it's not so much a 'what' but a 'where,' in which kids learn how to find information," Thomas said. "That's going to be the single most important skill--the ability to adapt to change.

It's strange that we need experts to point this out to us. The ability and willingness to be flexible is much more far-reaching than just this kind of tech-flex, though.

He added: "I wouldn't be worried if they're engaged and playing these games, I'd be more worried if they're not."

Again, it's stating the obvious, but we need voices like Thomas's to state what seems to be so broadly missed by so many: exclusion leads to lack of competence in a broad set of social skills. When we look at any kind of media literacy, isn't it safer and more socially responsible to actively get involved and teach kids how to be literate within these media? This is not just "digital literacy" in terms of being able to functionally navigate software, but the deeper literacy of being able to deconstruct texts at a philosophical and psychological level.

If you're a parent, I would be much less concerned about things like online predators or violence, then I would be about the conflation between consumption and consumerism and citizenship (in virtual worlds).

I predict that this last statement may raise the ire of some advocates, but it's being extreme in order to make a point. On the one hand we fear the issues that the popular media makes so blatant and so explicit, however, the popular media is quite often not so interested in making us wise, responsible consumers and citizens, because then the shareholders couldn't exploit us as much. Consumption of new media has a profound effect on molding the citizenry. Access to, and knowledge of, specific digital resources could become components of caste and class in this century.

Link to source article

Viral Interaction

"Vitality arises from sheer human contact, especially from loving connections. The people we care about most are an elixir of sorts, an ever-renewing source of energy. The neural exchange between a parent and child, a grandparent and a toddler, between lovers or a satisfied couple, or among good friends, has palpable virtues.

Now that neuroscience can put numbers to that raw buzz of fellow feeling, quantifying its benefits, we must pay attention to the biological impact of social life. The hidden links among our relationships, our brain function, and our very health and well-being are stunning in their implications.

We must reconsider the pat assumption that we are immune to toxic social encounters. Save for the passing stormy mood, we often suppose, our interactions matter little to us at any biological level. But this turns out to be a comforting illusion. Just as we catch a virus from someone else, we may also "catch" an emotional funk that makes us more vulnerable to that same virus or otherwise undermines our well-being.

From this perspective, strong, distressing states like disgust, contempt, and explosive anger are the emotional equivalent of second-hand smoke that quietly damages the lungs of others who breathe it in. The interpersonal equivalent of health-boosting would be adding positive emotions to our surroundings.

In this sense, social responsibility begins here and now, when we act in ways that help optimal states in others, from those we encounter casually to those we love and care about most dearly. In accord with Whitman, one scientist who studies the survival value of sociability says the practical lesson for us all comes down to "Nourish your social connections."

Goleman, Daniel. "Social Intelligence" (2006). Arrow, New York. pp.318, 319.