What's your digital quotient?

Take that 6-7 year olds!

According to the news, the communications watchdog Ofcom has told us that 'the average six-year-old child understands more about digital technology than a 45-year-old adult.' (To be precise, that quote is from this Guardian report.)

Looking at the actual data, the Guardian statement is a little naughty, as I doubt very much that the difference between the scores of 6-7 year olds and 45 year olds is statistically significant (see how close they are in the chart alongside). However there is no doubt there is a point here. Most of us older folk (as you'll see from the line at the top of the chart, me excepted) are pretty poor at coping with technology compared with da yoof.

This isn't really news. It's quite a while since those many jokes about how people had to get their children to set the timers for their video recorders for them (remember video tapes, kiddies?) because they couldn't cope with them. But by setting up a measure, the so-called 'Digital Quotient' or DQ, Ofcom is trying to quantify the position. Given the way that the concept of IQ has been found decidedly wanting, I do think it's a shame that marketing people can't get enough of xQ measures, but that's by-the-by.

Back in my (relative) youth, I helped set up the PC centre for a large company, providing assistance for those struggling with the new technologies. (And yes, I really did have someone ring me up, worried that they might catch a computer virus.) I found back then, and I think it's still true today and reflected in this graph, that there was one huge dividing factor between those who coped easily with PCs and those who struggled. It was fear.

The users who were scared of their computers, terrified of losing stuff or doing the wrong thing, struggled mightily. Those who just plunged in and had a go, treating the whole thing a bit like an adventure game got on easily. I do actually wonder if the fact that my first experience of interactive computing, as opposed to batch computing with punched cards, was playing ADVENTURE on the George III-based ICL system at Lancaster University helped. I was used from the beginning to plunging in, looking around, seeking what I can find and using it.

I still find this today if someone asks me, say, how to do something in Word. My answer is 'I can't tell you how to do it, because I don't know how, but if you give it to me I'll fiddle around and find it.'

I'm not sure if the solution to the problem Ofcom is highlighting is to send all those with low DQs into Colossal Caves to do a bit of adventuring, but we certainly need to encourage them to lose that fear. There might be a little pain along the way - notably learning to ensure that everything is well-backed up - but we could certainly do with a computing mantra along the lines of 'There is nothing to fear but fear itself.'

You can have a go yourself with a simplified version of the DQ test here.

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense

Search This Blog