RadioBanter - View Single Post

May 30th 05, 12:47 AM

From: (Michael Black) on Sun 29 May 2005
16:48

Joe Cameltoe ) writes:
On Sat, 28 May 2005 19:42:14 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:

My experiences with programs like "bring your sons and daughters to
work day" shows that almost none of the kids is even thinking of a
technical field. A lot want to be lawyers.

Once in the past, we were scared into thinking that maybe science and
technology was maybe not such a bad thing. That happened when the
commies launched Sputnik. Suddenly it seemed important that at least
some of our kids decided to work in the sciences. Hopefully we will
decide that again without having to be shocked into it.

I am pretty firmly convinced that until we stop catering to the least
common denominator, until we stop marginalizing the technically and
scientifically inclined, we will not find many youngsters who want to
come into our hobby.

- Mike KB3EIA -

The answer is simple:

They're lazy and have NO imaginations. They want the easy, don't
have to do/learn anything way. Look at all the retards on thier cellphones
EVERY FREAKING MINUTE of the day.

The problem with that is that you've just alienated the very group
that needs to be part of amateur radio (for the hobby, for them).
YOu can't go into a room full of people you want to attract and
call them names.

I do argue that the failure of amateur radio to attract young
people is because we a) aren't trying and b)don't know how.

Good, thoughtful commentary, Michael.

Part of the problem is the evident posturing of some on these
newsgroups, the self-importance that some generate about
their particular hobby interest. A few become "insulted"
when others talk about a "hobby," yet that is what it is and
that is what it has always been. A hobby, per se, is not
a derogatory label...except to the posturing self-important
individuals who fantasize that they more than they are.

Those who are IN a particular activity are often guilty of
tunnel-vision that focusses too much on their own favored
interest. Once locked into that "camera setting," they've
lost their field of view on a wide panorama.

The minute you characterize all the young as some monolithic group,
you are saying you don't know the kids, and if you don't know
them, then there's no way of bridging that gap. I'm not sure how
we do it, but I do know that one has to get into their heads to
reach them.

Heh heh, I've heard the particular lament of "we can't get
these (darn) kids to LISTEN to us!" for lots of generations
and have read of the same thing in books printed before I
existed. :-) It's a VERY common parental angst.

One thing that teachers learn - if they are good at teaching -
is to NEVER TALK DOWN to students...not even if one is boiling
over inside because they "won't listen." :-) The problem is
really in the teacher being unable to properly teach. That
applies to ANY subject and ANYONE explaining something. The
"teacher" has to address the subject, put the spotlight on it
and avoid shining the spotlight on themselves. The subject
will be new to the "students" but the "teacher" is familiar.

"Teachers" have to know much more about the subject than
their "lesson plan." They have to organize their "teaching"
into a comprehensible, learnable flow of ideas and concepts
that "students" can mentally digest (difficult but obviously
not impossible). Knowing more about the subject than the
"plan outline," allows them to field interruptions of some
"students" about bits and pieces of the subject that they
might have already learned. Such "students" could be
lightly disciplined "in class" with something like "that's
true, but let's bring that up later after we look at the
overall picture (of this subject)." There's lots of similar
ways to keep control on "teaching" a subject to a group.

Keep in mind that decades ago, amateur radio was hardly a mainstreem
interest among the population. SOme would be interested, many would
not.

That's true but way too many (in here at least) want to get
"insulted" from an apparent "attack" on what they do! :-)

Having spent over a half century IN radio and electronics,
having been to many places, being a member of the IEEE for
32 years, my observation (shared with others) is that the
"technical people" got INTO technology because it was
interesting to them personally...WITHOUT having to go
through the licensed amateur radio route. Far more non-
amateurs in professional electronics than those who might
have gotten a ham ticket during their teen-age years.

All of electronics can be a technological marvel which is
found truly fascinating by thousands upon thousands. That
extends much farther than just HF radio in hobbies. Robotics
is one huge and growing hobby area right now. "Computing"
already has dozens of major hobby groups within it, all made
possible by desktop sized computers with enormous capabilities
that didn't exist two decades ago.

Devotees of amateur HF "operating" tend to look down their
noses at those "other" hobbies, posturing that "they don't
have the smarts to do the 'great' things that 'we' did"
yet few are able to comprehend that those "other" hobbies
require as much or more intellect than theirs.

There'd be people like you back then characterizing the young
people, minus the cellphones, basically saying the same thing.

Heh heh heh. True enough. Way too many conveniently
neglect the fact that they were young once and "guilty" of
the very same faults of their generation.

The technical phenomenon of cellular telephony has put
roughly 100 MILLION cell phones into the USA population.
[statement of the U.S. Census Bureau over two years ago
based on cell phone subscriptions here as one in three
of the population] Cell phones (little two-way radios in
themselves) are just extensions of a general need to
communicate amongst one's peer group...little different
from wired telephone use by teenagers a half century ago.
Using cell phones as a "hobby" is wrong. Semi-private
communications is a social group act, not a hobby.

Those who are too IN to their particular hobby (such as
amateur radio) have lost sight of how widespread and
pervasive the entire world of "radio" has become. They've
lost sight of that other technical phenomenon, the Internet
with its ability to reach most of the world without any
ionospheric perterbations affecting HF bands. They've
become ignorant to the fact that the rest of the "radio"
world has gone beyond HF, that HF is NOT the Holy Grail
of communications means nor are the very early skills
of "radio operating" some kind of ultimate test of
"skill."

Ultimately, little has changed.

True enough. History - as far as some folks' attitudes -
DOES repeat itself, again and again. :-)

The paradigms of yesterday just DON'T apply today. Those
reasons for being have been crowded out with a cornucopia
of NEW, challenging avocations affordable by most. The
world and technology has CHANGED. Some people haven't.

The inability to change, to accept change, may be a human
survival trait? The "familiar" represents "security." It
is known. To be good at something is comforting, reassuring.
To individuals. But, the overall "tribe" has accepted
change, accepted it, and is enjoying it.