(this is a copy of the post originally published at https://teachologyforall.blogspot.com/2017/04/cyber.html)
Why Did Russian Cyber Forces Beat Their U.S. Adversaries in 2016?
Why Did Russian Cyber Forces Beat Their U.S. Adversaries in 2016?
Why eleven World Chess Champions came from the USSR/Russia
and only one came from the U.S. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Chess_Championship)?
It might not seem obvious, but the answer to both question
is the same, which is: “Because Americans
do not value intelligence (a.k.a. intellect)”.
Just Google “Americans values”. The list would always
include things like freedom, entrepreneurship, persistence, practicality, generosity,
and others, but nothing related to “being smart”.
The highest recognition a smart person can have is to be
called a “geek”, or a “nerd”, which stands for “a harmless idiot who helps a “school
king” or a “school queen” with his or her math homework”.
I know that this is an exaggeration, which however is not
too far from the realty.
Statistically speaking, three hundred million Americans
should have twice more smart people than one hundred fifty million
Russians. But we didn't see that in 2016!
Does it mean Russians are smarter than Americans?
The answer is – no!
The difference is not in the people.
The difference is in
the approaches the two governments choose towards the youth preparation.
During the time of the Soviet Union Empire, almost every
city and town in Russia had at least one chess club, funded by the government.
Chess matches of various ranges, starting from a middle and high school levels,
were a common place. Almost every paper and a magazine had a chess section. If
sports like a football and a hokey were naturally popular, the popularity of
chess had been promoted by the government.
In 1975 Russia’s TV launched a show called “What, Where,
When?” where a group of six people, called “knowledgeables”, had to solve a
number of problems (the number varied from a dozen to a couple of dozens,
depending on the script). To solve each problem “knowledgeables” usually had
one minute; during this time they could have a discussion to reason toward the
solution, and then had to provide their answer. The show quickly has become
very popular. Since 1986 the show is being translated live (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What%3F_Where%3F_When%3F).
A similar show was launched on ABC in 2011, but was canceled
after the first season.
American popular shows like “Jeopardy” or “Who wants to be a
millionaire” do not require any reasoning; they based solely on the ability to
memorize a large number of facts.
Many Russian movies have a character whose internal
reasoning is presented to the audience. One of the most popular mini-series
“Seventeen Moments of Spring” regularly depicts a Russian spy analyzing various
scenarios. In American movies even “geeks” do not think, they just already know
what to do (lately, however, some companies have launched criminal TV shows
where some analytical work is being presented to the audience).
The difference in the approaches the two governments choose
towards the youth preparation leads to the difference in what the youth
considers to be “cool”, and in the end to the difference in the youth
preparation.
Because the society
in general does not value logical reasoning (or at least does not demonstrate
that it does), schools are not required to promote it as well, and school
teachers are not required to use methods leading to the development and
advancement of logical abilities of students.
The conversation about “teaching students to think critically” has been taking place for at least twenty years (for example, look up “Proceedings of the 1996 international conference on Learning sciences”; http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1161135&picked=prox&cfid=748024299&cftoken=68199815), but still has not moved beyond the initial statement that “we need to teach students to think critically” (for example, look up “International Conference on Learning Sciences; 2016 Proceedings”; https://www.isls.org/icls/2016/).
The conversation about “teaching students to think critically” has been taking place for at least twenty years (for example, look up “Proceedings of the 1996 international conference on Learning sciences”; http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1161135&picked=prox&cfid=748024299&cftoken=68199815), but still has not moved beyond the initial statement that “we need to teach students to think critically” (for example, look up “International Conference on Learning Sciences; 2016 Proceedings”; https://www.isls.org/icls/2016/).
What does “thinking critically” mean, what is the structure
of “critical thinking”, what are the elements and stages of the process of development
of “critical thinking”, and why would “teaching students to think” be not
enough, unless “thinking” is named “critical”; all those questions have not
been answered, but even more importantly, all those questions have not been
even raised – at least from a practical point of view, i.e. from a point of
view of teachers helping students to advance their reasoning abilities.
However, the question “what to do in order to advance the
development of reasoning skills?” has a very simple answer.
We know that in all human practices, to advance a
development of a certain skill, one needs to use that very skill, and needs to
use it on a regular basis (not episodically). For example, to get better at
swimming, one needs to swim, and needs to do it as often as possible. To get
prepared to run a marathon, one needs to do the running on a regular basis.
That’s what is called a “training”.
Similarly, for
developing reasoning skill students need to train that skill, meaning, students
need to reason, and they need to do it on a regular basis, preferably under the
guidance of an experienced “trainer”, a.k.a. a “coach’, a.k.a. a teacher.
All well-developed sciences like mathematics, physics,
chemistry, biology and other have a very clear, well-established, and
well-known internal logic of the knowledge development. This makes these
sciences a perfect instrument for the development of reasoning skills. However,
we all know that this is not happening in our schools.
The fact that many school students lack interest to study
STEM subject has become a common place. But as a common remedy for treating
this attitude teachers are advised to either “make math/science fun”, or
“connect math/science with a real world”. These two recommendations, although
slightly differently worded, have been presented in numerous papers, conference
proceedings, books, speeches, popular TV and radio shows.
There is a vast amount of publications on STEM education,
but the most of them do not dig deep enough in the structure of the teaching
and learning processes, and usually just repeat the same advises, which have been
well known for a long time and ; like “get students excited, increase rigor, start early (i.e. from the
elementary school), work together (i.e. teachers and administrators)” (https://is.gd/EEuvuV). However, authors do not discuss reason which for many years have been
preventing school and teachers from implementing these “simple” advises in their
everyday practice.
It is time to ask a question; if twenty years of trying to
apply all these recommendations to a teaching process have not led to a
significant improvement in students’ success in STEM subjects, maybe they do
not present the actual reasons for the lack of interest to study STEM subjects?
I’ve been teaching – mostly physics – but also mathematics, problem
solving, logic, for almost twenty years (not mentioning my professional work
with teachers and administrators). My students always appreciate a good joke,
or an interesting story about how we use some of the physics discoveries for
our everyday benefits. But most of all they love the clarity, and understanding
of what and why is being done in the class. That is why I have no doubts that
all students would appreciate the same, if all teachers would be guiding them
through the logical steps required for understanding of all important logical
connections of the subject they teach.
The discussion of why it is not a case is outside of
the scope of this paper (http://www.teachology.xyz/3pc.htm).
The statement I make is simple: people who during their school years do not learn how to reason, will
not be able to reason when the need for logical reasoning will be knocking on
the door (The 11th Law of TeachOlogy; http://www.teachology.xyz/6LT.html).
The most important use of a logical reasoning in the
everyday life is making predictions about possible events (The 33rd
Law of TeachOlogy; http://www.teachology.xyz/6LT.html).
Those predictions allow us to make preparations to face those events, or to
alternate their results.
A person who cannot
reason, cannot predict what will happen, hence, that person can only react to
what already happened.
This is exactly what is happening right now (April, 2017) within
the U.S. intelligence services – a reaction to the “unpredictable” Russian
cyber “invasion” (https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/russian-propaganda-effort-helped-spread-fake-news-during-election-experts-say/2016/11/24/793903b6-8a40-4ca9-b712-716af66098fe_story.html?utm_term=.3931175fa11f).
Cyber threat is only one of many the Country is facing these
times.
When politicians and experts discuss what is the biggest
threat to the national security, they also name climate change, mass
migrations, Russia, ISIS, federal debt, income inequality, and many others (http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/09/02/whats-the-greatest-threat-to-us-national-security).
However, what we all
need to accept is a simple fact, that whatever threat the Country faces,
whatever problem the Country needs to solve, that threat is not going to go
away on its own, that problems will not be resolved on its own; only people who
have sufficient knowledge and adequate skills – including reasoning skills –
will be able to grasp, design, and enact the needed, effective, and efficient
actions and counteractions.
That is why the most important capital any country can have
is the human capital.
That is why the
biggest threat to the national security is presented by the decline of the
human capital; both, quantitatively – a negative birthrate, or qualitatively –
intellectual stagnation.
This is why the intellectual heal of the nation should be
treated with the same important and urgency as the physical health of the
nation.
Unfortunately, the facts show the opposite.
“Nearly a half of PhD aerospace engineers, over 65% of PhD
computer scientists, and nearly 80% of PhD industrial and manufacturing
engineers were born abroad.”
“The number of U.S. citizens and permanent residents earning
graduate degrees in science and engineering fell 5 percent from its peak in
2008. At the same time, the number of students on temporary visas earning the
same degrees soared by 35 percent.”
“According to a 2016 survey of 400 employers from across
Massachusetts, 75% said that it was difficult to find people with the right
skills to hire in Massachusetts.” “Respondents find deficiencies in the
readiness of new hires, not just in “applied skills” like teamwork, critical
thinking and communications, but also in simple reading, writing, and math.”
It has become a common place to present interviews or
surveys where business leaders and business owners complain on the low level of
skills of domestic workforce.
Numbers say that, essentially, the U.S. education system
does not produce the domestic work force with the adequate set of skills and the
sufficient volume of working knowledge.
If this issue will not be addressed forcefully and in time,
the various U.S. services, including the intelligent services, will be
predestined to play a catch-up every time after the next anti-American attack,
which may happen in the economic area, cyberspace, or within the American
territory.P.S. Russian (or, for that matter, any other adversary's) intelligence forces saw an opportunity to use Facebook, Twitter, and Google to influence 2016 elections. This whole post has been based on the assumption that American intelligence forces did not see that coming and did not prepare the counter activities. But logically speaking, there are also other versions of the events.
(a) American intelligence forces saw it but was not able to do much about it. Or,
(b) American intelligence forces saw it but decided to do nothing.
Of course, I prefer thinking that the real reason is the state of the general education.
Some additional links on the matter:
What Would Businesses Do if No Foreign Students Could Come In the Country Anymore? https://teachologyforall.blogspot.com/2017/02/nostudents.html
Who and why should learn physics? https://teachologyforall.blogspot.com/2016/12/onphysics.html
ow much of the NSF funded “fundamental” scientific educational research is really fundamental? https://teachologyforall.blogspot.com/2016/12/wnsf.html
P.S.
P.S.
There are
at least two versions of the famous quote
“Every nation has the government it
deserves.”
or
“Every nation has the government
which it is fit for.”
I would
like to offer a modification.
“Every democracy has
the government which is as smart as the most of the people”.
© Valentin
Voroshilov (Nov. 2017)
That is
why good public education is crucial
for a democracy.
That is
why everyone who is against good public education is automatically against a
democracy, hence against the Constitution of the United States.
