In the previous post, we talked about how innovation needs to be relevant for it to have some kind of initial impact. How about we look at things later? For example, one of the questions that we pose to groups that want to work with MMM is: what else are you expecting to happen after the introduction of ‘X’ to your community?
If you will, is it possible to look far enough down the road towards the application of mobile or web technology to see some of the implications that you just won’t be able to control? For example, a group decides to add mobile technology to improve the ability for people groups to communicate with one another. But, doesn’t see that down the line, it was the use personal communication devices (and no longer sharing a single regional phone line) that caused group conflict, sometimes on a major scale (see the testimonies of the introduction and implications of mobile in the book Where Are You Africa).
Is it right to ask someone/organizations to be cognizant of the effects of mobile that can be so far down the line that its not (technically) controllable? I think so. And I think it comes in how we approach the technology as driver towards some kind of intended outcome.
What is the intended outcome of having a device that takes someone attention to their mobile device for one hour, instead of 5 minutes (the time spent on a game versus checking email)? With heads down that long, are we expecting that they will become less attached to the technology and more attached to reflection? Or, are we expecting that what we are doing is simply replacing an analogy behavior that’s done already? If we had them head down playing our ministry game/watching our movie, they now have a need to charge their device in more places. So there’s a purchase to extra batteries, car chargers, etc. They are using it more often so we now have to add sermons and teachings on fixing one’s attention spans. And the list goes on.
I’m not necessarily of the thought that gadgets are making us stupider or stealing aspects of our humanity, only that we haven’t totally thought through the implications of using this technology. While we can start for ministry (good, serving) needs, the impacts are always further. Being honest with some of the projects and applications we’ve come across, we’ve not done as good a job thinking ahead of use. That’s going to cause some unintended consequences. Some of these we’ll be ok with, but others might cause problems much too large for an application (or Facebook revolution) to solve.
I was drawn to an article by a 
Stories like this I like. CNN Labs 
“I’m not a…” Syndrome
Tuesday, April 5th, 2011The phrase is, “I’m not much of a techie.”
As I’ve become known as “the computer guy” in ABCNJ I hear a variation of that phrase just about every time I’m introduced to someone. “Oh, you’re the computer guy? I’m afraid I’m not much of a techie.” Some people feel an overwhelming need to repeat the phrase over and over and over again. As if, should the phrase not be repeated, I might forget.
Typically, what people mean when the utter the dreaded, “I’m not a techie” is, “I don’t know what buttons to push, so don’t bother telling me any of the value this stuff might have for me.” It is, essentially, a pre-emptive strike against the possibility of change and growth. Why do I know this? Because I do it for other things – any time I say, “I’m not much of a…” I create the same effect. Bad me.
Look, I honestly don’t want everyone to be a “techie” (especially since it seems that only non-”techies” ever use that nomenclature). Everyone does not need to be a geek because it’s not everyone’s calling. I don’t expect people to understand how to manipulate a database, or change permissions from a command line, or write a shell script, or even have a clue what a regex is. To me, geek-tasks like that are what people are afraid of – the “magic” which happens below the levels they are able to access. Fear of that “magic,” however, causes them to settle in several levels above where they are actually able to access (lest the “magic” do them some harm if they came to close). It’s easier to keep away from such dangerous stuff than it is to go as deep as you are able.
So I hear the phrase, “I’m not a techie,” and know that in the future I may get a call from them to fix a pdf in which everything has been aligned by spaces or to clean up a document where all the text suddenly moved over because they accidentally hit the right-justify button and were too frightened to click (touch?) it again. People are very appreciative of my ability to manipulate the arcane forces of technology on their behalf, but in the end hearing that phrase just makes me feel lonely.
Here’s the thing. To communicate in this world people need, at the very least, a basic level of technological-savvy. This does not mean that people need to know what button to push in any given situation. It does mean, however, they learn to press buttons on their computers and not be utterly terrified while doing it. We can’t afford the panic that the “I’m not a techie” attitude grants us permission to have. Why? First, because it’s completely silly for people who are normally competent and capable of thought to lose their heads when a text message comes to their phone. Second, because that panic shouts to the world in which we live, “I have no idea how to communicate with you!” Third, because the tools we have at our disposal require wisdom to use well – and panic and wisdom to not compliment each other. These three reasons, when combined, tell us that technological panic doesn’t just make our witness irrelevant to people, it makes it non-existent.
So, if you suffer from “I’m not a techie” syndrome, I make you this promise. I know how easy it is to succumb to it’s effect, and I can honestly say I’ll do my very best to avoid the “I’m not a…” syndrome myself. I just ask for a similar effort from you.
Originally posted at Painfully Hopeful; image via Life is Full of Interfaces.
Tags: education, geek, innovation, techie, technology
Posted in Commentary, Devices and Software | No Comments »