{"id":3983,"date":"2020-11-28T01:59:08","date_gmt":"2020-11-28T01:59:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/techclot.com\/index.php\/2020\/11\/28\/can-we-build-social-trust-in-an-online-world\/"},"modified":"2020-11-28T01:59:08","modified_gmt":"2020-11-28T01:59:08","slug":"can-we-build-social-trust-in-an-online-world","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/techclot.com\/index.php\/2020\/11\/28\/can-we-build-social-trust-in-an-online-world\/","title":{"rendered":"Can We Build Social Trust in an Online World?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Can We Build Social Trust in an Online World?<\/a><\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

For every reader who bothers to write to the author, there must be a hundred others. One reader, Paritosh, wrote to Fair Observer regarding one of my articles<\/a> that invoked well-understood principles of neuroplasticity to explain how any learning system, child or artificial intelligence (AI) can be damaged by artificial inputs, like screens and online interruptions. For children to learn to trust their senses, they need instant interaction with the real world, just as authors need reader responses to correct their work. People form trust by interacting, not just by reading and listening. This is because we must learn to trust our senses before we can trust anything else.<\/p>\n

\n

How Do People Learn?<\/h2>\n

READ MORE<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

All growing nervous systems learn to trust their senses by interacting. To calibrate our models of the world, humans need to sense it with ultra-precise timing, in the microsecond regime. Digitization and compression destroy those microseconds. High-quality training data from the real world needs to come first, fast and furious, long before the weird stuff. Like vitamins, minerals, and oxygen early in life: too little, too late, too bad.<\/p>\n

Trust-building interaction between scientists is why science works when it does. But few readers take the time to contact authors like me, and when they do, few authors can respond. Of course we can\u2019t: The nature of broadcast is to limit reciprocity, one-to-many. Unfortunately, limiting reciprocity limits trust. To correct my earlier article, and to bolster trust in science through a dollop of reciprocity, please let me address Paritosh\u2019s quite legitimate points in the order he made them.<\/p>\n

A Polemic Against Online Education<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Paritosh\u2019s first claim was that the article is a polemic against online education. This is true. A polemic is an attack, and my article did indeed attack online education. But \u201cpolemic against online education\u201d describes the article too narrowly. The word \u201cpolemic\u201d doesn\u2019t distinguish between a baseless attack based on aggressive opinion versus a self-evident description based on undisputed principles. My article made its case based on 10 universal principles of plasticity, first discovered in the 1950s by experimental neuroscience and later confirmed by harder disciplines like physics and computer science. I used these principles to scientifically characterize how real-life interaction enables children to learn, while online education prevents acquiring real skills.<\/p>\n