
Think about your current career. Now, think back to an object that you loved that influenced your decision to follow that path. For me it was a Commodore 64 that an uncle owned. Anytime my uncle was away I’d sneak in some programming time, making the machine blink its borders, or animate a smily face across the screen, eventually freaking out my mom by writing a program that wrote “This is GOD speaking!” across the screen while blaring a crazy synthesized seemingly infinitely ascending tone. Now think about this: can today’s computers awaken that curiosity and sense of awe that eventually lead you to a career in computers or are they now so opaque that, unless someone purposefully installs a programming environment, they’re unlikely to engage with the computer in a way that leads you to experiment with it?
I started thinking about this when I was reading a review of Falling for Science: Objects in Mind, a book that asks a similar question: what beloved object began your love for science? The book consists of 51 essays, including some from senior scientists, answering that question. You can probably guess some of the objects, like LEGOs and computers, for example. But some objects are a little more surprising, like chocolate meringue pie and My Little Pony.
My initial reaction was a nostalgic feeling that, no, today’s computers don’t lend themselves to that type of engagement, they’re opaque, not transparent .. get it? naked … nevermind. Sure, today’s computers come pre-installed with software that lets you make movies, music, and write documents; programs that lets you create stuff and, an environment with tool for creative activities, but activities unrelated to computation. I think of today’s machines with tons of craplets and compare it to my first PC, which had BASIC and the source for a little game about a monkey that hurled bananas; basically, stuff that let you play with the raw bits of the machine. Yeah, the end product oftentimes was a video game, or some multimedia thing, but I had to translate from computer code to sounds, graphics, or algorithms. That’s the sort of stuff that led me to my interests in computability theory, communication, and HCI. My social and physical interactions with computers have had tremendous influence on what I’ve done, even down to the subject of my college essay. I think that’s why the mac feels like such a great environment; because it comes with all the media stuff installed AND with programming and scripting languages that let you muck with the machine.
I really like Turkle’s concluding remark that “at a time when science education is in crisis, giving science its best chance means guiding children to objects they can love”.