The Rise Of The 15-Year-Olds

Adolescents thundered onto the Net over a decade ago, and the place has never been the same, for better or worse (both, really). Are brilliant 15-year-old computer geeks running the world, upending existing institutions? Does it matter that childhood sometimes ends when computers arrive? Some have argued that geeks and nerds are committing a form of social parricide, turning on their parents and almost all other elders, as clueless, hostile and incompetent. Author Michael Lewis thinks so, and he think it's great. (First in a series.)

Lewis' latest book, Next: The Future Just Happened, is getting some enthusiastic applause from the popular media, whose binary view of the Net holds that it's either destroying the world or changing everything in it. In a similiar vein, Time asks in its cover this week "Do Kids Have Too Much Power?" The magazine, along with many so-called experts, seems to think so, and cyberspace is a big reason why. There can't be a better place on the Web to have this conversation than here.

Lewis argues that the Net has spawned a great status revolution, one that especially affects the technologically skilled young. The insiders are now out, and the outsiders in; high school sophomores and juniors are in charge and the people who have always run things are doomed and irrelevant. Lewis sees one powerful institution after another, from Wall Street to the music industry to the legal profession, being transmongrified by kids who, thanks to the Net, can do for free what many professionals have been charging tons of money for.

Kids, with sophisticated technology skills and more time on their hands than almost any other segment of the population, are fighting to get hold of traditionally proprietary (thus valuable) information. It's giving lawyers and corporations fits. Companies wonder how they can possibly survive as new media technologies -- open source among them -- make information cheaper and more available.

Is this a revolution, and is it really upon us?

To make his case, Lewis visits a series of casually-dressed, informally-educated teenagers in the U.S. and England, including the celebrated Jonathan Lebed of Cedar Grove, N.J., who rocked Wall Street and the SEC by turning himself into a master online stock manipulator in a few short months, though that's supposed to take years of high-intensity experience and training. Lewis also profiles Marcus Arnold of Perris, Calif., who joined the knowledge-sharing Web site AskMe and shortly become its most popular legal expert, dispensing wisdom he gleaned from many hours of Court TV watching, humiliating attorneys everywhere.

These kids, says Lewis, are destroying the "old priesthoods" of lawyers, investment gurus, academics and CEO's. Technology has "put afterburners on the egalitarian notion that anyone-can-do-anything, by enabling pretty much anyone to try anything -- especially in fields in which 'expertise' had always been a dubious proposition. Amateur book critics published their reviews on Amazon; amateur filmmakers posted their works directly onto the Internet; amateur journalists scooped the world's most powerful newspaper."

In my opinion, Lewis stumbles badly here. It's true that amateurs have gained access to fields once closed. But how many best-selling books are propelled by Amazon reviews? And who did Jonathan Lebed's parents call when he got into trouble -- Marcus Arnold or a criminal attorney who'd passed the bar exam?

The idea that anybody can become an instant expert at any age in any context is pretty creepy. It doesn't even apply to programming or Web design, let alone law or finance. Besides, expertise isn't power. Publishing houses, bar associations and medical groups still wield enormous influence, not only over their respective fields but with with regulatory agencies and, viat hordes of lobbyists, with lawmakers. Entrenched insiders have great win-loss stats.

Lewis believes such insiders are as irrelevant as the czars. What they know isn't so important, and it's obviously been over-priced.

But like much of the media, he focuses on the exceptions more than the rule. Most 15-year-olds on the Net are not making millions or dispensing legal advice; they're gaming, coding, downloading music, talking to their friends, surfing. You will never hear most of their names on the news. It's true that younger people now have access to once-restricted enclaves like the stock market, and they are forcing institutions to change. But that isn't the same as overthrowing them.

It's the nature of media to focus on aberrations, which makes for good stories but poor social reality. When a plane crashes, the wreckage is on TV screens 'round the clock for days. But planes rarely crash.

Comments

Incredible. JonKatz makes a good point !

[Flabdabb Hubbard]

And he makes it briefly, and in a semi-coherent fashion! This is a first. Been taking that journalism 101 course Jon ?

These kids, says Lewis, are destroying the "old priesthoods" of lawyers, investment gurus, academics and CEO's. Technology has "put afterburners on the egalitarian notion that anyone-can-do-anything, by enabling pretty much anyone to try anything -- especially in fields in which 'expertise' had always been a dubious proposition.

I kind of disagreee. There have always been child prodigies, they have always been discriminated against. But the idea that there is a new generation of hyper-smart teenagers just does not cut it with me.

For example, the controversial news and discussion site adequacy.org recently ran an article explaining how to build your own PC. It was instantly spammed and crapflooded by 15 year olds claiming they knew better than the adequacy expert. Which is fine, except that they didn't.

The whole hilarious episode csn be viewed here

Point is, not whether kids have the knowledge, it is whether they have the maturity to deal with the responsibilities that knowledge brings.

Re:And what is power?

[grammar fascist]

Secondly, let's be honest about "kids running things" - the adults have the government, and the military, the police, and the money.

No kidding. I'm getting more and more tired of Katz stroking the kids here. (Yes! Come to Slashdot, where every geeky kid is king!) The whole thing reeks of click-throughs and page views.

Maybe it's not page views - maybe Katz was bullied as a kid, and now wants to believe that he and people like him are powerful. It's either "Geeks rule the world!" (sorry Katz, the people that actually DO rule the world can fire your butt faster than you can sneeze) or "Kids rule the world!" (Sorry again Katz - they may have more of an equal voice now since anybody with a little cash can set up a server or get some web space, but they're really quite short of running the nation's largest routers or controlling the communcation lines.)

Or maybe both assumptions are correct and support each other.