While reading The Book of Problems, one short passage by Federico Mayor stood out to me because of how directly it addresses the relationship between learning, technology, reflection, and personal knowledge.
The methodology regarding learning to know and to do is widely developed. Teachers all around the world have a treasure of experience and best practices in these fields. However, we know far less about learning to be, to transform information into personal knowledge, to reflect and to elaborate one’s own answers, to behave according to one’s own conclusions elaborated from thought.
Such is, from my point of view, the widening vacuum in current learning, particularly in the so-called developed countries. Communication tools are available in excess, yet learners are too often mere receptors of information, as they have no time to think, to argue in favour of their own ideas. They are spectators, not authors. As José Saramago, the Literature Nobel Prize Laureate, puts it: “A moment will come when technology will score 100 versus thinking 0.”
-Federico Mayor
Mayor argues that education has developed strong methods for teaching people how to know and how to do. Teachers around the world have accumulated extensive experience in helping learners acquire information, master skills, and complete tasks. However, he suggests that we know far less about how to help people learn to be, transform information into personal knowledge, reflect deeply, and form conclusions based on their own reasoning.
His concern is that modern learners are surrounded by communication tools but are too often positioned as receivers of information rather than active thinkers. They consume content, but they are not always given the time or space to question it, defend their own ideas, or determine what it means for their lives. In Mayor’s words, they become spectators rather than authors.
This raises a central question: Are we learning to think for ourselves, or are we merely becoming more efficient consumers of information?
Mayor’s argument is powerful because it suggests that many people have not taken the time to understand themselves in relation to their ethical beliefs, values, and personal responsibilities. We consume information from countless technological sources and often mistake access to data for knowledge or wisdom.
The fact that information is available does not mean it has been understood. We can read, watch, scroll, save, share, and repeat ideas without ever examining whether they align with what we truly believe. Information enters our awareness, but it may never become part of our personal understanding.
At the same time, the responsibility does not rest entirely with the individual. Our society is structured around constant consumption. We are repeatedly encouraged to view wants as needs and to pursue the next product, experience, platform, or piece of information. The message is often some variation of “more is better,” even when more leaves us distracted, overwhelmed, and less certain about what actually matters.
This is where Mayor’s argument connects with Martin Heidegger’s The Question Concerning Technology. Heidegger challenges the view that technology is merely a neutral instrument or a simple means to an end. He argues that technology also shapes how we view the world. It encourages us to see people, nature, time, and information as resources to be collected, organized, stored, and used.
Mayor makes a similar point when he describes human beings as spectators rather than authors. Another way of stating this would be that we have become takers rather than givers. We take in information but often fail to reflect on how it shapes our beliefs, values, and actions.
The introspective quality that distinguishes human beings seems unable to keep pace with the speed of technological change. We move quickly from one message, video, headline, or notification to another. As a result, it becomes difficult to determine what we truly need, what we merely want, and what we actually believe.
There is often very little time to pause and simply think.
So, take a moment.
Breathe deeply. Pause. Release the breath. Then do it again.
Notice what happens. Your heart rate may slow. The tension in your face may relax. You may become aware of sounds, thoughts, or details that would otherwise have escaped your attention.
In that quieter state, consider the question: What do I truly believe?
That question requires introspection. It asks us to examine our experiences, assumptions, values, and conclusions. We gather observations from our own lives, question their meaning, and attempt to form an understanding that feels true and defensible.
This process contains elements of both inductive and deductive reasoning. We may begin with individual experiences and work toward a broader conclusion. We may also begin with a belief or principle and test whether our actions and experiences remain consistent with it.
Mayor’s warning, attributed to José Saramago, is that a time may come when technology scores one hundred while thinking scores zero. That statement is presented as a warning rather than a certainty, but it describes a possible future if society continues to value speed, consumption, and convenience more than reflection.
At present, the argument is inductive. It is based on observable patterns in how people interact with technology and information. However, it could become a more certain conclusion if we fail to pause, examine our habits, and learn how to simply be.
Heidegger believed that art might provide one possible response to this problem. Art requires the viewer to slow down, observe, interpret, and reflect on what is being revealed. It does not always offer a single answer. Instead, it asks something of the person experiencing it.
Nature can provide a similar opportunity for reflection. A large oak tree begins as an acorn and develops through a process of growth, time, and interaction with its environment. It gives shade, shelter, oxygen, and life. This process differs from the impulse to extract, consume, and move immediately to the next thing.
Both art and nature invite us to experience the world differently. They encourage intentionality rather than constant consumption. They create space for observation, interpretation, and thought.
Inductive reasoning also depends on this kind of openness. It requires us to examine what we observe, consider different possibilities, and remain willing to revise our conclusions. Thinking must come before certainty.
Mayor’s reasoning may be inductive, but he has laid the foundation for a troubling conclusion. If we continue consuming information without reflecting on it, technology may increasingly shape our beliefs before we have taken the time to form them for ourselves.
The challenge, then, is not to reject technology. It is to resist becoming passive in our relationship with it.
We must learn to pause, question, interpret, and create. We must become authors of our own understanding rather than spectators of information produced by others.
The question is not whether technology will continue to advance. It will.
The more important question is whether our capacity for thought, reflection, and personal meaning will advance with it.