Posts Tagged ‘beyond’
Beyond superficial
Posted on: February 5, 2022
I do not think much of the original tweeted CNA article that painted youth with a broad brush, so I am not linking to it. Instead I highlight the response above.
Some news outlets seem to confuse anecdotes with data. A video that goes viral is not necessarily an indicator of a trend in youth violence.
To be fair, the writer of the article was able to cite statistics and the work of other sociologists. But we also have no idea if the statistic is high or low — what does “five bullying incidents for every 1,000 secondary school students” mean?
How exactly was that statistic derived? What sort of bullying was included? How does one include or exclude a behaviour as bullying? What threshold is worrying and why?
The writer also chose to blame the usual bogeyman called social media. This is amorphous, convenient, and clickbaity — all the properties that seem to appeal to news editors and agencies that need fast food fillers for uncritical consumers.
The tweet I highlighted had a valid critique: Why not focus on other age groups who have viral video recordings of their violence? But it is a superficial one that amounts to a retort of: I know I am, but how about you?
Such a taunt goes nowhere. A deeper and reflective critique of the article, how it was written and edited, and why it was shared in the first place lead us to more thoughtful spaces.
Reading beyond headlines 2
Posted on: July 1, 2021
Barely a month (week?) goes by without headlines about the link between using mobile device and some harm, e.g., poor mental health. We do not call those headlines a form of gaslighting because so many of us have bought into them.
Thankfully, this critique, Flawed data led to findings of a connection between time spent on devices and mental health problems, bucks the trend. That article summarised recent research and concluded:
…simply taking tech away from (young people) may not fix the problem, and some researchers suggest it may actually do more harm than good.
Whether, how and for whom digital tech use is harmful is likely much more complicated than the picture often presented in popular media. However, the reality is likely to remain unclear until more reliable evidence comes in.
The thesis of the article: “The evidence for a link between time spent using technology and mental health is fatally flawed”.
The thrust of the article was that studies in the area of mobile device use and harm relied on self-reporting measures. It then argued how such measures were logically and methodologically flawed.
First, we do not pay attention to what we do habitually. Such activity is background noise, not foreground work. As a result, it is difficult to accurately remember how frequently we use mobile devices or apps.
Next, the author shared how he and his colleagues systematically reviewed actual and self-reported digital media use and discovered discrepancies between the two. He also outlined his own research of using objective measures like Apple’s screen time app to track device use. He concluded:
…when I used these objective measures to track digital technology use among young adults over time, I found that increased use was not associated with increased depression, anxiety or suicidal thoughts. In fact, those who used their smartphones more frequently reported lower levels of depression and anxiety.
The author revealed that he used to be a believer of what the popular media peddled about the harm of mobile device use. But his research revealed that the popular media were simplifying complex findings:
The scientific literature was a mess of contradiction: Some studies found harmful effects, others found beneficial effects and still others found no effects. The reasons for this inconsistency are many, but flawed measurement is at the top of the list.
We cannot simply read headlines, form conclusions, and craft far-reaching policies of mobile use, e.g., limit kids of age X to Y minutes of iPad time. Why? The measurements for the evidence of harm are flawed and the results of studies are mixed.
We need to be critical readers, thinkers, and actors. We could start by reading beyond the headline, i.e., actually read the whole article and not propagating articles without first processing it carefully. This is more difficult to do than casually sharing a link, but it is a vital habit to inculcate if we are to be digitally wise. And with most habits, doing this gets easier with practice.
Reading beyond headlines 1
Posted on: June 30, 2021
Recently, five Singapore doctors cautioned against inoculating younger males with mRNA-based vaccines because of a small chance of myocarditis, i.e., heart inflammation [source].
Their view was informed more by “heart inflammation” than by “small chance”. How small? According to this CNA article, there were 1,226 cases of myocarditis out of almost 400 million vaccine doses in the USA. This works out to a 0.0003% chance of getting myocarditis.
The same article reported that Singapore reported 6 cases out of about 5 million doses. This is an almost one in a million chance. You might be more likely to win a lottery than to get myocarditis.
The doctors also cited a USA report of the “death of a 13-year-old boy after being vaccinated with the second dose of an mRNA vaccine”. However, an expert committee here countered that by stating that “the news report cited by the doctors did not state death from heart failure as alleged”.
The small group of doctors might be well-meaning, but they have chosen to write a fear-based headline, speculated a causal link between vaccine and death, and ignored the statistical part of the narrative.
The group of five doctors overlaps with the 12 doctors who wrote an earlier letter, which like the latest one, was roundly debunked by the expert committee. Eleven of the 12 doctors who wrote that letter retracted what they said [CNA] [Today].
What damage both letters caused is difficult to determine. We might get some inference by measuring vaccine hesitancy and queues outside private clinics that offer non-mRNA-based vaccines, i.e., Sinovac in our case [source].
We have vaccines as a class of weapons against the current pandemic. We are less well-equipped with the infodemic. We need to learn to read, think, and act beyond a headline. If we do not, infected minds will lead to infected bodies.
Above and beyond
Posted on: June 19, 2018
Here is a critical question and a critique in the space of 280 characters.
Policymakers, administrators, and some teachers like to tout the so-called 21st century competencies. So what if we cooperate, collaborate, or communicate, particularly in superficial or inauthentic ways?
So what if all that sharing is feel-good and does no good?
Are we prepared to ask the critical and difficult questions that reveal how uncertain our answers are? Only then can we move forward instead of resting on our laurels. Only then can adults model and lead by example.
Beyond Level 40
Posted on: April 19, 2018
Yesterday I hit Level 40 in Pokémon Go (Pogo). This is a significant milestone because there are only 40 levels in this game.
To reach this level, I had to accrue 20 million experience points (XP) by grabbing them wherever and whenever I could in the game.
Even though this is a difficult task, others have reached this level before me. Some use bots to harvest or unsanctioned tools to spoof their location. These “players” are so common that I can often be at a remote gym and be the only person in sight.
Thankfully there are people who play the game legitimately. I have met local “uncles” and “aunties” who met this milestone long before me. (Who am I kidding? I am an uncle myself!)
Younger folks might argue that the older folk have more spare time on their hands. And that they do. I played strategically in terms of time and how to maximise XP gains, but it still took me 20 months to reach Level 40.
For some, this milestone is the finish line — game over. However, it is not the end of the game for me. I am relying on a mix of extrinsic and intrinsic factors to keep playing the game.
Niantic, the parent company of Pogo, releases legendary Pokémon in raid battles roughly once a month. There are also monthly Community Days that promise the chance of catching shiny variants of Pokémon. The company also has a few more generations of Pokémon to release in the game.
I no longer need to grind for XP in the game. However, I will continue to look for the best of every type of Pokémon in terms of their IVs. I will also keep levelling up the Pokémon that have relevance in the meta game [examples] because they help in gym battles.
I also do not have some of the regional Pokémon. This is one more incentive to travel.
My game play reflects my learning philosophy. There are goals that someone else might define for me, and if I share these goals, I pursue them. But I do not stop there because that is a short-term learning strategy. I take ownership of the what, how, and why I learn.
Niantic owns Pokémon Go, but I own the way I play the game. Likewise, someone other entity might own the rights to a learning resource, but I own the learning process.
Another dot in the blogosphere? 