Nevertheless, people continue to succeed in life alongside their technology. Do kids like to text, watch TV, listen to music, and watch Youtube videos? Why, yes they do. But are kids continuing to succeed in school, get positions in well-renowned companies, make a difference in the world, and make their parents proud? Most definitely. 

Regardless of the not-as-technologically-dependent life you like to say you live your life by, we live in an easy-access world that makes it difficult to comprehend what life would be life should things be of less easy-access. Is this a bad thing? Is this going to ruin our country? Is this going to ruin human kind? Well, unlike the fear of the turn of the 20th century, I don’t think there will be a clock-strikes-twelve-and-we-realize-we-aren’t-all-going-to-die moment. I think we will just slowly adapt and overcome our fears brought about by each and every change that comes our way, but I know we’ll survive. That is, after all, what we are best at.

You could fill so many things into the beginning of this statement. Chess, video games, and so many more have filled its place. For me the statement arouses the image of a butterfly because while it was once an ugly caterpillar, something resembling a fear-inducing hairy worm, it becomes something beautiful with time and patience. 

This reminds me of the Rich-get-richer versus the Social Compensation hypotheses. On one hand, some believe that those who are socially competent find technology and texting to be another way in which to communicate with others and build relationships. On the other hand, some believe that those who are less socially competent find the internet to be a refuge where they are able to express themselves freely and make connections without the fear of being judged for their appearance or social standing. For it is true, there are many ways in which social media and technology aid in the creation and maintenance of relationships for individuals, especially teenagers: more anonymous, less importance placed on appearance, more control, an ability to seek out those similar to you, and access to the people they meet 24/7. Thus, is the situation of kids spending more time on technology simple enough to be boiled down into one statement, “It’s bad,” or would “It’s complicated” be more fitting?

— The Office, Season 4 Episode 2

“We need more traditional liberal arts grads.”

-Mark Cuban

I would have to disagree with this statement. I think that any quality education you receive should qualify you to think critically about what you’re learning, what you’re doing, and in general. I don’t feel like people should tailor their education and major in something in fear that an AI will take their job. I feel as though if you major in accounting and your job is soon replaced by an AI after you graduate, if you received a quality education then you will be situated enough to find another job whether or not it is in accounting. 

- Strong work ethic
- Initiative
- Interpersonal skills (relate well to others)
- Problem-solving skills
- Teamwork skills (works well with others)
- Analytical skills
- Flexibility/adaptability
- Computer skills
- Detail-oriented
- Leadership skills
- Technical skills
- Organizational skills
- Self-confidence
- Tactfulness
- Friendly/outgoing personality
- Creativity
- Strategic planning skills
- Entrepreneurial skills/risk taker
- Sense of humor

I feel like the skills I may be struggling with here would include flexibility, computer skills, technical skills, self-confidence, and entrepreneurial/risk taker. I am extremely bad at being flexible. I make plans and like to stick to it no matter what. Every time someone says, “I like to go with the flow,” I reply, “What is this flow because I can’t even feel it let alone go with it.” This also applies to my willingness to take risks. Every move I make is weighted heavily with other decisions. When it comes to computers and technology, I get overwhelmed at first, but once I learn how to use it I eventually grow more comfortable with it. Though, I do not like when there is a glitch in any of the systems because then I grow very frustrated with it and don’t know what to do with it. When the machines at work stop working it, I give them verbal encouragement such as, “You can do it. You just need time,” which surprisingly works the majority of the time. When it comes to self-confidence, I am lacking severely. I doubt myself and my abilities in basically every area. Nevertheless, I am trying to work on this a lot especially as I look more into professional schools.

I look forward to working on all of these skills in this course but especially those I currently feel like I am struggling with.

However, I would also like to add that this list is among one of the reasons why I disagree with Mark Cuban. If you receive a quality education, then these traits will have been instilled with you along the way. I don't feel you need to major specifically in Liberal Arts to obtain these skills.

Think Interdependently 

Be Self-Directed Learners 

Persist Despite Setbacks 

Use and Manage Information 

Create Media Products 

Apply Technology Effectively 

I absolutely love this question because it makes you question something that is normally never even second guessed. Honestly, participation is an extremely huge part of success in life. If you don’t show up and participate, you’ll never succeed. 

Some things I would want to fix would be the cost of attendance. I wish college was more affordable. 

I wish they set you up for success more, as well. Right now, with curves and such, I feel like we are being taught X, Y, and Z and tested on the distance from Earth to Pluto and Phil’s bus driver’s name. Being challenged is one thing, I want my exams to challenge me because life isn’t easy and you should be made to think outside the box and push yourself. Except, I feel like going into an exam and only knowing that you at least got your name right isn’t educating me, it’s making me feel like I’m worthless and stupid. I would want my college to encourage, support, and educate. 

I also wish that internships were emphasized more. Sure, being pre-med is challenging and “weeds out” a lot of people but just because I can struggle and get through a Biochem course doesn’t mean I’m cut out to cut someone open. What if I get into the medical school and realize I hate it? UW Madison, for being one of the largest pre-medical colleges, has one of the worst pre-med advising I’ve ever experienced. I feel high school advisors supported and encouraged me more than Madison’s. I want opportunities: job shadowing, internships, advice. 

I would also completely cut out the question: do you have relatives who went here? Your relatives’ successes should have NO impact on whether or not you get into a college. This is college, not a social club. It should be based on merit, not your last name.

Those are just some things I would want to emphasize at my college.

Did they ever have time to adapt? Or was their demise destined as soon as the world decided they didn’t want to let the music industry decide for them that they had to buy an entire album if they wanted to listen to one song. Once you give a community power, it’s quite hard to take that back, or “adapt” in any way that will ever take that power back. I believe this is why the recording industry managed to “win the battle but lose the war” after they squashed Napster only to be faced with numerous other giants like Spotify, Pandora, and Amazon.

a.    Large, lecture halls

b.    Impersonal teaching environments

c.    Lack of flexibility for students juggling work and studies

If we turn to online education…what I’m wondering is… 

- How does it adapt to student capabilities? When requirements and guidelines are so strict, it allows little room for creativity.

- How is it supportive learning and timely feedback? When you upload assignments that you hope meet the requirements, how is that supportive instead of stress inducing? Further, in most online courses, the class size is too large to allow for timely or personalized feedback.

- What if they just become a way to mass-educate which leads to less individualization? I think that the statement in other articles that online learning forums allow for more people to gain access to it will create the same problem that we currently have: too many students, not enough professors, and too little engagement with the material.

I feel as though the students will find this to be unnecessary. We aren’t paying college tuition to watch videos that we could watch in the comfort of our beds at home while our mothers continue to cook us dinner and wash our laundry - for free. 

What is interesting would have to be the active learning styles I see in my physics class. We read the book outside of class, watch demonstrations in class, and are allowed to ask questions and are asked questions on our iClickers as well.

I find this extremely interesting as I am a STEM major and have seen many of my fellow STEM peers leave the sciences due to the academic rigor. However, I’m also wondering if we shouldn’t better prepare these students for the academic rigor of their STEM courses prior to getting to college and potentially wasting thousands of dollars and ruining their college GPA in the process. 

The problem isn’t in the rigor of the STEM field, for it is a difficult field. It’s in not preparing students for what it is actually going to be like prior to being there AND not helping them realize their true interests and passions prior to getting to college. Instead, we encourage them to pursue a STEM career because they are good at math and has the potential to make them a lot of money.

This makes me laugh because students are quite crafty. Though it also frustrates me because I am a rule-follower and refuse to not listen to the professors when they say I HAVE to get a certain edition of a very specific textbook. Thus, my peers may be saving a large amount of money while I feel forced to pay the money or run the risk of doing poorly in the class.

Further, the saying, “Spiral of Destruction” seems counter intuitive and like the companies could easily end their own demise by decreasing costs of textbooks. Their decrease in profits for the years that it takes for the amount of textbooks being purchased to rise can’t be much more than their current loss in profits from having to make up for the dropping numbers of sold textbooks due to their increasingly higher prices.

I thought it’s been proven that in hand, paper textbooks promote learning and retention. If this is the case, why are we allowing the rising prices of textbooks to continue when it is of benefit to no one, especially the student?

This is interesting for me to think about because it seems as though a lot of research is done in an attempt to find “significance.” A researcher can live and breathe their p-values, hoping with enough will and determination it’ll be small enough to make a difference. I feel like there’s not enough encouragement out there who don’t find something that’s considered significant. 

Not everything in science, or life for that matter, is significant. Sometimes figuring out what isn’t significant helps you refocus your thinking towards something that is significant. Also, you can’t tell me that figuring out that a drug isn’t actually doing anything to help someone isn’t “significant.” That seems like a pretty significant discovery to me :)

Also, I had to include the little boy holding the magnifying glass because meta-analysis is extremely important. Just because one study done by one team on one group of subjects gets a p-value less than .05 does NOT mean that everyone should get all excited about their results. Cutting through the junk and compiling the data to get larger sample sizes, more randomized populations, and a better idea of what the truth behind it all is… now that seems pretty important to me.

Honestly, I don’t feel like enough importance is being placed on how un-generalizable some studies are. Why do we give so much credit to studies that have completely homologous groups? The diversity within the human experience is so drastic that if you can’t find a difference between two groups that are extremely diverse, is the difference really significant enough to discuss? I am all for random assignment, but I am not for cherry-picking a specific population, finding a significant p-value, and then preaching about your results as though it applies to every human being in every nook and cranny on the planet. 

Effect sizes were actually taught it in my Psych 210 Statistics class. I would have to call that a win for UW-Madison’s psychology program. While I disliked the concept at first, it definitely comes into handy when deciding whether or not I truly want to put much weight in a researcher’s findings.

Further, this is how I would describe effect size to someone who wasn't familiar with the term: "An effect size basically helps explain the difference between two groups while also considering how much of the groups scores are overlapping, or are the same. For example, if you found the average of the online learning group and the average of the in-person group and compared them, they might be considered “significant,” or different enough to not be due to chance. However, if there is a lot of overlap in the scores, then the effect size might be quite small because, while the averages are different, the groups actually have a lot in common."

Based off of what Daphne Koller said, I made the claim that online education works because...
- There are people out there who are motivated to take the courses
- People are willing to work with other students from around the world while taking online courses. -  People want to learn from experts in the field and can access these individuals’ lectures via online courses.
- Honestly, the list is endless. Supplementing in-person education with online education is also a possibility like I do with my Physics courses.

I actually disagree with this statement. I don’t feel like absolutely everything humanity has known or currently knows is on a smart phone or even on the internet. Is the majority? Very likely. But ALL of it? I really don’t think so.

“96% of undergraduate college students at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.”

I almost feel as though that percentage isn’t up to date. I feel as though it’s almost expected that students have a smart phone, with professors requiring that you download apps, have online textbooks, watch videos, etc. 

“According to a recent report from the World Bank, in some African countries, citizens are more likely to have access to a smart phone than they are to have access to clean water or electricity.”

This fact is astonishing. I’m not sure how to feel about it. Maybe it’s just what life has come to that the preference for one over the other is there. Maybe I shouldn’t have a feeling about it at all because it’s not a decision that I have to make, and I don’t know what their lives are like so I can’t make a judgement about someone else’s decision without knowing why they made the choice they made.

“As the ultra hip Grumpy Cat has tweeted: CLICK - I should just change my voice mail greeting to: “Please hang up and text me, thanks.”—look up meme and agree with it."

I relate very strongly to this message. Whenever someone calls me I get a little uncomfortable because I feel stuck, like I have to answer it and I have to talk for as long as they want to talk. 

“’If an issue requires back and forth communication, I am much more comfortable on email. Messages are more understandable since people have thought the message through.’” 

Wow… I also agree with this statement. Messaging asynchronously allows a level of control over the conversation that isn’t offered in transient and synchronous communication. You aren’t offered the opportunity to sit and ponder what you want to say. You can be whoever you want to be in the space that that freedom allows. If I want to sound professional, I can tailor my words to come across as such;  happy instead of mad; petty instead of calm; disengaged instead of clingy. When communicating synchronously, I am whoever and whatever my first thought portrays. 

Yeah… this definitely wouldn’t fit in anyone’s pocket. Especially a female’s pocket; those things can barely fit a cell phone from this day and age.

- Allowing your phone ringing audibly 

- Having a custom ringtone 

- Leaving a voicemail, if you’re under the age of 40 

- Calling someone without scheduling the call in advance, unless it’s an emergency”

*My dad ALWAYS yells at me whenever I lose my phone with my ringer turned off. He always says, “I swear if you lose that phone with your ringer turned off one more time, I’m taking it away from you.”

*I have customed ringtones for everyone. Example? My mom’s ringtone is “popcorn” because she makes the best homemade popcorn. I also have custom text tones. 

*I hate leaving voicemails. I almost end every one I leave with, “Alright, love ya bye,” out of habit from calling my mom at work while growing up. I actually did once. I had to call them a second time (another big no no) and apologize…via another voicemail.

*I agree with the last one a lot. I always have the thought, “Do I realllllly need to answer this?” whenever someone calls me without prior scheduling. Honestly, even when I do schedule a phone call, I can feel my anxiety rising in anticipation of the dreaded call. Can’t they just email me?

I feel like this is a reason why I would struggle with a telephone interview. I can never remember all of my options. Plus, recency effects are not in interviewers’ favor whatsoever. Or if they were going through a list of answers, I would probably listen until I heard a response close enough to what I would say then stop listening to the other responses, which is dangerous because one of the remaining choices could have been a more accurate response option, but I wouldn’t be listening to even hear it.

This reminds me of when UW Madison had students first sign up for Duo.

All members of the course are placed into discussion sections in which you post your response to a prompt and then reply to two peers on numerous occasions. In order to be able to put a face to a name, we uploaded profile pictures to our Canvas accounts. 

Professor Gernsbacher automatically includes some flexibility in the course by allowing us to work two weeks ahead. As we later learned, Professor Gernsbacher doesn't include numerous video lectures and quizzes in this course, like many other online courses, because they haven't been proven to increase mastery on the topics. Rather, she includes a lot of opportunity for reflection because this has been proven to increase mastery and engagement with the information.

Professor Gernsbacher's article outlined how an Internet-based education is a beneficial learning medium. The main point she made that resonated the most with me was the principle “Internet-based higher education can lead to better mastery.” The more often I engage with content, the more I understand it and feel as though I could explain it to someone else which is often an indicator of mastery. 

We were also encouraged to learn two new skills via Pinterest or YouTube. I chose to learn how to make a Chinese Fortune Teller and how to do my own dry-cleaning at home to save money. 

This week we also got into contact with our Chat Groups, and this consisted of myself and one other person. We chose a time to "meet" in our online Chat Group where we will discuss a prompt for at least one hour.

Our chat groups also discussed the challenges college students face and attempted to create solutions for them.

Very true. My dad posts some pretty…interesting things, and I’ve told him that he should really take those things down if he is going to look for another job, but he thinks that his enhanced privacy settings will keep potential employers from seeing his page.

"'It is problematic that there are so many assumptions about how just because a young person grew up with digital media, which in fact many have, that they are automatically savvy,' Ms. Hargittai says. 'That is simply not the case. There are increasing amounts of empirical evidence to suggest the contrary.'"

This is actually an argument that I had against my textbook in my HDFS course. The eText claimed that children’s use of screen time was beneficial because it helped prepare them for the technological expectations of their future employers. My argument was that, I don’t know about the majority of users, but I don’t fill my screen time use with bettering my Excel Spreadsheet skills.

How did Facebook have access to a private Facebook group, but honestly those students should have their accepted rescinded. People that take on the honor of going to Harvard need to realize that they are going to have more say in this world than I probably ever will simply because of the fact they went to a college I couldn’t get into because I don’t have the right last name. Because of that, I feel as though it’s important for them to be quality, morally responsible individuals who care deeply about helping the world be a better place. Anyone who gets in that fills the world with more hate should be removed and not given the power that comes with a degree from Harvard.

"One of the jokes referred to the hypothetical hanging of a 'Mexican kid' in the school bathroom as 'piñata time.' Another, an image of a Pokémon lying in bed with an erection, was captioned: 'When you’re tryna sleep but your neighbor is beating his kids.'"

The only words to describe how this makes me feel is appalled.

"You almost have to feel bad for these kids. They don’t realize: 'Privacy' ain’t privacy anymore." 

NO! Feel bad for them?? What about the thousands of people they were spreading hateful messages about? You feel bad because they were caught for something that’s unacceptable? Next you’ll feel bad for an animal abuser whose neighbor called the cops because “he attempted to not get caught.” The fact that these students did this thinking they’d get away with it made it even worse. How moral a person really is comes out when no one is watching.

"But if you wouldn’t want something you posted to end up on a jumbotron in Times Square, DO NOT POST IT."

My saying always is, “If you wouldn’t want your grandma to see it, don’t post it.”

"[P]revention is always better than treatment."

This statement needs to be put on a t-shirt.

2. Don’t post anything that you wouldn’t feel comfortable posting or discussing in the lunchroom at work. 

3. Remove comments posted by others that can get you into trouble. 

4. Raise your privacy settings. 
5. Do not ever admit to anything even remotely resembling a crime.
6. Don’t disclose personal information that you are not comfortable having out there. 

7. Monitor your information.

8. Be considerate of others when you are posting things.
9. Don’t discuss confidential stuff online.
10. Be careful if you mix your personal and business online.

"Besides age, print-only readers stand out in some other ways. They are less likely to have gone to college, according to our case studies. In Denver and Macon, print-only readers have lower incomes compared with online newspaper readers. And these print-only readers are less likely to be highly engaged with local civic and political activities such as neighborhood organizations or contacting elected officials."

This interests me because print newspapers cost money, for one, so making less income yet deciding to use part of it to pay for a newspaper they could read online is unique. Further, the fact that they are less engaged with local civic and political activities interests me as well. Their willingness to get their newspaper and devote time towards actually sitting down and reading it would make me think they would be more engaged.

"Millennials still stand out for seeing somewhat more political content on the site…. This occurs even though Millennials express less interest in political news."

Maybe it’s because I tend to look at politicized content on other Internet sources, so Facebook uses this information to gear the news it shows me. Further, maybe I just like to argue politics more than my fellow Millennials, but I love learning about politics.

Yep, this summarizes about all the ways I hear about news.

"Overall, social media and news organizations’ websites and apps were used far more than the other three. On average, 36% of the times individuals got news online, they did so by going directly to a news organization’s website or app. That’s about the same rate at which they got news through social media (35%). Less common was getting news through search engines (20%); through emails, texts and alerts from news organizations (15%); and through emails and texts from friends or family (7%)."

I feel like I learn about all the actually important news from my father and my best friend. The rest, like Trump said this or Trump did that, I learn from social media like Instagram and Snapchat. Things that will potentially impact me, like a robbery near my apartment, I learn about via email from the University.

"In addition, most people tended to favor one pathway over the others."

We are creatures of habit. 

I don’t even have a Twitter, so I guess I don’t quite fit this trend. Though, I sometimes find news on Snapchat, I would far from admit to saying I find anything it says trustworthy.

"Looking at the population as a whole, Facebook by far still leads every other social media site as a source of news."

Again, maybe this is because Facebook tailors the news that it shows you which makes it more likely for you to return to Facebook to find your news. Instagram, on the other hand, is too busy showing you ads that it’s tailored for you.

My question is, why wouldn’t it fool them. We are led to believe that everything is the truth when it’s posted by a credible site. Painting Americans to be an idiot because they believe something that they would have no way of knowing is fake isn’t very fair and is setting them up to look dumb.

What college students did they ask because every college student should know that ANY activist group talking about anything relating their cause is going to be biased.

"However, approximately half of students identified sources that are often classified as misleading, such as US Uncut (51%) and The Blaze (46%), as accurate. Similarly, 39% reported INFOWARS, a website routinely cited as containing misinformation, as accurate."

This is definitely something I catch myself doing. Though, I tend not to trust the very first thing that pops up every time I Google something, I often catch myself wanting to trust it more than things later in the search results.

"[C]ollege students credulously accepting a .org top-level domain name as if it were a Good Housekeeping seal."

I feel attacked, this is so accurate. We were taught to trust .org websites more than .com in like middle school.

"We asked 25 undergraduates at Stanford—the most selective college in the country, which rejected 95 percent of its applicants last year…"

I hate their inclusion of “which rejected 95 percent of its applicants last year.” It upsets me that this article is trying to make it seem like the 5% of students that were accepted there are somehow inherently better than someone like me, and while THEY should never fall for something as stupid as fake news, I would fall victim to it every time because I would never get into Stanford.

"More than half concluded that the article from the American College of Pediatricians, an organization that ties homosexuality to pedophilia and which the Southern Poverty Law Center labeled a hate group, was 'more reliable.'"

They are painting the American College of Pediatricians to be extremely biased, when I feel like this article is quite biased itself. I completely disagree with the American College of Pediatrician’s stance but I also completely dislike the hypocrisy of this article.

"Landing on an unfamiliar site, the first thing checkers did was to leave it… fact-checkers read laterally, jumping off the original page, opening up a new tab, Googling the name of the organization or its president."

"Second, fact-checkers know it's not about "About."… They don't evaluate a site based solely on the description it provides about itself."

 A sexist, homophobic, racist isn’t going to straight up tell you that about itself.

"Third, fact-checkers look past the order of search results."

Very cute but very innocent… I could post on Twitter saying I cured cancer and attach a picture of a random 3D cell, but the picture doesn’t make my claim any more valid.

“Stanford University’s study of students and online news asked middle-school students which of the items above would they read to learn the facts. More than 60% of the 200 respondents either chose the opinion piece or failed to give clear reasons why they chose the news story. A sample [incorrect] response was ‘I would not survive if we had year-round schools. Kids need a break at some point…’”

This one is just cute. They chose which one THEY agreed with more. 

"Business, government, churches and the media have fallen in public esteem… The spread of fake news from fraudulent sources is only a symptom: The larger problem is that many Americans doubt what governments or authorities tell them, and also dismiss real news from traditional sources."

Okay first, where are your studies and statistics to back up these claims. Second, businesses have an agenda. The government has an agenda. I’m religious and even I know that churches have an agenda. And don’t even get me started about the media.

"What we all need, as citizens, is to develop more skill in applying our skepticism. We need to spot false narratives, and also turn aside those who would replace them with pure fiction. Either we get this right or we cease to be free citizens."

Okay, the last part about is a very bold claim, that we need to be able to spot trustworthy vs fake news or we will no longer be free citizens. There are a lot of things that go into making U.S. citizens free citizens and claiming the loss of one is the destruction of the concept at all is a matter of individual agendas. Someone who is pro-gun rights could claim the same thing about maintaining their rights to bear arms. What they both have in common is the fact that they are both very strong, very biased claim.

"In general, traditional news organizations are more reliable because their business model is to paint the clearest picture of the world that they can manage. "

Oh, so traditional news organization writers don’t have bias? Don’t have the ability to say “1 in 8 (vs 33%) of women will contract breast cancer” because 1 in 8 sounds a lot scarier and packs a larger punch? 

a.    Is the story so outrageous you can't believe it?

b.    Is the story so outrageous you do believe it?

c.    Does the headline match the article?

d.    Does the article match the news story it's lifted from?

e.    Are quotes in context?

f.      Is the story set in the future?

g.    Any story that tells you what will happen should be marked down 50 percent for this reason alone.

h.    Does the story attack a generic enemy?

i.    Are you asked to rely on one killer factoid?

j.       Who is the news source, anyway?

k.       Does the news source appear to employ editors? 

l.    Are you told, "Trust me"?

a.    Broaden your palate. Make a point to check sites that do not agree with your politics.

b.    Be open to the idea that some falsehoods are sincerely held.

c.    Never stop looking. Learning the truth is not a goal, but a process.

"To what degree the overall proliferation of fake news affected the election results remains unclear. But it almost certainly did have some impact, particularly on undecided voters."

I feel like this statement is exactly what we’ve been told to watch out for. It’s a claim that says there’s nothing proven to back it up but then restates that it’s “almost certainly” happened.

"A particularly notorious era of journalistic misinformation emerged in the 1890s when competing newspapers owned by rival media titans William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer fought mercilessly for the attention of readers by liberally embellishing stories to sell more papers, a style that became known as yellow journalism."

"The researchers were consistently “shocked” by the number of students who couldn’t effectively evaluate the credibility of the information they were presented with. More than 80 percent of middle schoolers in the study believed that “native ads” resembling articles were actually real news stories, even though they were labeled 'sponsored content.'”

I feel like the lack of education on how to find adequate information is setting these adolescents up for failure. It’s like going into a middle schooler, giving them a calculus problem and calling them an idiot for not knowing something they haven’t been taught.

a.    Pay attention to the domain and URL (avoid such endings like .com.co)

b.    Read the "About Us" section

c.    Look at the quotes in a story (should have lots of sources and direct quotations)

d.    Look at who said them (the quotes)

e.    Check the comments

f.      Reverse image search

"Headlines often will be written in exaggerated language with the intention of being misleading and then attached to stories that are about a completely different topic or just not true."

I’ve actually noticed this before. I’ll read a headline that makes me question the story, but then I’ll click on the link and it brings me to something that has nothing to do with what I originally clicked on. 

"The company leaders behind the platforms these stories are shared on are trying to figure out how to fix the issue from their side, but they are also trying to make sure not to limit anyone's right to freedom of speech. It's a tricky position to be in, but they've said they'll try."

Can you really consider lying to be a freedom of speech?

"As said, everyone has to help fix the fake news problem."

This sounds like a call to action.

a.    "The share of 18- to 24-year-olds who use online dating has roughly tripled from 10% in 2013 to 27% today. Online dating use among 55- to 64-year-olds has also risen substantially since the last Pew Research Center survey on the topic. Today, 12% of 55- to 64-year-olds report ever using an online dating site or mobile dating app versus only 6% in 2013."

b. "About one-in-five 18- to 24-year olds (22%) now report using mobile dating apps; in 2013, only 5% reported doing so."

"One-third of people who have used online dating have never actually gone on a date with someone they met on these sites."

"One-in-five online daters have asked someone else to help them with their profile."

a. Women are especially likely to enlist a friend in helping them craft the perfect profile—30% of female online daters have done this, compared with 16% of men.

"5% of Americans who are in a marriage or committed relationship say they met their significant other online."

"41% of Americans know someone who uses online dating; 29% know someone who has met a spouse or long-term partner via online dating."

"As was the case in previous Pew Research Center surveys of online dating, college graduates and the relatively affluent are especially likely to know people who use online dating or to know people who have entered into a relationship that began online. Nearly six-in-ten college graduates (58%) know someone who uses online dating, and nearly half (46%) know someone who has entered into a marriage or long-term partnership with someone they met via online dating. By comparison, just 25% of those with a high school diploma or less know someone who uses online dating – and just 18% know someone who has entered into a long-term relationship with someone they met this way."

"Those who have tried online dating offer mixed opinions about the experience – most have a positive outlook, even as they recognize certain downsides"

"On the other hand, a substantial minority of these users agree that meeting people online can have potential negative consequences: 45% of online dating users agree that online dating is more dangerous than other ways of meeting people. 31% agree that online dating keeps people from settling down, because they always have options for people to date. 16% agree with the statement “people who use online dating sites are desperate.”

Umm… 45% is almost half? 31% is nearly a third. And 16% is nearly one in five. How is that a substantial minority?

"But despite these reservations, those who have personally used online dating themselves – or know someone who does – tend to have much more positive attitudes compared to those with little direct exposure to online dating or online daters. For instance, just 55% of non-users agree that online dating is a good way to meet people, while six-in-ten agree that online dating is more dangerous than other ways of meeting people."

Wow… This article is interesting with their statistics. If 55% say that it’s a great idea yet 60% say that it’s more dangerous, then at least 15% of the people that think it’s more dangerous contradict themselves by also saying it’s also a great idea.

"Couples Who Meet Online Tend to Get Married Quickly"

"Online daters don’t show up on a dating site by accident. They come there with a purpose — whether it’s to woo a date for the night or to find a partner for the rest of their lives— and they often don’t want to waste time."

I’m not sure what age-range they investigated but the hook-up culture is real on college campuses. I don’t think college online daters have the same goals as 50 year olds on a dating site.

"Online Marriages are Less Likely to End Within the First Year"

"Some Dating Networks May Have Contributed to a Rise in STD Outbreaks"
a.  Tinder and Grindr

"Half of British Singles Have Never Asked Someone on a Date Face to Face"

"Many factors leading to interpersonal attraction have been studied, all of which involve social reinforcement. The most frequently studied are physical attractiveness, propinquity, familiarity, similarity, complementarity, reciprocal liking, and reinforcement."

"Propinquity effect relies on the observed fact: "The more we see and interact with a person, the more likely he or she is to become our friend or sexual partner." Similar to mere exposure effect except doesn’t require physical exposure."

"Mere exposure effect the more someone is exposed to something, the more they come to like it."

"Similarity Attraction: people are strongly attracted to lookalikes in physical and social appearance ("like attracts like"). This similarity is in the broadest sense: similarity in bone-structure, characteristics, life goals and physical appearance."

"Interpersonal similarity and attraction are multidimensional constructs in which people are attracted to people similar to themselves in demographics, physical appearance, attitudes, interpersonal style, social and cultural background, personality, preferred interests and activities, and communication and social skills."

"The matching hypothesis… long standing relationships with those who are equally matched in social attributes, like physical attractiveness."

"Based on the cognitive consistency theories, difference in attitudes and interests can lead to dislike and avoidance whereas similarity in attitudes promotes social attraction."

"People with similar economic status are likely to be attracted to each other."

"People prefer their romantic partners to be similar in certain demographic characteristics, including religious background, political orientation and socio-economic status."

"Personality similarity.[38] People are inclined to desire romantic partners who are similar to themselves on agreeableness, conscientiousness, extroversion, emotional stability, openness to experience,[39] and attachment style."

"Activity similarity was especially predictive of liking judgments, which affects the judgments of attraction."

"Age and education level are crucial in affecting the mate preference. Because people with similar age study and interact more in the same form of the school, propinquity effect (i.e., the tendency of people to meet and spend time with those who share the common characteristics) plays a significant impact in spousal similarity. Convergence refers to an increasing similarity with time."

"Initial assortment (i.e., similarity within couples at the beginning of marriage) rather than convergence, plays a crucial role in explaining spousal similarity."

"Complementary interaction between two partners increases their attractiveness to each other. Complementary partners preferred closer interpersonal relationship.[47] Couples who reported the highest level of loving and harmonious relationship were more dissimilar in dominance than couples who scored lower in relationship quality."

"People were more attracted to peers approximating to their ideal self than to those who did not. Specifically, low self-esteem individuals appeared more likely to desire a complementary relationship than high self-esteem people.[49] We are attracted to people who complement us because this allows us to maintain our preferred style of behavior,[48] and interaction with someone who complements our own behavior likely confers a sense of self-validation and security."

"Similarity seems to carry considerable weight in initial attraction, while complementarity assumes importance as the relationship develops over time."

"People would be more satisfied with their relationship if their partners differed from them, at least in terms of dominance, as two dominant persons may experience conflicts while two submissive individuals may have frustration as neither take the initiative."

"We're not going to compromise our core just to try and get more people [on the site]," Miller said. "They say opposites attract. Opposites do attract and a lot of times it's fun. But you can waste a lot of time searching or dating somebody opposite."

§  hostile aggression: emotional responses to provocations

§  personality differences in responses to provocations

§  **Most aggression involves multiple motives, feelings of anger, and some concern about rewards and costs.

§  hostile aggression: the role of negative feelings

§  norms promoting and restraining aggression

§  cultural cues to aggression

§  models of aggression

§  aggressive models in the media

§  norms restraining aggression

§  Situations that favor superficial thinking often favor aggression. Thinking carefully can reduce aggression, but many factors interfere with people's motivation and ability to process information carefully. Whatever grabs our attention most easily has the greatest impact on our behavior. In anger-inducing situations, the self-esteem threat or other provocation that produced the anger is usually foremost in our attention.

§  Several factors may limit our ability to process deeply:

a.    Emotional arousal

I feel as though everything causes everyone to become emotionally aroused in some way, People on the internet are always trying to rile each other up. We should teach the impacts that our words, even on the internet, have on people starting at a very young age.

b.    Alcohol use

c.    Time pressure

d.    Individual differences

Everyone is unique. We should be taught to embrace one another's differences and encourage them, rather than hate on one another from afar and behind a fake account.

§  There are generally two distinct categories of aggression: instrumental aggression and hostile aggression

a.    Instrumental aggression often involves more systematic thinking about the situation.

a.    Factors that influence instrumental aggression are personal abilities, gender differences, and "having nothing to lose."

b.    Hostile aggression involves immediate reactions in blind fury.

§  Sadism is a tendency to take pleasure in other people's pain or discomfort.

It horrifies me to think that people can be so malicious and that we are offering them a platform on which they can broadcast their hate via the Internet.

§  online trolling is "the practice of behaving in a deceptive, destructive, or disruptive manner in a social setting on the Internet with no apparent instrumental purpose."

§  So, as opposed to cyberbullying, saying nasty things during an argument over politics or even making hateful comments that reflect the commenter's true feelings, trolls are offensive for the sheer enjoyment of it.

Wow.

Many believe that the Internet is making communication briefer and less formal. However, this is not true. Rather, the Internet is simply manifesting our preference of intransient and asynchronous communication.

Communicating intransiently  means communication in a way that is longer lasting and permanent, such as text or email, rather than a phone call or in person. Communicating asynchronously means not in real time where there is space between replies, again such in a text or email. Personally, I prefer asynchronously because it allows me time to think of my reply.

I have a similar story to Professor Gernsbacher's where her boyfriend broke up with her via a paper note. I was in 6th grade and was dating a boy. However, I realized I didn't like him and broke up with him via text one night after hanging out with him earlier that day.

In Professor Gernsbacher's article, a research study found that people are " less likely to fall prey to socially desirable responding." This might mean that, in general, individuals are more likely to tell the truth when communicating asynchronously. I could definitely see this being the case for multiple reasons of which include the separation between you and the individual you are communicating with. It's a lot scarier to be honest when someone isn't there staring at you, where you can see the judgement in their eyes.

For this week's Group Chat, we each read a different article regarding the same idea, does texting (and textisms) have a negative association on children’s cognitive, literary functioning? The studies looked at the effects of texting and textisms on students. Most found no sign of any negative effects on verbal or non-verbal skills.

Rough definition of transitivity: how much your friends’ friends are friends with you as well.

I've learned about this as well. The more interconnected your network, the better it is for your health and the better chances you'll mend a friendship if you get into an argument. 

Paraphrase: 46% of variation has to do with your genes (this includes how much your friends know each other)

"Properties of matter don’t reside in the individual atoms but in the interconnections between them…Patterns of connections among people confers upon the groups of people different properties…the ties between people makes the whole greater than the sum of its parts."

As a School of Human Ecology student, I know the importance of social networks. I really enjoyed his speech and his example of graphite versus diamond.

"What the world needs now is more connections."

I really like this.

"Which content is shown or omitted in the News Feed is determined via a ranking algorithm that Facebook continually develops and tests in the interest of showing viewers the content they will find most relevant and engaging. One such test is reported in this study: A test of whether posts with emotional content are more engaging."

Don’t like this. I don't mind the study being done, but I dislike information being tailored for me. It creates a bubble.

'[P]eople who had positive content reduced in their News Feed, a larger percentage of words in people’s status updates were negative and a smaller percentage were positive. When negativity was reduced, the opposite pattern occurred. These results suggest that the emotions expressed by friends, via online social networks, influence our own moods."

"[S]imply failing to “overhear” a friend’s emotional expression via Facebook is enough to buffer one from its effects."

This is a very interesting statement... One that should definitely be tested more. For example, does hearing but ignoring work?

"Although these data provide, to our knowledge, some of the first experimental evidence to support the controversial claims that emotions can spread throughout a network, the effect sizes from the manipulations are small (as small as d = 0.001)…. More importantly, given the massive scale of social networks such as Facebook, even small effects can have large aggregated consequences… And after all, an effect size of d = 0.001 at Facebook’s scale is not negligible: In early 2013, this would have corresponded to hundreds of thousands of emotion expressions in status updates per day."

Very true. A lot of factors were not kept stable here, so it’s possible that, if we were to do so, we would’ve gotten a larger effect size.

I actually agree with Facebook on this one. It’s a public forum… It’d be like conducting research in a McDonald’s. You kind of gave your consent by going there and acting how you did in a public place.

2.    Something awful just happened and there's nobody around for you to tell? Pocket Friends.

3.    Need to let your feelings out but don't want people to see you ugly-cry? Pocket Friends.

those of us who write about animals on the internet have unquestioningly bought into the cat hype and are perpetuating it.

 

Maybe cats are for introverts, and dogs are for extroverts/Cat aficionados have been particularly drawn to the Internet because they lack other public safety valves where they can express their affection.
 

Weird is totally in. The weirder, the better. 

 

Even Before the Internet, Cats Ruled the Memes/“It’s not so much creating this interest in cats, it’s more exploiting this interest that was already there.”

 

Cats Outnumber Dogs
 

Cats Are Easy to Personify
 
 Because They're Cute
 
Because They're Not Cute
 

Because They’re Not Dogs/Dogs are trying too hard.
 
Because Cats are
Jerks
 

Because It' ’s All a Cat Conspiracy/Those of us who write about animals on the internet have unquestioningly bought into the cat hype and are perpetuating it.

 

There is a fateful link between cats and human babies

 

They don’t care so we pay more attention to them (Cats’ famously reserved and withholding personalities naturally seduce us into paying closer attention to them; Cats’ indifference as a crowd-pleaser­­)

 

We’re in awe of them

We started by learning about online dating. Being from an area full of farmers, I feel like farmersonly.com commercials were always playing. I always understood how these niche sites would draw people in because it helps narrow down the pool of people using it into people who are similar to you based on the characteristics that you actually care the most about. I feel like they are very beneficial to people trying to find others with similar values, lifestyles, morals, and more. This might contribute to why the use of these websites results in such successful relationships.  

My hypothesis as to why these niche dating sites might be so popular grew stronger as we learned more about what causes or creates interpersonal attraction. Similarity, which is strong on those niche dating sites, is of great importance when deciding if you are attracted to someone. It's possible that this is due to their reinforcing your own characteristics; they validate you, which makes you feel good, which makes you like them. 

Then, we learned about interpersonal aggression and how it is expressed online. While aggression has always been around, people can now use the Internet as a platform on which to express their aggression. Like we have been learning since middle school, the ability to hide behind a screen may offer you some sort of anonymity, it doesn't make it okay to spread hate. While you may not see that person's reaction, that doesn't mean it doesn't hurt them all the same, which was the case for Lindy West. Her bully's realization that his words hurt her was all it took for him to realize his actions weren't okay.

Bullying has been around since Einstein's time, but it is never to late to intervene and try to put an end to it. Therefore, in our Group Chats for this unit we discussed potential ways to combat cyberbulllying. Our solution involved setting up a way to make sure they can only make one profile, have ways to block or even prevent hateful messages, have a fast and effective reporting system, and build a community of people that don't just stand by and let cyberbullying take place.

Some Internet sensations, like “Charlie Bit My Finger” were not originally intended to go viral. Nevertheless, it did so because it was funny. People wanted to watch it themselves and share it with others. 

Other Internet sensations, like the Ice Bucket Challenge, went viral because of the cause itself; people wanted to help others. Therefore, it was very emotionally salient. It appealed to your emotions similar to the commercials of the sad puppies that need homes. 

Another large reason as to why things go viral is that they have a point of connection: people can relate to the situation happening in the sensation. For example, in Texts from My Ex reads off stupid texts people have received from their ex's and the receivers blunt replies. Everyone can relate to having received a text from someone and the desire to reply in such a bold, funny manner. Though, it also had the important feature of surprise because while most people want to reply so harshly, most choose not to. 

This unit also taught the importance of protecting your personal information on social media accounts as well as being careful what you post on social media because it could come back to hurt you in the future.

Further, with the explosion of social media platforms, the importance of protecting oneself  as well as monitoring what you're putting online only grows. It has been found that potential employers, college athletic programs, and others use your social media activities to wage your credibility and use it to judge your character. Therefore, people need to be careful about the information they post on social media. Further, hiding private information on your account, such as your birthday and phone number are important steps you can take to protect your identity. 

Our Group Chat for this unit involved talking about our term project as well as why college students need to be more digitally literate. The ability to decipher what is real news from fake news that is a skill that most students lack. However, it's an extremely important skill for individuals to have because not everything you find on the Internet is true and it's important to take active steps to decide what information is reliable and what should be ignored.

"[T]he professorial role no longer commands the automatic respect it once did."

I feel like this is true... the boundary between professor and student is growing thinner. It's not that professors are any less impressive, I just feel like students are beginning to not care as much about the fact that they have a PhD. That doesn't necessarily guarantee the professor respect, they have to earn it from their students.

"Understanding negative behaviors as a defense mechanism. Counselors discussed how students may engage in noncompliant and other counterproductive behaviors as a way of warding off feelings of anxiety."

I could definitely see this being the case. As classes get harder and more challenging, I see more students caring less and then blaming their bad grades on the professors inability to teach rather than their lack of effort.

"Student restlessness, freedom from distractibility, and lack of attention and concentration in class were related to distorted student perceptions about college and college professors."

So students think college will be fun and then it's actually really hard so they adapt by increasing their levels of distraction... Sounds counter-productive.

"[F]aculty generally have found that large classes have poorer attendance, louder packing up of books a few minutes before the end of class, more cheating on exams, and more off-task behavior during discussions and group activities."

Yes, yes, yes, and yes.

"[I]nnovative disruptive behaviors during class, including talking on cell phones, watching portable televisions, sitting through the lecture with headphones on, having pizza delivered during the middle of class, fraternity pledges’ pretending to have a nervous breakdown during an exam, and passionate making out in the back of the classroom."

Oof… Honestly, I wouldn’t be able to handle this either. I’d try and flex my authority too.

"[B]eing constrained to a low stimulation setting with limited opportunities to relieve boredom--- Common examples were waiting to meet a friend who was late, waiting for a bus, waiting in an airport, sitting in a car during a long journey, and sitting in a lecture class."

I feel like this is extremely true. The most unstimulating of an environment I'm in, the less I want to pay attention and the more bored I feel. This boredom is only intensified when I have no way to do something more stimulating.

"[S]udden drop in activity level-- The contrast between the earlier hectic pace and the current slow one seemed to intensify feelings of boredom-- 'I spent months in the library trying to squeeze everything into my brain. After the exams were over, I felt so empty and bored...as if I had lost something...there was nothing urgent to do, nothing to accomplish anymore.'"

This explains why I get so bored over breaks after the excitement of getting home wears off.

Students are motivated to use their laptops for taking notes because they allow for more thorough note taking, they allow you to include pictures and graphs you otherwise couldn't, and, lets face it, having all of your notes on one device makes for a lot lighter of a backpack. 

Though they may use these laptops to get distracted, it's been found that this doesn't necessarily impair their learning of the material.  They get distracted because they are bored.

If professors want to prevent their students from getting distracted, the solution isn't to deny them the use of their laptops but to make their lectures more interesting and engaging.

Most professors say taking notes on a laptop hurts their learning because they take notes verbatim. However, it has been found that, "Their performance on verbatim, paraphrase, and inferential questions did not differ significantly depending on how they took their notes."

It's possible that professors don't want their students to use laptops because it will decrease the amount of nonverbal feedback they will get from their students, but a way to counteract that would be to force their students to engage and give this feedback.

What's actually distracting is other students talking. So professors should really implement a no-talking-while-I'm-talking rule, or allow students a break at around 40 minutes (which is when they tend to get distracted or zone out the most) so that they can come back refreshed and ready to engage once more.

b.    Because it’s available.

c.    Because it allows developing deeper connections with the characters.

d.    Because it’s already paid for.

e.    Because it’s usually commercial free.

f.      Because it’s what many young people did as children.

g.    Because it’s what everyone else is doing.

h.    Because it provides community.

i.       Because it enables a shared culture.

j.       Because it’s becoming culturally acceptable.

k.    To not be left out.

l.       To find out what happens next.

I've linked the trailer for my latest Binge-worthy show on Netflix: Love is Blind.

"Perception includes the five senses; touch, sight, sound, smell, and taste. It also includes what is known as proprioception, a set of senses involving the ability to detect changes in body positions and movements."

See, this is very interested to me, again. Every single person can experience the exact same touch, sight, sound, smell, and taste differently.

"[P]eople performed better than chance at detecting and locating image manipulations, they are far from perfect. This has serious implications because of the high-level of images, and possibly fake images, that people are exposed to on a daily basis through social networking sites, the internet and the media."

I feel like we are constantly being exposed to these things, yet I have no idea how to even look for them.

"We need to work to find better ways to protect people from the negative effects of photo manipulation, and we're now exploring a number of ways that might help people to better detect fakes."

Where are the examples as to how you're going to go about doing this?

"76% regard photo manipulation as a serious problem, 51% claim to always or often enhance in-camera or RAW (i.e., unprocessed) files, and 25% admit that they, at least sometimes, alter the content of photos."

I would like to know why these individuals rated them as problematic. Do they look at it as lying? Are they more upset if a news site manipulates a picture and claims it's true or if a friend makes themselves look better in a picture and posts it on Facebook?

"So which aspects of a scene are most likely to gain focused attention? One suggestion is that attention is guided by salience; the more salient aspects of a scene attract attention and are represented more precisely than less salient aspects. In support of this idea, research has shown that changes to more important objects are more readily detected than changes made to less important objects… Other findings, however, indicate that observers sometimes miss even large changes to central aspects of a scene."

I feel like the more salient something is, the more you notice it, definitely. For example, if someone makes themselves look crazily skinny or their butt weirdly large, then yes. It's more noticeable. Whereas, making their teeth a shade whiter or other subtle things are easier to get away with. 

"In our study, geometrical and shadow manipulations made up our implausible manipulation category, while airbrushing and addition or subtraction manipulations made up our plausible manipulation category. Our fifth manipulation type, super-additive, presented all four manipulation types in a single image and thus included both categories of manipulation."

I wish they did more bodily enhancements, or at least showed us some of those images to look at. Also, these participants are LOOKING for these enhancements which makes a world of difference when you're scrolling through pictures for that reason versus just scrolling through pictures on Instagram.

"Carr’s essential argument is that the internet rewires our brains to think differently… that’s not necessarily a horrible thing."

I agree. If it's altering our brain, then what if it's doing it for good? 

"[I]nternet has changed how our memory works… Just because you can’t remember facts doesn’t mean you’re stupid—especially if you can search for them quickly."

This is what I've always thought. I feel like this allows us the freedom to not care about stupid little facts and to focus on other, bigger things.

The Internet Makes You Psychotic
"[N]othing has suggested that the internet or anything like it would raise the risk of psychosis."

First, the claim that it's making us psychotic seems outrageously broad. How? What is your reasoning behind this claim? What is the mechanism in which it would be doing this?

"The interconnectedness of what makes the internet great is also what makes it easy to fall into rabbit holes of distraction."

I feel like it would be easy to say that it's making us easily distracted. Except, this is a cop out. You are pointing fingers at the internet. But, the Internet just allows us the luxury to no longer pay attention to what doesn't bring us adequate stimulation.

"[D]istraction can come from anywhere."

Very true. 

"[S]tudy by Sparrow et. al., looked at what the Internet is doing to the way we store information and access it later. The scientists were able to conclude that we forget items we think will be available externally, and remember items we think will not be available, which suggests that the processes of human memory are adapting to communication and computing technology."

I completely agree with this finding (not that it matters). It's easy to let go of information we can simply find again later.

"The results showed increased activity in the brain regions controlling decision making and complex reasoning in subjects performing the Google search. The Internet, it appears, is not making us stupid, but is actually engaging the very areas of the brain that make us smarter."

I feel like this is true. My ability to detect what is accurate, credible, and worthy of paying attention to increases the more that I have to shuffle through web pages. 

"When you're writing an e-mail in one tab and studying a textbook pdf in another, that is task switching. But if you were reading an email while your textbook downloads, that would be multitasking, because you're getting something done in the time when you'd passively wait for the book to download. Know the difference."

I feel like the difference between multi-tasking and task switching is the attempt to do multiple things at once versus trying to make use of what would otherwise be wasted time.

"As expected, most participants' performance declined significantly over the course of the task. But most critically, Lleras said, those in the switch group saw no drop in their performance over time. Simply having them take two brief breaks from their main task (to respond to the digits) allowed them to stay focused during the entire experiment… suggests that prolonged attention to a single task actually hinders performance."

It'd be worthwhile to pinpoint WHY it is that that prolonged attention hinders people's performance. Is it due to stress? Overstimulation? Lack of stimulation? Boredom?

"We propose that deactivating and reactivating your goals allows you to stay focused," he said. "From a practical standpoint, our research suggests that, when faced with long tasks (such as studying before a final exam or doing your taxes), it is best to impose brief breaks on yourself. Brief mental breaks will actually help you stay focused on your task!"

I feel like allowing yourself those breaks relieves stress which can help improve your focus and willingness to pay attention. Stress can decrease your ability to notice details and make critical decisions.

2.    Freedom to Surf: The Positive Effects of Workplace Internet Leisure Browsing Coker, B. L. S. (2011) positive effects of workplace Internet leisure browsing on employee productivity. It is argued that workplace Internet leisure browsing is an unobtrusive interruption which enables restoration of mental capacity and fosters feelings of autonomy.

3.    Does Cyberloafing Boost Employee Productivity? Quoquab, F., Salam, Z. A., & Halimah, S. (2015) The result suggests that there is a significant and positive relationship between workplace Internet leisure and employee productivity

4.    Human Resource Management and the Internet: Challenge and/or Threat to Workplace Productivity? Machado, C. F., Machado, J. C., & Sousa, M. C. (2013) Studies have shown that not only is the Internet a priceless tool which aids workers to accomplish their designated tasks, but also when used reasonably, allows those who are working to have moments of relaxation. This contributes to improvements in concentration and ultimately in productivity

5.    Short-Time Non-Work-Related Computing and Creative Performance Kuem, J., & Siponen, M. (2014) it has also been claimed that short-time non-workrelated computing (a maximum of 15 minutes), has a positive impact on work productivity, including relief from boredom, higher creativity, and the underlying recovery mechanisms; The results indicate that short-time nonwork-related computing has a positive effect on creative performance, when people have mental fatigue. In the post hoc analysis, short-time non-work-related computing with low cognitive effort has a greater positive effect on creative performance.

6.    Intraoperative Non–Record-keeping Usage of Anesthesia Information Management System Workstations and Associated Hemodynamic Variability and Aberrancies Wax, D. B., Lin, H-M., & Reich, D. L. (2012) There was no association between time spent on non–record-keeping computer activities and intraoperative hemodynamic variability or aberrancies

2. While it’s true that everything we do affects our brains, it’s unlikely that the Internet is rewiring our brains.

3. Because there’s no scientific evidence that our attentional spans have decreased or increased over the past several decades.

4. Because specific efforts to train attention, using, for example, Internet-based video games, usually result in only specific gains on the specific skill being trained, 

5. Because other human inventions, such as reading, which have been around considerably longer, have not rewired the human brain.

6. Millennials are usually no better at multi-tasking than are Baby Boomers.

7. Millennials are simply better at many single tasks, but they are not proportionally better at multitasking.

8. People who think they are better at multi-tasking usually aren’t.

9. The more similar two tasks are, the more difficult they are to do together, which explains why… 

10. Texting, which requires visual attention, and walking, which also requires visual attention are not good candidates for multi-tasking. For anyone.

11. And texting, which requires visual attention, and driving, which also requires visual attention are even worse candidates for multi-tasking. For everyone.

12.. Taking short, controlled breaks on the Internet doesn’t harm attention, but rather improves attention.

a.    To which Professor Gernsbacher emailed the lady making the claim, which I found rather amusing. 

- National Post
- Techvibes
- Independent
- Time
- Yahoo News
- USA Today

a.    Twice… another listing the potential shortening of basketball games to accommodate our shortening attention spans
- The Telegraph
- NBC Nightly News
- The New York Times
- Statistic Brain
- Business 2 Community
- qSample Blog

a.    says it’s 5 minutes dropped from 12 minutes

BBC News: “She studies attention in drivers and witnesses to crime and says the idea of an "average attention span" is pretty meaningless. "It's very much task-dependent. How much attention we apply to a task will vary depending on what the task demand is... It turns out that there is no evidence that goldfish - or fish in general - have particularly short attention spans or memories, despite what popular culture suggests.”

I never knew we used fish to study learning and memory. I wonder what kind of things they teach fish.

b.    Personal sacrifice to change: clicking is a public act of making media

a.    We decide what gets attention and that in turn shapes what gets attention later which shapes our entire society

b.    Three out of five Americans think we have a major incivility problem 

c.    Encouraging the tyranny of the loud encourages the tyranny of the nasty

d.    Things we can do to help:

1.    Don’t just stand by the sidelines when you see someone getting hurt

2.    STOP clicking on link-bait

a.    Clicking on a train-wreck just pours gasoline on it

3.    Click responsibly.

b.    We forget that the person behind that image has a soul

c.    Humiliation is a more potent emotion than happiness and anger

She says that cyberbullying led to more damage than offline bullying, but didn’t we talk about and were led to believe by the articles given to us that cyberbullying doesn’t do as much harm, if any?

e.    “we have slowly been sowing the seeds of shame and public humiliation”

f.      We live in a culture of humiliation
I agree with this statement. It seems like the memes that are considered the funniest, the jokes that get the most laughs, and the posts that get the most likes are those that are at the expense of someone else.

g.    This invasion of others is a raw material, efficiently and ruthlessly mined, packaged, and sold at a profit

h.    A marketplace has emerged where public humiliation is a commodity, and shame is an industry

i.       Sold via clicks, more shame gets more clicks
This is absolutely pathetic, in my opinion. I wish more people would buy into this, or try to stop spreading the hate.

j.       We need to return to a culture of compassion and empathy

k.    “Shame can’t survive empathy.”
Love this. It reminds me of the quote that darkness cannot outrun the light.

l.       Even empathy from one person can make a difference
I've always lived by the motto of being the smiling face for the one person I might meet that day that needs it.

m.  Consistency over time causes change
Love this. In my pastor's sermon today, he talked about how one small step in the right direction can eventually become a journey.

n.    Become an upstander: post positive comments or report bullying
Love this! I love the idea of being everyone elses' cheerleader. Instead of bringing others down, I really want to help build them up.

o.    Difference between speaking up for intention versus speaking up for attention
LOVE THIS!!!

a.    Representativeness Heuristic: we use representativeness to guide our judgments (we hold an image of a truck driver in our mind and use this image to judge whether or not something matches that)
b.    Availability Heuristic: refers to the salience of an idea or an event. If an idea or event is salient to us – if it’s more available in our minds -- we tend to over-estimate how likely it is to occur

c.    Anchoring and Adjustment Heuristic: we allow a starting number, considered an anchor, to affect our adjustment of other numbers

"The people most likely to vote are those with strong opinions, which would often be polarized to one or five stars. These people would be the most likely to vote because their connection to the product would make them more willing to spend the time to share their experience."
This is similar to how I always explain things about ratings to my mom. Those that have the most extreme opinions are those that voice about about said opinions. It's similar to politics. Those with the wildest, strongest left or right opinions are those that speak up for those sides of the debate. Those that have moderate opinions rarely speak up, even if they are the ones that hold the majority,

We started this unit by discussing the concept “emotional contagion,” which is the tendency to express similar emotions as those we are exposed to. For example, when talking to someone who is excited about something, you are likely to start feeling excited too. This can also occur on the internet.

For example there was a research study conducted using Facebook. Researchers tested to see if emotional contagion could be observed on the Internet. Participant’s Facebook news feeds were manipulated to either show more negative or more positive posts. They then looked to see if this affected the posting patterns of the participants. Researchers found that people do exhibit emotional contagion online: those exposed to more positive posts posted more positively, while those exposed to more negative posts posted more negatively.

We also learned that Internet can act as a safe haven for people to share their emotions with others who are feeling the same way. Online support resources offer communities of support to those attempting to lose weight, which has been found to surpass the support offered from friends and families.

In our Group Chats, we discussed the reasons why we appreciate being in the class as well as other positive things happening in our lives. Both of these practices help you focus on the positive experiences of your life which has been found to help people lead happier lives.

We kept an internet diary for a day, during which we tracked our motivation for using the internet the first 20 times we used it that day. Huitt’s (2011) describes seven motivations: stimulus-response, social, biological, cognitive, affective, conative, and spiritual. We were asked to explain our use of the internet using these seven motivations. My major motivations were stimulus-response, social, and conative. 

Stimulus-response was large for me because as soon as my phone went off with a text or email, I wanted to check it. Social was also among the top for me because I value texting my friends and keeping up with Netflix shows for social reasons. Conative is about meeting goals, which has always been a large motivation for me; whenever I make a goal, I set myself on a path to achieve it.

We also discussed disruptions in the classroom, boredom in the classroom, and professors tendency to ban laptops during lectures. Long before the internet, students have been causing disruptions in the classroom, mostly due to boredom. This boredom is usually due to the lack of stimulation provided by lecture-based teachings. Professors believe that Internet use during class leads to people being distracted on unrelated things online and harms their learning. However, students often use their laptops to take notes and this has been found not to harm their retention of the material or their grades in the class. Further, intermittent surfing might actually help rather than hamper their abilities to pay attention.

A solution for this problem would be to have more stimulating classroom environments which would eliminate the boredom in the classroom which would, in turn, eliminate the disruptions and need for alternative stimulation such as surfing the web. 

Another obvious case of perception and the internet is the use of photoshop to alter pictures. There are a lot of people who choose to alter their pictures for a lot of different reasons. However, can people tell when an image has been altered? In short... no. Especially when an image has been altered in a physically plausible manner such as through airbrushing, as compared to physically implausible ways such as through altering a shadow. 

During this unit, we also learned about attention. There is the belief that the Internet is changing our attention, our brains, and our memories, such as impairing our abilities to focus and our memories. However, the Internet isn't shortening our attention spans (you heard me right, the idea that our attention spans have shrunk to less than that of a fish is completely and utterly false). Nevertheless, the Internet is changing our brains because everything changes our brains. Everything you encounter changes you in some way. Thus, while the internet might serve as a way to easily fulfill our desire for engaging stimulation, and in the same manner, serve as a distraction from less engaging things going on around us, it hasn't made us less attentive. 

For our group chat, each member had to choose an app to download that either had to do with directing focus, blocking out distractions, or scheduling attentional breaks. An example of an app to direct focus would be the iPhone's Do Not Disturb feature which you can use while driving to inhibit messages and other notifications while driving. An example of an app to block out distractions would be the WasteNoTime plugin for Google Chrome which helps you set up a certain amount of time you're allowed on time-wasting sites like social media and YouTube. Lastly, an example of an app for scheduling attentional breaks would be the Pomodoro Timer which acts as a timer for allocating focused time and break time. 

What does this even mean… So if you don’t consider all of those things, it does support the limit? Also, if it’s likely to affect some populations over others, shouldn’t you warn or recommend limits to those select populations?

"Small parabolic functions linked screen time to attachment and positive affect."

Professor: Suggests that moderate screen time is related to emotional attachment to parents and their positive affect is at its highest. But with low and high levels of screen time, emotional attachment and positive affect are at their lowest

Did they mean affect? 

"While children aged two to five whose technology usage was limited in-line with AAP guidance showed slightly higher levels of resilience, this was balanced by lower levels of positive affect."

This sentence is very confusing... and they did mean affect. That's annoying.

‘Taken together, our findings suggest that there is little or no support for the theory that digital screen use, on its own, is bad for young children’s psychological wellbeing. If anything, our findings suggest the broader family context, how parents set rules about digital screen time, and if they’re actively engaged in exploring the digital world together, are more important than the raw screen time.’

"The paper’s other findings of note include observations that our digital screen use increases with age, is higher in boys, non-whites, children with less educated caregivers and children from less affluent households."

These results seem kind of sad. Also, what about the "digital divide"?

"The authors found the AAP guidelines themselves to be based on out-of-date research, conducted before digital devices had become so ingrained into everyday life. As a result of this time lapse, they are becoming increasingly difficult to justify and implement."

Oof... kind of attacking AAP.

‘To be robust, current recommendations may need to be re-evaluated and given additional consideration before we can confidently recommend that these digital screen-time limits are good for young children’s mental health and wellbeing"

I feel like this statement recommends that we don't take their results to heart and say that the internet is actually good to kids...

Honestly this statistic seems unnecessary… it’s like… DUH.

"Teens who go online almost constantly see a wider range of positive effects from social media than their peers who use the internet less frequently… more likely to say that social media makes them feel a lot more connected to what’s going on in their friends’ lives and that they have people who can support them when going through tough times."

I feel like this is also a duh comment. You can only get positive effects from something if you are on it/use it. You can't get positive effects from a Bowflex if you don't use it and you'll get even better results if you use it more than if you don't use it much.

"...can come at a cost for some teens… Constantly online teens are around twice as likely as other teens to report that they feel a lot of pressure to only post content on social media that makes them look good to others, or to post content that will gain comments and likes. And teens who are online on a near constant basis are also more likely to report having experienced online harassment and cyberbullying than teens who are online less frequently."

This makes sense. Spending more time online opens you up to the opportunity to face harassment on that platform. It’s like the more time you spend at school, the more time bullies have to harass you in that manner as well.

b.    PRISM was compared to a Binder condition wherein participants received a notebook that contained paper content similar to that contained in PRISM

c.    Primary outcome measures included indices of social isolation, social support, loneliness, and wellbeing. Secondary outcome measures included indices of computer proficiency and attitudes toward technology

d.    The PRISM group reported significantly less loneliness and increased perceived social support and well-being at 6 months…Group differences were not maintained at 12 months, but those in the PRISM condition still showed improvements from baseline. There was also an increase in computer self-efficacy, proficiency, and comfort with computers for PRISM participants at 6 and 12 months.

e.    The findings suggest that access to technology applications such as PRISM may enhance social connectivity and reduce loneliness among older adults and has the potential to change attitudes toward technology and increase technology self-efficacy.

b.    Internet use and self-efficacy remained significantly related. Among the sample of older adults, individuals who used the Internet more had higher perceptions of self-efficacy than those who used the Internet rarely or not at all.

Aw I like this. Being tech-savvy helps them feel like they’re capable.

b.    …cell phones appear to be an important contributor to the psychological well-being of Japanese elders. Researchers and policy makers should prioritize access to new technologies for older adults.

b.    Internet use showed a quantitative association with cancer-preventive behaviors even after controlling for various social, cognitive, and physical correlates of Internet use….

a.    many are simply not confident in their own ability to learn about and properly use electronic devices

b.    older groups (65+ years) make up a larger share of those who are described as “digitally unprepared.”

c.    seniors are also more likely than those in other age groups to say they need others to show them how to use new devices

d.    face physical challenges that might make it difficult to use or manipulate devices

e.    seniors who report that they have a disability are less likely than those who do not to utilize a variety of digital assets – from the internet in general, to devices such as smartphones or tablet computers

a.    Once online, most seniors make the internet a standard part of their daily routine.

b.    a relatively small share of older adults use social media – but those who use these platforms tend to be highly active and engaged.

c.    many seniors are taking part in video games

d.    there are a number of areas in which seniors hold relatively positive views of technology and technology-related topics…Although older adults are less inclined than other age groups to say they like trying new technology, some seniors do show a strong preference for early tech adoption

e.    Seniors also place a high value on the importance of home broadband service

Agreeableness: This personality dimension includes attributes such as trust, altruism, kindness, affection, and other prosocial behaviors.

Conscientiousness: Common features of this dimension include high levels of thoughtfulness, with good impulse control and goal-directed behaviors. Those high in conscientiousness tend to be organized and mindful of details.

Neuroticism: Individuals high in this trait tend to experience emotional instability, anxiety, moodiness, irritability, and sadness.

Openness: This trait features characteristics such as imagination and insight, and those high in this trait also tend to have a broad range of interests. 

2.    The Big Five also differs in the way it asks questions. With the Big Five, you get direct statements — I am a person who is outgoing and sociable — and you agree with that, or you disagree.

3.    The Big Five, she told me, has produced results that can be shown to remain largely consistent across a person’s lifespan and that can be used to predict at least some part of a person’s likely academic achievement, dating choices and even future parenting behavior.

2. Basic settings can help, if you can find them

3. Touch screens are easier ...

4. … but these aren’t without their problems

5. Technology uses a strange language

6. The open culture of the Internet can be confusing

7. Personal information online is scary

8. Battery life is a new worry

9. Technology is always changing

10. They don’t want to ask for help

2.    The way that the data was collected from Facebook arguably did not allow for informed consent.

Didn’t we learn about Facebook requiring users to agree to have their information shared upon signing up for Facebook?

3.    When Cambridge Analytica took credit for Donald Trump’s 2016 election victory, social scientists mostly responded with eye-rolling and references to “snake oil.”

Four reasons Cambridge Analytica’s claim of psychological manipulation doesn’t pass the social scientist’s smell test:
1. Personality is not a good predictor of political views.

2. Predicting personality is hard.

3. Changing individuals’ choices based on their personality profiles is harder than it sounds.

4. They had stiff competition from other campaigns.

And it’s not clear that Cambridge Analytica could do any of this

Isn’t a lot of this information available to anyone with a Facebook profile…?

2.    It promised to couple consumer information with psychological data, harvested from social-media platforms and its own in-house survey research, to group voters by personality type, pegging them as agreeable or neurotic, confrontational or conciliatory, leaders or followers.

3.    [A man] “very low in neuroticism, quite low in openness, and slightly conscientious” would be receptive to gun rights messages

I feel like this is jumping to a lot of conclusions??

2.    self-objectification explains less than one percent of the variance in number of posted selfies

3.    machiavellenism explains less than three percent of the variance in number of posted selfies

4.    psychopathy explains less than three percent of the variance in how many selfies they post

This doesn't surprise me. How would that even be related.

5.    narcissism explains less than four percent of the variance in how many selfies people post as does the amount of time that participants spend on social media sites and apps

This surprises me.

6.    the number of other photos men post on social media predicts the number of selfies they post

This doesn't surprise me whatsoever. If you post a lot of pictures, you're likely to post selfies.

b.    selfies taken just 12 inches from the face can make your nose look up to 30% wider

#2 Going from 3D to 2D creates optical illusions

#3 Most pictures are disappointing because your brain is like Photoshop

b.    “This is a copyright case filed on behalf of a monkey,” Blurb attorney Angela Dunning wrote US District Judge William Orrick III on Friday.

c.    The attorney for Slater, meanwhile, began its Friday court filing (PDF) with a joke. “A monkey, an animal-rights organization, and a primatologist walk into federal court to sue for infringement of the monkey’s claimed copyright. What seems like the setup for a punchline is really happening,” attorney Andrew Dhuey wrote. He added that “monkey see, monkey sue is not good law...”

I actually find this really funny.

d.    PETA wants all of the money from “the sale, licensing, and other commercial uses of the Monkey Selfies, including Defendants’ disgorged profits, be used solely for the benefit of Naruto, his family, and his community, including the preservation of their habitat...”

So basically they want all of the money to go to organizations like them...?

b.    Works “produced by nature, animals, or plants” cannot be granted copyright protection, the US Copyright Office said in 2014.

c.    The judge said… at one point [that] PETA’s argument was a “stretch.”

I also find this really funny.

b.    “When a new thing comes along, [first] people say it’ll never catch on. [Then] When it catches on they say it’s a fad. [Then,] When the fad gains enough traction, they say it’s an addiction.”

c. Only focusing on addiction and the negative effects of the Internet would be like taking a course on weather and only learning about tornadoes or hurricanes. Just like weather is a lot more than those infrequent weather events, the Internet is a lot more than the negative effects everyone seems to talk about.

d. The fact that you hear about Internet addiction and the negative effects of the Internet all the time is very similar to every new trend's pattern of introduction. Fear. Fear of reading novels, talking on the phone, and watching television all used to be a serious issue. 

e. While the Internet may enable addictions, it’s a very real possibility that, even if the Internet wasn’t around, the same individuals would be addicted to same things just non-Internet sources. “The Internet is simply the medium, not the addiction.”

The participants were at least 18 years old and met the diagnostic criteria for insomnia. They could not work at night, have another sleep disturbance or mental problem/disorder that hurt sleep. 

The control condition had the participants work through a patient education website which had information similar to the information received if one were to go to a doctor with concerns about insomnia. Some of this information includes symptoms, potential causes, and suggestions for improved sleep. The main difference between the experimental and control groups is the amount of information given and the therapeutic approach taken. SHUTi is interactive and provides personalized feedback while the control group information is “brief and static.”

Anxiety and depression symptoms were reduced in the SHUTi group, and they had a larger improvement than the control group. The SHUTi group also had larger improvements between their pre- and post-treatment fatigue scores than the control group. 

I think that the fact that the intervention was personalized really helped its success. I feel as though people are more likely to take advice that is personalized to them and information that is rehearsed with them, like it was in the interactive modules through quizzes and homework. I also feel as though spending more time with the information and interacting with the material more like the SHUTi group did compared to the control group helped it have more success.

I have personal experience with insomnia as well as cognitive-behavioral therapy interventions which is why I chose to read this article.

SHUTi program: automated, interactive online program meant to personalize the information offered, based on face-to-face CBTi. Six weekly modules mostly full of informative text: sleep, hygiene, sleep restriction, stimulus control, and cognitive restructuring. Material is “elaborated and rehearsed through interactive exercises, quizzes, animations, video vignettes, and expert explanations.” Online homework is also assigned.

Participants: at least 18, met the diagnostic criteria for insomnia, could not work at night, have another sleep disturbance or mental problem/disorder that hurt sleep. 

Control condition: patient education website that had information similar to that offered by a doctor about insomnia concerns: symptoms, potential causes, and suggestions for improved sleep. Main difference between groups = amount of information given and the therapeutic approach taken. SHUTi = interactive and provides personalized feedback. Control group = “brief and static.”

Anxiety and depression symptoms reduced in the SHUTi group and larger improvement than the control group. The SHUTi group had larger improvements between their pre- and post-treatment fatigue scores than the control group. 

Personalized interventions are great! People are more likely to take advice that is personalized to them and remember rehearsed information. 

2.    help improving resilience;

3.    learning skills to understand thoughts, feelings, and behaviors;

4.    reducing symptoms of depression and anxiety; and

5.    hearing the stories of other college students.

I tried SilverCloud and wished it offered more tips on how to actually change my thoughts. For example, for every negative self-thought, produce three positive.

We chose to read articles answering one of many questions regarding this idea, and I chose to answer the question "Should you click on (or forward) that link to gossip?" The Internet is a very easy place to find hurtful things posted about people you know, people you don't know, and everyone in between. These posts have the potential to cause serious harm to the individuals the posts are about. Don't get me wrong, I love drama and it can be interesting to learn about the secrets people hold, but it is an invasion of privacy. 

Further, websites monitor the kind of content you are clicking on. Clicking on posts that are derogatory or mean means more derogatory and mean posts show up on your feed and other people's feed. Therefore, rather than be a culture that thrives on tearing others down and the spreading of such hurtful messages, Monica Lewinsky's Ted Talk calls us to be a nation of empathy that strives to empower others.

It hurts to see that our culture is one that thrives on shaming others. It hurts to know that people are making money off of other people's shame and suffering. It'd be interesting to look into how people that read these kind of posts are similar and/or different from those who actively troll others to elicit shame and suffering. The difference between passively clicking and actively hurting might be smaller than we think.

We also learned about three heuristics that we discussed during our Group Chats: the availability heuristic, representative heuristic, and anchoring heuristic. Heuristics allow our brains to exert less energy trying to find an answer by taking quick, mental short cuts to arrive at an answer. The availability heuristic is using information that comes to mind the easiest. For example, we think certain events are more likely than others because of how easily the prior come to mind compared to the latter: a plane crash seems more likely than a car crash because the media makes a bigger deal out of plane crashes. The representative heuristic is the stereotype we hold in our minds about what something or someone should look or behave based on a piece of information about them. For example, we think that professors should be tidy, intelligent, well-dressed individuals while we think that truck drivers should be fat, less-intelligent people that don't read. The anchoring heuristic is allowing a number to serve as an estimate to how close the actual number should be. For example, if we were asked how many shark attacks there are every year after being told how many people die from shark attacks, we would estimate a number around the number we were given. 

Many believe the Internet only offers children mind-numbing games like Candy Crush. Rather, the Internet has many benefits to children as they develop, such as offering a multitude of services to  help improve their reading skills. While, I disagree that these services should replace the traditional parent-reading-to-child ways of the past, I do feel as though these services should be offered and utilized. I used to read constantly as I was growing up. During the summers, I would wake up, start reading, and wouldn't stop until I finished the book. I'd forget to eat. Therefore, I feel as though encouraging such a love of reading is a positive endeavor. 

The Internet also provides many services to the aging generations as well. It has the ability to provide many services that help them with the aging process that have been found to have a lot of positive effects in terms of cognitive, physical, and psychological health. For example, the Internet offers more communication opportunities for older people. A heart-warming example of this is a program that matches a Brazilian student with an elderly American to help the student learn English and allows the elderly an opportunity to socialize, as loneliness is often seen in these older populations. 

Nevertheless, older generations tend to have difficulties understanding how to use technology. To explore this more, we were to teach someone over the age of 60 how to do something on the Internet that they didn’t know how to do. I taught my father, who is 62, how to delete his phone number off of Facebook as to learn how to better protect his private information. He was a quick learner, but grew frustrated when he couldn't personalize more information.

During our Group Chat, we discussed the digital divide between those who have access to the Internet at home and those who do not. This puts those who do not have access at an extreme disadvantage as the use of the Internet in schools only increases.  We learned many facts about the extremity of the divide. I had always assumed everyone had the same level of access to the Internet that I had. However, this is unfortunately far from the truth. We came up with three potential ways in which we would bridge the divide: 
Option 1: More public access to access to Internet and computers (similar to libraries and computer labs) which would require the money upfront to build the spaces and monthly stipends to pay for the access which could be paid for by donations, taxes, or the federal tax money allocated to education. 
Option 2: offering internet companies tax breaks if they offer low-income households wifi at a discounted rate. 
Option 3: having community wifi similar to UW which would require a lot of money that could be generated through taxes.

a.    What's the worst possible thing that could happen? The best possible thing that could happen? The most realistic?

a.    Example: Your rumination-related thought is "If I think a lot about my problem, it'll help me find a solution." For this example, you might write down each time you notice yourself ruminating (overthinking) in one column, and in a second column note if the rumination actually lead to useful problem solving. At the end of the week, determine what percentage of the times you ruminated it led to useful problem solving?

a.    Example: Your thought is "I don't have time to take breaks." For a week (week 1), you could follow your usual routine and at the end of each day, rate your productivity on a 0-10 scale. For week 2, you could take a five minute break every 60 minutes and do the same ratings. You would then compare your productivity ratings across the two weeks.

a.    Example: Your thought is "I can never do anything right." You could write one column of objective evidence (column A) that supports the idea that you can never do anything right, and one column of objective evidence that your thought is not true (column B).

a.    isn't specifically a tool for cognitive restructuring but it's a great way to train yourself to be mindful (aware) of when you've become lost in thought. Mindful awareness of what thoughts you're having is an essential first step in cognitive restructuring.

a.    Example: You've done something silly and normally you'd call yourself a "stupid idiot." Instead you take a self-compassion approach. You acknowledge you've made a mistake, that you feel embarrassed, and that this is part of the universal human experience. Over time, if you replace self-criticism with selfcompassion, your thoughts will change. As you do this, you might notice your thoughts about other people becoming kinder and more accepting too.

a.    “Realistic thinking” means looking at yourself, others, and the world in a balanced and fair way, without being overly negative or positive.

b.    Pay attention to the shift in your emotion, no matter how small. When you notice yourself getting more upset or distressed, ask yourself, “What am I telling myself right now?” or “What is making me feel upset?”

c.    Finally, after challenging a negative thought and evaluating it more objectively, try to come up with an alternative thought that is more balanced and realistic.

d.    It can also be particularly helpful to write down your realistic thoughts or helpful coping statements on an index card or piece of paper. Then, keep this coping card with you to help remind you of these statements when you are feeling too distressed to think clearly.

a.    When participating in avoidance behavior, one underlying emotion can be the feeling of being overwhelmed. In order to address being overwhelmed and the task in front of us, knowing where to start is the key to being able to start.

SMART goals:

a.     Specific

b.    Measurable

c.    Achievable

d.    Relevant

e.    Time-bound

§  Powerful computational resources combined with the availability of massive social media datasets have given rise to a growing body of work that uses a combination of machine learning, natural language processing, network analysis, and statistics for the measurement of population structure and human behavior at unprecedented scale.

2.    Big data meets public health Muin J. Khoury & John P. A. Ioannidis

§  Separating the true signal from the gigantic amount of noise is neither easy nor straightforward, but it is a challenge that must be tackled if information is ever to be translated into societal well-being.

b.    Google searches reveal our implicit biases…gender biases towards our own children, racist attitudes towards Barak Obama (actually higher in the East than the West which goes against what we would’ve thought (North vs South)), sexual activity (5% of men look for gay porn but only 2.5% report being attracted to men)

c.    Counter: how much search terms tell us about what people are actually thinking or actually feeling and how much they might just tell us about things that people are curious about.

d.    Also make the claim that Big Data knows us better than we know ourselves, or can predict our actions better than we can because we lie to ourselves.

My main question is... what do they do with all this information? Who thinks to do the research that they do? Like looking into predicting Prostate Cancer.

b.    The more impersonal the conditions, the more honest people will be. For eliciting truthful answers, internet surveys are better than phone surveys, which are better than in-person surveys. People will admit more if they are alone than if others are in the room with them. However, on sensitive topics, every survey method will elicit substantial misreporting. People have no incentive to tell surveys the truth.

c.    Digital truth serum, on average, will show us that the world is worse than we have thought.

d.    But there are at least three ways this knowledge can improve our lives. First, there can be comfort in knowing you are not alone in your insecurities and embarrassing behaviour. The second benefit of digital truth serum is that it alerts us to people who are suffering. The final – and, I think, most powerful – value in this data is its ability to lead us from problems to solutions.

e.    There are other potential ways to use search data to learn what causes, or reduces, hate.

Personally, I feel like my results fit me perfectly. I consider myself an ambivert: highly extroverted in low stimulation settings but highly introverted in high stimulation settings. Susan Cain mentions ambiverts in her TedTalk linked above. I am extremely high in conscientiousness, which I consider to be my key personality trait. I don't think I even feel "the flow" that everyone says they enjoy going with. I also agree that I am high on agreeableness, openness, and neuroticism. While neuroticism may sound negative, I don't believe it to be true. I feel as though I feel things very deeply. I may not manage my emotions well, but I feel things strongly and have a tendency to see things realistically, both of which I am okay with.

I enjoyed these tests as well as comparing our results with those in our discussion. My old Group Chat member and I were exact opposites, which I definitely could have predicted. It was interesting to work with someone so different from me, but I have fond memories of it.

We also learned about how our personalities cannot predict our behavior on the Internet. We looked at multiple tables, showing us that personality traits explain very little in the variance between certain behaviors relating to the internet. For example, certain personality traits do not predict Internet addiction or gaming addiction. 

Finally, we learned about selfies. We learned that selfies have been popular long before the Internet allowed for them to be shared widely with the world. I chose to learn more about who owned the copyrights to a selfie taken by a monkey because I love primates, and selfies tend not to interest me because I don't like taking them.

I've actually struggled with eating disorders throughout my life, and knowing that internet-based therapy actually produces similar results has intrigued me to look into different services. What is also encouraging to me about these findings is that in-person services are very expensive and many cannot afford the treatment or cannot go more than a certain number of times a year. Thus, I feel as though the option to have therapy via online means might help more people get the treatment they need. One problem to consider is how to make sure that those who would benefit from the services know that these services are out there for them to utilize. Another thing to consider would be trying to make sure that people are motivated to complete the interventions/therapies, as they would have to be more self-driven.

Then, we learned about Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy which is therapy that attempts to change the way you think about things in an attempt to change your behavior as a result. I actually learned about CBT in therapy my junior year of high school, but never really got to do much with it because my insurance ran out and I couldn't keep going to therapy. Therefore, I'm hoping to look more into Internet based CBT to continue working on the things I would like to improve upon and the way I think about things.

During our Group Chat this week, we discussed our stresses or anxieties we were feeling regarding our term projects, and offered each other ways in which to deal with these stresses and anxieties based on what we have learned about CBT and breaking the negative thought cycles we tend to find ourselves in, especially when we procrastinate or simply feel stressed.