# Reading Responses (Set 1)

<br/>

## Reading Responses 5 out of 5

### Sep 27 Tues - Learning

As curiosity and knowledge go hand and hand, “it’s wise to be skeptical” (p. 8). We are born into this world, where the one main skill we have is the ability to learn. Whether we know we are doing it consciously or not, we are constantly learning. The art to this skill comes with many factors. In Peter Brown, Henry Roediger, and Mark McDaniel’s book *Make it Stick: The Science of Successful Learning*, this artform is explored and dissected. The foundation of knowledge that learning requires can sometimes not be enough to truly know and understand something. To learn, there are many different tactics one can take up such as rereading text and partaking in a retrieval practice. However, often times people can misunderstand learning, as it really is all about being able to rely on yourself for that knowledge. It can also be especially hard to know things in all subject matters when there is such an excess of information out there. Therefore, it is critical to know which articles and new sources are trustworthy. The first step to this could be simply identifying if the source is reliable. Being skeptical and aware of what knowledge you are receiving is significant, but how you can absorb that information is also as important.


How one is able to take in information can speak on their ability to learn. The authors talk on how a great student can find themselves sometimes struggling with bad grades. One might wonder how this student who actively takes notes, reviews them, highlights, and continues to go back to them, can end with a bad score on an exam. However, what this student failed to do was employ any of the skills such as effortful and repeated retrieval. By practicing getting information from memory, one is testing their knowledge. The mind is like a muscle, and just as you would work out you muscles in the gym, learning is working out your brain. How to effectively do that makes all the difference. The two benefits from retrieving learning include being able to identify what you know and don’t and the chance to advance your knowledge in areas that you are not as strong is. While learning is a skill that we are brought up with, it is something that can only get better with the values of “self-discipline, grit, and persistence” (p. 199). With the world at your fingertips, especially so with the advancement of technology, opportunities to learn are all around. While taking on different learning strategies can be helpful, above all else, one needs to take accountability for the role that the play in how they learn.

### Oct 04 Tues - Cooperation
Imagine you and your accomplice get put into jail. You are separated from each other but are offered a deal. If one of you decides to incriminate the other person, but the other person remains silent, then the one who remained silent will be given a lengthier time. The one who incriminated the other will only have a 1-year sentence, while the other would have an 8 year one. However, if you both incriminate each other, you will be given each a 5-year sentence. If you both remain silent, you both will be given a 2-year sentence. This is known as the Prisoner’s Dilemma which as explored in Martin Nowak’s “Super cooperators”. This reading introduces the idea of cooperation and why although it could be a win-win scenario for both of you, you might still not work together. This is because when the two of you are not able to talk to each other, you would act selfishly and not trust the other person. Similar to this theory, in this same article, another study was published by Ernst Fehr and Simon Gächter that demonstrated the idea that people are not opposed to “punishing” another person. This theory can even indicate that people are willing to punish another person for their own self-interest or for the greater good of society. Does this mean that people are inherently bad? Not necessarily. Individuals are working with the information they are given, and they try to act strategically. By not working together, they can potentially lose out on a better opportunity. The prisoner’s dilemma best represents why cooperation is key. Without it, one could not only punish others but themselves.


We cooperate when there is a common goal that needs to be achieved. We fail to do so when we are unable to communicate with each other. Additionally, we also fail to cooperate when we assume what the other person (or people), will do in a given scenario. The idea that we are able to infer the mental state of others is called the theory of mind which is explored in Joseph Regale’s article [“1. Comment: The Bottom Half of the Web”](https://readingthecomments.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/dtys4tyk/release/2#gossip), under the section titled “Gossip”. Cooperation can fail when we think we know what the other person is thinking. This is why gossiping can be similar to the prisoner’s dilemma. We might think we know what the other person’s motives are. However, if we are wrong, there is a chance that they would be negatively affected. This behavior is especially apparent on online forums, where it can be hard to communicate with people face to face. It can also be easier to assume what people are thinking, without actually knowing or talking to them.

### Oct 07 Fri - Social Networks

Technology is no longer a luxury it is a necessity. Want to apply for a job? Submit a homework assignment? All of this can be found online. However, this isn’t to say that these things don’t exist offline as well, it’s just not as common. The world is increasingly becoming more tech savvy which can explain the push of electronics in workplaces and classrooms. Although our reliance on technology as a society is not purely for work related reasons. Arguably, our dependence on technology is based upon our need for social connectedness. Social networks themselves are enhanced by online platforms. In Howard Rheingold’s chapter on social networks titled “Social Has a Shape: Why Networks Matter”, he dives into how relationships are not only deepened but prolonged due to technological networked communications.


In the past, if you were to become good friends with a coworker or high school classmate and then move away from them, the chances that you would stay connected with them would be slim. Now, people stay connected really whether they like it or not. Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat are just some of the outlets that individuals can keep tabs on each other. While you might not have the same level of relationship that you once had, the tie still stays there instead of fading away. Social capital, meaning people working together towards a common interest, was first introduced to Rheingold when he joined WELL, a parenting online community. There, he got to know a member named Philcat fairly well. This led to them forming a friendship both within and outside the online sphere. When Philcat’s son was diagnosed and eventually died of leukemia, the online community supported him at every turn. Flashforward 20 years later where Rheingold and Philcat drifted apart. However, when Rheingold needed rides to cancer treatments, Philcat was one of the volunteers. This example greatly demonstrates the role of online networks. People do not need to be an active presence in your life for ties to be upheld. This story of Rheingold and Philcat reflects the nature of these social relationships. In this sense, these two people did not know each other but their participation in online discussions brought them together in real-world moments.

At this rate of advancing technology, the online ecosystem will only grow out. Those who have a diverse group of contacts, high levels of trust and social capital, and good boundary management will thrive in this environment. The web of people that we surround ourselves with is only growing, and with more ways to connect and stay in touch, these relationships will only continue to increase and live on.

### Oct 11 Tue - Haters
The First Amendment of the United States’ Constitution outlines many rights. One of these includes the freedom of speech, a right that is seemingly abused by social media users and what can be called “haters”. Freedom of speech has been used to justify various forms of hate speech. Digital communication enables this toxic behavior by making it easier for these “haters” to push their messages. It is very easy for an individual to sign onto a social media site or blog and hide under a pseudonym. In Shannon Bond’s article [“Facebook is now revealing how often users see bullying or harassing posts”](https://www.npr.org/2021/11/09/1053924352/facebook-instagram-bullying-harassment-numbers) dives into how social media platforms such as Facebook are working towards limiting bullying and harassment posts. Facebook reports to developing new AI and creating policies that has led to a drastic drop in the appearance of hateful content.


Not only does the internet create many opportunities for “trolls” to harass people online anonymously, but there are many other factors that can feed into a bullying environment. In Chapter 5 of Joseph Reagle’s [“Alienated: You fail it! Your skill is not enough!”](https://readingthecomments.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/euf2ckop/release/2), he explores further how digital communication and trends can lead to hateful actions. Bullying itself can be seen as an imbalance of power, however, it’s hard to identify who has the power when it comes to cyber bullying. Online bullying though is hard to define and can best looked at through what is known as bully-battles. The five characteristics of bully-battles include reciprocal accusations, division of the community and partisanship, conflict defined by a rights-based sentiment, personal information being exposed, and a list of enemies being posted. The nature of bully-battles is demonstrated on a site called Goodreads. This is where users can review books and other written publications. However, it has become problematic when reviewers leave hateful and negative reviews towards books that they have not even read. Authors find this unfair while commenters say it is within their rights. Similarly, a user might not support an author because they feel that the author is a bully. While both sides might call the other a bully, the user is able to express their discontent by rating the author’s book badly. This anecdote represents the extent that a user could go to in being negative towards somebody else. Additionally, digital platforms make it easier for users to comment, thus a hateful comment could only take a second. While one “troll” might not think about their posts and move on, there are real people they are dealing with. Despite some “haters” playfully messing around, there are many times where hateful posts are motivated by prejudice. Therefore, serious action needs to be taken, whether that’s in the form of legislation or more sensitive AI features, to stop “trolls” once and for all.

### Oct 21 Fri - Gender, communication, & contribution
Supporting the notion that one would not be good at their job because of their biological gender is like saying somebody can’t cook because of their hair color. While this is a more random example, it is all to say that one of these things does not necessarily affect the other. This idea would not be supported by James Damore’s gender inequality memo, in which he believed that Google should not be making efforts to close the gender gap because biologically men and women are different. While this is scientifically correct, Damore argues that these biological differences make men better at the programming jobs than women. This argument is taken down by Molteni and Rodgers in their article [“The Actual Science of James Damore’s Google Memo”](https://www.wired.com/story/the-pernicious-science-of-james-damores-google-memo/), where they demonstrate how more often cultural effects and stereotype enforcements make up the strengths and preferences of individuals as opposed to their biological gender. In Slater’s article [“The Open Source identity crisis”](http://modelviewculture.com/pieces/the-open-source-identity-crisis), she goes into how Open Source, a software to modify and share code, is mainly made up of men. It was reported in 2006 that only about 1.5% of the participants on open source were women. However, this number is increasing over time. The reasoning for this low activity rate from women on this site is not so much because of biology but because of social factors that influence how men and women participate digitally. Slater talks about how there is an idea that when women find interest in a “geeky” topic, it loses its value as it is no longer a populated by heteronormative cisgender males. This could explain why women getting more tech jobs could cause tension in the workplace if it was a male dominated field. It could further explain the thought process behind Damore’s claims and why he would seek out any form of science to say men and women differ in their capabilities related to coding.


Gender plays a role in digital communication, participation, and contribution in the sense that people’s gender can shape who they are. This is not to say that their biological gender is responsible for their preferences and strengths, but how society has raised and treated individuals based on their gender is. According to Krasnova, Veltri, Eling, and Buxmann’s work “Why men and women continue to use social networking sites: The role of gender differences”, women have more of a presence on social media than men. However, the role of women on these social media sites is very different than men. It is the thinking of individuals like Damore that could discourage people, especially women, from wanting to be their true authentic self-online.