# Reading Responses (Set 1)

## *The Science of Successful Learning*

The McDonaldization of the educational system has affected how students approach learning, rewarding fast methods of education based on superficial memorization. To succeed, individuals would often utilize unproductive learning techniques to acquire knowledge. For instance, *rereading text* and *massed practice* (3). The ultimate representation of these methods is the ancient art of cramming for an exam. Students, eager to maintain a good academic record, would feed their brains substantial amounts of information through “rapid-fire repetition (3). While sometimes effective, the information is shown to disappear from their body in a brief period (63). Subsequently, by adopting repetition as the main form of harnessing knowledge, students are more likely to develop a false sense of understanding. However, familiarity with the material is not a reflection of the proficiency of the mind to understand and apply the concepts of the subject outside of their basic definition (16). Therefore, students are encouraged to incorporate *effortful* learning. The personalization of knowledge through frequent interaction with the material appears to be a dynamic response to the struggles of modern education. For example, students test their knowledge on the subject using quizzes or flashcards. Additionally, individuals should attempt to define terms in their own words and question the material, as learning develops into a skill when the abstract is materialized and made personal (11).

The individuality of learning lies at the core of this text, as the different tactics presented are meant to be incorporated into a personalized level. For instance, the concept of failure becomes a badge of effort and a source of useful information, instead of an obstacle meant to obstruct the journey of the student (7). I find myself agreeing with this perspective, as the idea of failure as a demonstration of ineptitude is limiting. Nonetheless, I would like to argue that such a perspective only works to a certain extent. Individuals who are learning recreationally might find it easier to internalize this idea. However, the pressures of academia, its ties with economic factors –as a means and goal, and the ranking of students, do not favor for this type of flexible learning.

## *Cooperation*


America runs on the survival of the fittest. The capitalistic systems installed in our society have become vital to solidifying this Darwinian thinking. The market’s competitive nature highlights the importance of individualism and our ability to climb the ladder of success without considering our competitors. Ultimately, the “strongest” will survive and reproduce, leading to an evolutionary achievement. Martin Nowak questions the effectiveness of natural selection, based on what is best for the entire population, as it “undermines the greater good” (16). The ability of specific individuals to be selfish as a form of survival allows them to succeed in our society, while people who can be categorized as cooperative often suffer the consequences of such actions. Therefore, “cooperators always have a lower fitness than defectors- they’re always less likely to survive” (15). Regardless, Nowak believes in the superiority of cooperation as an appropriate instrument of progress.

If the complex systems of capitalism have established natural selection as its core, one can question whether collaboration is possible under such conditions. Despite the individualistic ideas integrated into competition, cooperation still arises in the circumstances. For instance, Nowak argues that if people offer a service, they expect a reciprocal exchange to happen (45). Described as *repetition*, such a mechanism differs from *reputation*, which “thrives when there are repeated encounters within a group of players” (Nowak 46). Essentially, people must possess a certain level of trust with the other members of the group for cooperation to thrive. Confidence in the reliability of the group could also be formed through the development of social networks (*spatial selection*), the recognition of ancestry bonds (*kin selection*), or having a tribe mentality (*multilevel selection*). Such dynamics could also be explained by observing vervet monkeys, which are “more likely to pay attention to the distress calls of individuals with whom they recently groomed” (Reagle). However, as the group increases, the loyalties and dynamics become more complex. Internet communities encapsulate this sentiment as smaller “fandoms” feel more connected to the other members, who most likely share similar opinions and perspectives. According to Reagle, older fans become more dissatisfied with the saturation of views and content as the community becomes more popular. Additionally, people are more likely to fall into a filter bubble because they wish to exist within a category of the internet that provides the illusion of a single-minded community.

## *Haters*


The digital environment has been formulated for internet users to be constantly bombarded with positive reinforcement, engendering a sense of intolerance for anyone that engages in “abnormal” behavior. Corporate practices, such as filtering bubbles, encourage users to only interact with content or digital communities that align with their pre-determined values. Without opposition, online identities become tokens that users must protect from outsiders and standards for behavioral policing simultaneously.

Within the core of digital communities, there is a unifying set of values and behaviors that distinguish people from other users of the internet. Once the algorithm has matched the user with their community based on their personalities and interests, assimilation begins. Defined as depersonalization, individuals shift from a sense of self towards the group and its norms (Reagle). For instance, if a public figure were to express an opinion that conflicts with the group, people feel the responsibility to defend their position as a demonstration of loyalty towards their community. Even when this “loyalty” is expressed by morally questionable methods of expression such as humiliating language or doxing, “or publicly documenting the target’s contact, financial, and health information” (Reagle). Such behavior is meant to be rationalized in two forms. First, users receive positive reinforcement from the members of their community, who encourage and celebrate those tactics of policing. Users also explain their behavior by engaging in “moral disengagement” (Reagle). According to Albert Bandura, moral disengagement refers to the different tactics utilized by individuals to justify their often-cruel actions. To elaborate, haters would dehumanize the subject and disregard the consequences of their actions by minimizing their role, using the identity of the group as a shield (Reagle).

Outside of the individual, the structure of social media platforms also allows for the rise of hateful speech among online communities. In 2021, “Facebook users saw bullying or harassment 14 to 15 times out of every 10,000 views of content on the app between July and September” (Bond). However, such numbers underestimate the reach of this phenomenon. Internal research has also demonstrated that “Facebook struggles to police hate speech and calls for violence, especially in non-English-speaking countries.” (Bond). While companies attempt to minimize the damage by engaging in censorship and moderating the behavior of users, there are complex forces working in their favor. For instance, through a screen, “social cues are filtered out, and social presence is attenuated” (Reagle). In other words, it is difficult for people to know the intentions of a comment when it is stripped of its context. Additionally, moderators are often perceived as a threat to freedom of speech, with haters defending their controversial takes and hurtful behavior as their right to express their opinions. The ambiguous nature of the internet, from the policies of social media platforms to the absence of context, encourages the rise of toxic behavior among its users.

## *Exam Review*

*Multiple Choice Questions*

**a**. According to the text Triangulate is defined as:

1. Suspecting exaggerating and provocative headlines with emotional language and capital letters
2. If the article mentions a study, searching the source and analyzing its own validity
3. Verifying information through multiple sources, even traditional media and databases
4. All the above

**b**. During recess Tommy is choosing between playing volleyball with a group of kids from a grade above him or spending the rest of the afternoon decorating the classroom with some people from his class. Even though Tommy loves playing volleyball, he decides to decorate the classroom. This is an example of:

1. Multilevel selection
2. Spatial selection
3. Kin Selection
4. Reputation

*Short Answer Questions*

**a**. How do filtering bubbles represent a threat against media literacy? What are some steps that we can take to avoid them?

**b**. In which ways do users justify online harassment practices such as doxing? How does group mentality influences this though process?

### Answers/Explanations

*Multiple Choice Questions*

*a.*

*Answer:* c

*Reasoning*:

Triangulate is the act of searching for information beyond the sources being presented in the text. In order words, conducting external research to corroborate the points being expressed by the author and through critical thinking, arrive at our own conclusions.

*Source: [Truth, truthiness, triangulation: A news literacy toolkit for a “post-truth” world](https://blogs.slj.com/neverendingsearch/2016/11/26/truth-truthiness-triangulation-and-the-librarian-way-a-news-literacy-toolkit-for-a-post-truth-world/)*

*b*.

*Answer:* b

*Reasoning:*

In this situation, Tommy must decide between his personal interests or providing help to a portion of his classmates. Since Tommy interacts with more with his classmates, and he feels a deeper connection to them, he ultimately decides to help them. This scenario is an example of spatial selection as the confined space of the classroom pushes children to create connections among each other, developing a sense of loyalty.

*Source: Martin Nowak, 2011, “Super cooperators."*

*Short Answer Questions*

**a**. Answer/Explanation:

Filtering bubbles can be defined as the “results of the algorithm that dictate what we encounter online” (Farnam Street). Meaning that they ultimately show users curated information based on previous interest. As a result, individuals only engage with communities and media that aligns with their beliefs. Confirmation bias becomes a common phenomenon as individuals are barely confronted with information that questions their beliefs. Eventually, this leads to an absence of critical thinking about the sources of information being consumed.

There are different methods that people can utilize to avoid filter bubbles, including:

Using ad-blocking browser extensions

Reading new sites and blogs to have a wider understanding of different perspectives

Focus on education instead of entertainment

Using Incognito browsing

Deleting cookies

*Source: [How Filter Bubbles Distort Reality: Everything You Need to Know](https://fs.blog/filter-bubbles/)*

**b**. Answer/Explanation:

Often abusive behavior is justified through the phenomenon known as “moral disengagement.” To maintain their “good” self-image, people justified their actions, use euphemistic language and advantageous comparisons. The dehumanization of the target and disregard for consequences are also significant techniques utilized to minimize “cognitive dissonance”. Group mentality often encourages individuals to engage in this type of behavior as it lessens the amount of responsibility that the person carries. Since the user only perceives themselves as a small portion of the problem, they are most likely to minimize their impact on the target.

*Source: Joseph Reagle, 2015, “Alienated: You fail it! Your skill is not enough!,” [Reading the Comments](https://readingthecomments.mitpress.mit.edu/), ch=5.*

## Gender, Communication & Distribution

)

The male kingdom of coding of coding is under attack; women can think! It is quite surprising that a community that was established by social outcasts, who constructed their identity on “enthusiasm, knowledge, and skill” (Reagle) has form strict lines separating women and nonbinary people from their intellectual cult. There is a sense of superiority that is granted by the “underground” origin of these man. As superheroes, they perceive their interest and skills as a demonstration of their power over the typical civilian. Programming as a profession, with its difficult reputation, provided these individuals with the recognition that lacked in their youth, as “many geeks were bullied as children and found it hard to fit in with their peers,” (Slater 2014). Now, they have turned to the macho culture that subjugated them as children, utilizing power structures to demand “more pay, more power, and better working conditions” (Slater 2014). The narratives that these men have created around their identities and passions allow them to justify their misogyny, utilizing their poor understanding of sociology and biology to form arguments that sustain their power structures.

It is not uncommon for man in online communities to feel threatened by the presence of women. From the music fanatics to the fantasy enthusiastics, male-dominated fandoms have the tendency of harassing the women that show interest on these topics. Often, these women are questioned about the validity of their interest or undermined as ungenuine. Here, the interest must be pure and passionate for it to be accepted among the community. However, the criterion for belonging becomes more rigid when it comes to women. This is not different in the coding community, where “there is an expectation of single-minded devotion to the craft,” (Slater 2014). Members of these communities consider this purity to be prominent on men, who have noted their dominance over the STEM field as biological demonstration that “women prefer to work with people and men prefer to work with things” (Molteni & Rogers, 2017). The former comment was James Damore, a former Google employee that got fired for complaining about diversity in his workspace. Damore, like other members of the coding community, could not make sense of the social forces that have taken him to his position, and its underlying privilege, as they undermined the myth of meritocracy he has constructed around his success.