#Higher Education Metrics

[capsulelabs08]

Metrics for HEI Intellectual Capital Assessments

  In Higher Education Institutions (HEIs), gauging Intellectual Capital (IC) isn’t just essential—it’s imperative. Simply tallying publications or leaning on generic commendations barely scratches the surface. A deeper exploration into the alchemy of intellectual capital creation is essential because it empowers HEIs to create an additional revenue stream and  dominate their domain. Deciphering…

View On WordPress

#Academic Excellence #Academic Innovation #Assessment Methodology #Deciphering Intellectual Capital #HEI Evaluation #Higher Education Metrics #Human Capital #Improved Stakeholder Engagement #Institutional Supremacy #Intellectual Capital #Knowledge Management #Relational Capital #Structural Capital #Tangible Benefits

[antiporn-activist]

I thought y'all should read this

I have a free trial to News+ so I copy-pasted it for you here. I don't think Jonathan Haidt would object to more people having this info.

Tumblr wouldn't let me post it until i removed all the links to Haidt's sources. You'll have to take my word that everything is sourced.

End the Phone-Based Childhood Now

The environment in which kids grow up today is hostile to human development.

By Jonathan Haidt

Something went suddenly and horribly wrong for adolescents in the early 2010s. By now you’ve likely seen the statistics: Rates of depression and anxiety in the United States—fairly stable in the 2000s—rose by more than 50 percent in many studies from 2010 to 2019. The suicide rate rose 48 percent for adolescents ages 10 to 19. For girls ages 10 to 14, it rose 131 percent.

The problem was not limited to the U.S.: Similar patterns emerged around the same time in Canada, the U.K., Australia, New Zealand, the Nordic countries, and beyond. By a variety of measures and in a variety of countries, the members of Generation Z (born in and after 1996) are suffering from anxiety, depression, self-harm, and related disorders at levels higher than any other generation for which we have data.

The decline in mental health is just one of many signs that something went awry. Loneliness and friendlessness among American teens began to surge around 2012. Academic achievement went down, too. According to “The Nation’s Report Card,” scores in reading and math began to decline for U.S. students after 2012, reversing decades of slow but generally steady increase. PISA, the major international measure of educational trends, shows that declines in math, reading, and science happened globally, also beginning in the early 2010s.

As the oldest members of Gen Z reach their late 20s, their troubles are carrying over into adulthood. Young adults are dating less, having less sex, and showing less interest in ever having children than prior generations. They are more likelyto live with their parents. They were less likely to get jobs as teens, and managers say they are harder to work with. Many of these trends began with earlier generations, but most of them accelerated with Gen Z.

Surveys show that members of Gen Z are shyer and more risk averse than previous generations, too, and risk aversion may make them less ambitious. In an interview last May, OpenAI co-founder Sam Altman and Stripe co-founder Patrick Collison noted that, for the first time since the 1970s, none of Silicon Valley’s preeminent entrepreneurs are under 30. “Something has really gone wrong,” Altman said. In a famously young industry, he was baffled by the sudden absence of great founders in their 20s.

Generations are not monolithic, of course. Many young people are flourishing. Taken as a whole, however, Gen Z is in poor mental health and is lagging behind previous generations on many important metrics. And if a generation is doing poorly––if it is more anxious and depressed and is starting families, careers, and important companies at a substantially lower rate than previous generations––then the sociological and economic consequences will be profound for the entire society.

What happened in the early 2010s that altered adolescent development and worsened mental health? Theories abound, but the fact that similar trends are found in many countries worldwide means that events and trends that are specific to the United States cannot be the main story.

I think the answer can be stated simply, although the underlying psychology is complex: Those were the years when adolescents in rich countries traded in their flip phones for smartphones and moved much more of their social lives online—particularly onto social-media platforms designed for virality and addiction. Once young people began carrying the entire internet in their pockets, available to them day and night, it altered their daily experiences and developmental pathways across the board. Friendship, dating, sexuality, exercise, sleep, academics, politics, family dynamics, identity—all were affected. Life changed rapidly for younger children, too, as they began to get access to their parents’ smartphones and, later, got their own iPads, laptops, and even smartphones during elementary school.

As a social psychologist who has long studied social and moral development, I have been involved in debates about the effects of digital technology for years. Typically, the scientific questions have been framed somewhat narrowly, to make them easier to address with data. For example, do adolescents who consume more social media have higher levels of depression? Does using a smartphone just before bedtime interfere with sleep? The answer to these questions is usually found to be yes, although the size of the relationship is often statistically small, which has led some researchers to conclude that these new technologies are not responsible for the gigantic increases in mental illness that began in the early 2010s.

But before we can evaluate the evidence on any one potential avenue of harm, we need to step back and ask a broader question: What is childhood––including adolescence––and how did it change when smartphones moved to the center of it? If we take a more holistic view of what childhood is and what young children, tweens, and teens need to do to mature into competent adults, the picture becomes much clearer. Smartphone-based life, it turns out, alters or interferes with a great number of developmental processes.

The intrusion of smartphones and social media are not the only changes that have deformed childhood. There’s an important backstory, beginning as long ago as the 1980s, when we started systematically depriving children and adolescents of freedom, unsupervised play, responsibility, and opportunities for risk taking, all of which promote competence, maturity, and mental health. But the change in childhood accelerated in the early 2010s, when an already independence-deprived generation was lured into a new virtual universe that seemed safe to parents but in fact is more dangerous, in many respects, than the physical world.

My claim is that the new phone-based childhood that took shape roughly 12 years ago is making young people sick and blocking their progress to flourishing in adulthood. We need a dramatic cultural correction, and we need it now.

1. The Decline of Play and Independence 

Human brains are extraordinarily large compared with those of other primates, and human childhoods are extraordinarily long, too, to give those large brains time to wire up within a particular culture. A child’s brain is already 90 percent of its adult size by about age 6. The next 10 or 15 years are about learning norms and mastering skills—physical, analytical, creative, and social. As children and adolescents seek out experiences and practice a wide variety of behaviors, the synapses and neurons that are used frequently are retained while those that are used less often disappear. Neurons that fire together wire together, as brain researchers say.

Brain development is sometimes said to be “experience-expectant,” because specific parts of the brain show increased plasticity during periods of life when an animal’s brain can “expect” to have certain kinds of experiences. You can see this with baby geese, who will imprint on whatever mother-sized object moves in their vicinity just after they hatch. You can see it with human children, who are able to learn languages quickly and take on the local accent, but only through early puberty; after that, it’s hard to learn a language and sound like a native speaker. There is also some evidence of a sensitive period for cultural learning more generally. Japanese children who spent a few years in California in the 1970s came to feel “American” in their identity and ways of interacting only if they attended American schools for a few years between ages 9 and 15. If they left before age 9, there was no lasting impact. If they didn’t arrive until they were 15, it was too late; they didn’t come to feel American.

Human childhood is an extended cultural apprenticeship with different tasks at different ages all the way through puberty. Once we see it this way, we can identify factors that promote or impede the right kinds of learning at each age. For children of all ages, one of the most powerful drivers of learning is the strong motivation to play. Play is the work of childhood, and all young mammals have the same job: to wire up their brains by playing vigorously and often, practicing the moves and skills they’ll need as adults. Kittens will play-pounce on anything that looks like a mouse tail. Human children will play games such as tag and sharks and minnows, which let them practice both their predator skills and their escaping-from-predator skills. Adolescents will play sports with greater intensity, and will incorporate playfulness into their social interactions—flirting, teasing, and developing inside jokes that bond friends together. Hundreds of studies on young rats, monkeys, and humans show that young mammals want to play, need to play, and end up socially, cognitively, and emotionally impaired when they are deprived of play.

One crucial aspect of play is physical risk taking. Children and adolescents must take risks and fail—often—in environments in which failure is not very costly. This is how they extend their abilities, overcome their fears, learn to estimate risk, and learn to cooperate in order to take on larger challenges later. The ever-present possibility of getting hurt while running around, exploring, play-fighting, or getting into a real conflict with another group adds an element of thrill, and thrilling play appears to be the most effective kind for overcoming childhood anxieties and building social, emotional, and physical competence. The desire for risk and thrill increases in the teen years, when failure might carry more serious consequences. Children of all ages need to choose the risk they are ready for at a given moment. Young people who are deprived of opportunities for risk taking and independent exploration will, on average, develop into more anxious and risk-averse adults.

Human childhood and adolescence evolved outdoors, in a physical world full of dangers and opportunities. Its central activities––play, exploration, and intense socializing––were largely unsupervised by adults, allowing children to make their own choices, resolve their own conflicts, and take care of one another. Shared adventures and shared adversity bound young people together into strong friendship clusters within which they mastered the social dynamics of small groups, which prepared them to master bigger challenges and larger groups later on.

And then we changed childhood.

The changes started slowly in the late 1970s and ’80s, before the arrival of the internet, as many parents in the U.S. grew fearful that their children would be harmed or abducted if left unsupervised. Such crimes have always been extremely rare, but they loomed larger in parents’ minds thanks in part to rising levels of street crime combined with the arrival of cable TV, which enabled round-the-clock coverage of missing-children cases. A general decline in social capital––the degree to which people knew and trusted their neighbors and institutions––exacerbated parental fears. Meanwhile, rising competition for college admissions encouraged more intensive forms of parenting. In the 1990s, American parents began pulling their children indoors or insisting that afternoons be spent in adult-run enrichment activities. Free play, independent exploration, and teen-hangout time declined.

In recent decades, seeing unchaperoned children outdoors has become so novel that when one is spotted in the wild, some adults feel it is their duty to call the police. In 2015, the Pew Research Center found that parents, on average, believed that children should be at least 10 years old to play unsupervised in front of their house, and that kids should be 14 before being allowed to go unsupervised to a public park. Most of these same parents had enjoyed joyous and unsupervised outdoor play by the age of 7 or 8.

2. The Virtual World Arrives in Two Waves

The internet, which now dominates the lives of young people, arrived in two waves of linked technologies. The first one did little harm to Millennials. The second one swallowed Gen Z whole.

The first wave came ashore in the 1990s with the arrival of dial-up internet access, which made personal computers good for something beyond word processing and basic games. By 2003, 55 percent of American households had a computer with (slow) internet access. Rates of adolescent depression, loneliness, and other measures of poor mental health did not rise in this first wave. If anything, they went down a bit. Millennial teens (born 1981 through 1995), who were the first to go through puberty with access to the internet, were psychologically healthier and happier, on average, than their older siblings or parents in Generation X (born 1965 through 1980).

The second wave began to rise in the 2000s, though its full force didn’t hit until the early 2010s. It began rather innocently with the introduction of social-media platforms that helped people connect with their friends. Posting and sharing content became much easier with sites such as Friendster (launched in 2003), Myspace (2003), and Facebook (2004).

Teens embraced social media soon after it came out, but the time they could spend on these sites was limited in those early years because the sites could only be accessed from a computer, often the family computer in the living room. Young people couldn’t access social media (and the rest of the internet) from the school bus, during class time, or while hanging out with friends outdoors. Many teens in the early-to-mid-2000s had cellphones, but these were basic phones (many of them flip phones) that had no internet access. Typing on them was difficult––they had only number keys. Basic phones were tools that helped Millennials meet up with one another in person or talk with each other one-on-one. I have seen no evidence to suggest that basic cellphones harmed the mental health of Millennials.

It was not until the introduction of the iPhone (2007), the App Store (2008), and high-speed internet (which reached 50 percent of American homes in 2007)—and the corresponding pivot to mobile made by many providers of social media, video games, and porn—that it became possible for adolescents to spend nearly every waking moment online. The extraordinary synergy among these innovations was what powered the second technological wave. In 2011, only 23 percent of teens had a smartphone. By 2015, that number had risen to 73 percent, and a quarter of teens said they were online “almost constantly.” Their younger siblings in elementary school didn’t usually have their own smartphones, but after its release in 2010, the iPad quickly became a staple of young children’s daily lives. It was in this brief period, from 2010 to 2015, that childhood in America (and many other countries) was rewired into a form that was more sedentary, solitary, virtual, and incompatible with healthy human development.

3. Techno-optimism and the Birth of the Phone-Based Childhood

The phone-based childhood created by that second wave—including not just smartphones themselves, but all manner of internet-connected devices, such as tablets, laptops, video-game consoles, and smartwatches—arrived near the end of a period of enormous optimism about digital technology. The internet came into our lives in the mid-1990s, soon after the fall of the Soviet Union. By the end of that decade, it was widely thought that the web would be an ally of democracy and a slayer of tyrants. When people are connected to each other, and to all the information in the world, how could any dictator keep them down?

In the 2000s, Silicon Valley and its world-changing inventions were a source of pride and excitement in America. Smart and ambitious young people around the world wanted to move to the West Coast to be part of the digital revolution. Tech-company founders such as Steve Jobs and Sergey Brin were lauded as gods, or at least as modern Prometheans, bringing humans godlike powers. The Arab Spring bloomed in 2011 with the help of decentralized social platforms, including Twitter and Facebook. When pundits and entrepreneurs talked about the power of social media to transform society, it didn’t sound like a dark prophecy.

You have to put yourself back in this heady time to understand why adults acquiesced so readily to the rapid transformation of childhood. Many parents had concerns, even then, about what their children were doing online, especially because of the internet’s ability to put children in contact with strangers. But there was also a lot of excitement about the upsides of this new digital world. If computers and the internet were the vanguards of progress, and if young people––widely referred to as “digital natives”––were going to live their lives entwined with these technologies, then why not give them a head start? I remember how exciting it was to see my 2-year-old son master the touch-and-swipe interface of my first iPhone in 2008. I thought I could see his neurons being woven together faster as a result of the stimulation it brought to his brain, compared to the passivity of watching television or the slowness of building a block tower. I thought I could see his future job prospects improving.

Touchscreen devices were also a godsend for harried parents. Many of us discovered that we could have peace at a restaurant, on a long car trip, or at home while making dinner or replying to emails if we just gave our children what they most wanted: our smartphones and tablets. We saw that everyone else was doing it and figured it must be okay.

It was the same for older children, desperate to join their friends on social-media platforms, where the minimum age to open an account was set by law to 13, even though no research had been done to establish the safety of these products for minors. Because the platforms did nothing (and still do nothing) to verify the stated age of new-account applicants, any 10-year-old could open multiple accounts without parental permission or knowledge, and many did. Facebook and later Instagram became places where many sixth and seventh graders were hanging out and socializing. If parents did find out about these accounts, it was too late. Nobody wanted their child to be isolated and alone, so parents rarely forced their children to shut down their accounts.

We had no idea what we were doing.

4. The High Cost of a Phone-Based Childhood

In Walden, his 1854 reflection on simple living, Henry David Thoreau wrote, “The cost of a thing is the amount of … life which is required to be exchanged for it, immediately or in the long run.” It’s an elegant formulation of what economists would later call the opportunity cost of any choice—all of the things you can no longer do with your money and time once you’ve committed them to something else. So it’s important that we grasp just how much of a young person’s day is now taken up by their devices.

The numbers are hard to believe. The most recent Gallup data show that American teens spend about five hours a day just on social-media platforms (including watching videos on TikTok and YouTube). Add in all the other phone- and screen-based activities, and the number rises to somewhere between seven and nine hours a day, on average. The numbers are even higher in single-parent and low-income families, and among Black, Hispanic, and Native American families.

In Thoreau’s terms, how much of life is exchanged for all this screen time? Arguably, most of it. Everything else in an adolescent’s day must get squeezed down or eliminated entirely to make room for the vast amount of content that is consumed, and for the hundreds of “friends,” “followers,” and other network connections that must be serviced with texts, posts, comments, likes, snaps, and direct messages. I recently surveyed my students at NYU, and most of them reported that the very first thing they do when they open their eyes in the morning is check their texts, direct messages, and social-media feeds. It’s also the last thing they do before they close their eyes at night. And it’s a lot of what they do in between.

The amount of time that adolescents spend sleeping declined in the early 2010s, and many studies tie sleep loss directly to the use of devices around bedtime, particularly when they’re used to scroll through social media. Exercise declined, too, which is unfortunate because exercise, like sleep, improves both mental and physical health. Book reading has been declining for decades, pushed aside by digital alternatives, but the decline, like so much else, sped up in the early 2010s. With passive entertainment always available, adolescent minds likely wander less than they used to; contemplation and imagination might be placed on the list of things winnowed down or crowded out.

But perhaps the most devastating cost of the new phone-based childhood was the collapse of time spent interacting with other people face-to-face. A study of how Americans spend their time found that, before 2010, young people (ages 15 to 24) reported spending far more time with their friends (about two hours a day, on average, not counting time together at school) than did older people (who spent just 30 to 60 minutes with friends). Time with friends began decreasing for young people in the 2000s, but the drop accelerated in the 2010s, while it barely changed for older people. By 2019, young people’s time with friends had dropped to just 67 minutes a day. It turns out that Gen Z had been socially distancing for many years and had mostly completed the project by the time COVID-19 struck.

You might question the importance of this decline. After all, isn’t much of this online time spent interacting with friends through texting, social media, and multiplayer video games? Isn’t that just as good?

Some of it surely is, and virtual interactions offer unique benefits too, especially for young people who are geographically or socially isolated. But in general, the virtual world lacks many of the features that make human interactions in the real world nutritious, as we might say, for physical, social, and emotional development. In particular, real-world relationships and social interactions are characterized by four features—typical for hundreds of thousands of years—that online interactions either distort or erase.

First, real-world interactions are embodied, meaning that we use our hands and facial expressions to communicate, and we learn to respond to the body language of others. Virtual interactions, in contrast, mostly rely on language alone. No matter how many emojis are offered as compensation, the elimination of communication channels for which we have eons of evolutionary programming is likely to produce adults who are less comfortable and less skilled at interacting in person.

Second, real-world interactions are synchronous; they happen at the same time. As a result, we learn subtle cues about timing and conversational turn taking. Synchronous interactions make us feel closer to the other person because that’s what getting “in sync” does. Texts, posts, and many other virtual interactions lack synchrony. There is less real laughter, more room for misinterpretation, and more stress after a comment that gets no immediate response.

Third, real-world interactions primarily involve one‐to‐one communication, or sometimes one-to-several. But many virtual communications are broadcast to a potentially huge audience. Online, each person can engage in dozens of asynchronous interactions in parallel, which interferes with the depth achieved in all of them. The sender’s motivations are different, too: With a large audience, one’s reputation is always on the line; an error or poor performance can damage social standing with large numbers of peers. These communications thus tend to be more performative and anxiety-inducing than one-to-one conversations.

Finally, real-world interactions usually take place within communities that have a high bar for entry and exit, so people are strongly motivated to invest in relationships and repair rifts when they happen. But in many virtual networks, people can easily block others or quit when they are displeased. Relationships within such networks are usually more disposable.

These unsatisfying and anxiety-producing features of life online should be recognizable to most adults. Online interactions can bring out antisocial behavior that people would never display in their offline communities. But if life online takes a toll on adults, just imagine what it does to adolescents in the early years of puberty, when their “experience expectant” brains are rewiring based on feedback from their social interactions.

Kids going through puberty online are likely to experience far more social comparison, self-consciousness, public shaming, and chronic anxiety than adolescents in previous generations, which could potentially set developing brains into a habitual state of defensiveness. The brain contains systems that are specialized for approach (when opportunities beckon) and withdrawal (when threats appear or seem likely). People can be in what we might call “discover mode” or “defend mode” at any moment, but generally not both. The two systems together form a mechanism for quickly adapting to changing conditions, like a thermostat that can activate either a heating system or a cooling system as the temperature fluctuates. Some people’s internal thermostats are generally set to discover mode, and they flip into defend mode only when clear threats arise. These people tend to see the world as full of opportunities. They are happier and less anxious. Other people’s internal thermostats are generally set to defend mode, and they flip into discover mode only when they feel unusually safe. They tend to see the world as full of threats and are more prone to anxiety and depressive disorders.

A simple way to understand the differences between Gen Z and previous generations is that people born in and after 1996 have internal thermostats that were shifted toward defend mode. This is why life on college campuses changed so suddenly when Gen Z arrived, beginning around 2014. Students began requesting “safe spaces” and trigger warnings. They were highly sensitive to “microaggressions” and sometimes claimed that words were “violence.” These trends mystified those of us in older generations at the time, but in hindsight, it all makes sense. Gen Z students found words, ideas, and ambiguous social encounters more threatening than had previous generations of students because we had fundamentally altered their psychological development.

5. So Many Harms

The debate around adolescents’ use of smartphones and social media typically revolves around mental health, and understandably so. But the harms that have resulted from transforming childhood so suddenly and heedlessly go far beyondmental health. I’ve touched on some of them—social awkwardness, reduced self-confidence, and a more sedentary childhood. Here are three additional harms.

Fragmented Attention, Disrupted Learning

Staying on task while sitting at a computer is hard enough for an adult with a fully developed prefrontal cortex. It is far more difficult for adolescents in front of their laptop trying to do homework. They are probably less intrinsically motivated to stay on task. They’re certainly less able, given their undeveloped prefrontal cortex, and hence it’s easy for any company with an app to lure them away with an offer of social validation or entertainment. Their phones are pinging constantly—one study found that the typical adolescent now gets 237 notifications a day, roughly 15 every waking hour. Sustained attention is essential for doing almost anything big, creative, or valuable, yet young people find their attention chopped up into little bits by notifications offering the possibility of high-pleasure, low-effort digital experiences.

It even happens in the classroom. Studies confirm that when students have access to their phones during class time, they use them, especially for texting and checking social media, and their grades and learning suffer. This might explain why benchmark test scores began to decline in the U.S. and around the world in the early 2010s—well before the pandemic hit.

Addiction and Social Withdrawal

The neural basis of behavioral addiction to social media or video games is not exactly the same as chemical addiction to cocaine or opioids. Nonetheless, they all involve abnormally heavy and sustained activation of dopamine neurons and reward pathways. Over time, the brain adapts to these high levels of dopamine; when the child is not engaged in digital activity, their brain doesn’t have enough dopamine, and the child experiences withdrawal symptoms. These generally include anxiety, insomnia, and intense irritability. Kids with these kinds of behavioral addictions often become surly and aggressive, and withdraw from their families into their bedrooms and devices.

Social-media and gaming platforms were designed to hook users. How successful are they? How many kids suffer from digital addictions?

The main addiction risks for boys seem to be video games and porn. “Internet gaming disorder,” which was added to the main diagnosis manual of psychiatry in 2013 as a condition for further study, describes “significant impairment or distress” in several aspects of life, along with many hallmarks of addiction, including an inability to reduce usage despite attempts to do so. Estimates for the prevalence of IGD range from 7 to 15 percent among adolescent boys and young men. As for porn, a nationally representative survey of American adults published in 2019 found that 7 percent of American men agreed or strongly agreed with the statement “I am addicted to pornography”—and the rates were higher for the youngest men.

Girls have much lower rates of addiction to video games and porn, but they use social media more intensely than boys do. A study of teens in 29 nations found that between 5 and 15 percent of adolescents engage in what is called “problematic social media use,” which includes symptoms such as preoccupation, withdrawal symptoms, neglect of other areas of life, and lying to parents and friends about time spent on social media. That study did not break down results by gender, but many others have found that rates of “problematic use” are higher for girls.

I don’t want to overstate the risks: Most teens do not become addicted to their phones and video games. But across multiple studies and across genders, rates of problematic use come out in the ballpark of 5 to 15 percent. Is there any other consumer product that parents would let their children use relatively freely if they knew that something like one in 10 kids would end up with a pattern of habitual and compulsive use that disrupted various domains of life and looked a lot like an addiction?

The Decay of Wisdom and the Loss of Meaning 

During that crucial sensitive period for cultural learning, from roughly ages 9 through 15, we should be especially thoughtful about who is socializing our children for adulthood. Instead, that’s when most kids get their first smartphone and sign themselves up (with or without parental permission) to consume rivers of content from random strangers. Much of that content is produced by other adolescents, in blocks of a few minutes or a few seconds.

This rerouting of enculturating content has created a generation that is largely cut off from older generations and, to some extent, from the accumulated wisdom of humankind, including knowledge about how to live a flourishing life. Adolescents spend less time steeped in their local or national culture. They are coming of age in a confusing, placeless, ahistorical maelstrom of 30-second stories curated by algorithms designed to mesmerize them. Without solid knowledge of the past and the filtering of good ideas from bad––a process that plays out over many generations––young people will be more prone to believe whatever terrible ideas become popular around them, which might explain why videos showing young people reacting positively to Osama bin Laden’s thoughts about America were trending on TikTok last fall.

All this is made worse by the fact that so much of digital public life is an unending supply of micro dramas about somebody somewhere in our country of 340 million people who did something that can fuel an outrage cycle, only to be pushed aside by the next. It doesn’t add up to anything and leaves behind only a distorted sense of human nature and affairs.

When our public life becomes fragmented, ephemeral, and incomprehensible, it is a recipe for anomie, or normlessness. The great French sociologist Émile Durkheim showed long ago that a society that fails to bind its people together with some shared sense of sacredness and common respect for rules and norms is not a society of great individual freedom; it is, rather, a place where disoriented individuals have difficulty setting goals and exerting themselves to achieve them. Durkheim argued that anomie was a major driver of suicide rates in European countries. Modern scholars continue to draw on his work to understand suicide rates today. 

Durkheim’s observations are crucial for understanding what happened in the early 2010s. A long-running survey of American teens found that, from 1990 to 2010, high-school seniors became slightly less likely to agree with statements such as “Life often feels meaningless.” But as soon as they adopted a phone-based life and many began to live in the whirlpool of social media, where no stability can be found, every measure of despair increased. From 2010 to 2019, the number who agreed that their lives felt “meaningless” increased by about 70 percent, to more than one in five.

6. Young People Don’t Like Their Phone-Based Lives

How can I be confident that the epidemic of adolescent mental illness was kicked off by the arrival of the phone-based childhood? Skeptics point to other events as possible culprits, including the 2008 global financial crisis, global warming, the 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting and the subsequent active-shooter drills, rising academic pressures, and the opioid epidemic. But while these events might have been contributing factors in some countries, none can explain both the timing and international scope of the disaster.

An additional source of evidence comes from Gen Z itself. With all the talk of regulating social media, raising age limits, and getting phones out of schools, you might expect to find many members of Gen Z writing and speaking out in opposition. I’ve looked for such arguments and found hardly any. In contrast, many young adults tell stories of devastation.

Freya India, a 24-year-old British essayist who writes about girls, explains how social-media sites carry girls off to unhealthy places: “It seems like your child is simply watching some makeup tutorials, following some mental health influencers, or experimenting with their identity. But let me tell you: they are on a conveyor belt to someplace bad. Whatever insecurity or vulnerability they are struggling with, they will be pushed further and further into it.” She continues:

Gen Z were the guinea pigs in this uncontrolled global social experiment. We were the first to have our vulnerabilities and insecurities fed into a machine that magnified and refracted them back at us, all the time, before we had any sense of who we were. We didn’t just grow up with algorithms. They raised us. They rearranged our faces. Shaped our identities. Convinced us we were sick.

Rikki Schlott, a 23-year-old American journalist and co-author of The Canceling of the American Mind, writes,

"The day-to-day life of a typical teen or tween today would be unrecognizable to someone who came of age before the smartphone arrived. Zoomers are spending an average of 9 hours daily in this screen-time doom loop—desperate to forget the gaping holes they’re bleeding out of, even if just for … 9 hours a day. Uncomfortable silence could be time to ponder why they’re so miserable in the first place. Drowning it out with algorithmic white noise is far easier."

A 27-year-old man who spent his adolescent years addicted (his word) to video games and pornography sent me this reflection on what that did to him:

I missed out on a lot of stuff in life—a lot of socialization. I feel the effects now: meeting new people, talking to people. I feel that my interactions are not as smooth and fluid as I want. My knowledge of the world (geography, politics, etc.) is lacking. I didn’t spend time having conversations or learning about sports. I often feel like a hollow operating system.

Or consider what Facebook found in a research project involving focus groups of young people, revealed in 2021 by the whistleblower Frances Haugen: “Teens blame Instagram for increases in the rates of anxiety and depression among teens,” an internal document said. “This reaction was unprompted and consistent across all groups.”

7. Collective-Action Problems

Social-media companies such as Meta, TikTok, and Snap are often compared to tobacco companies, but that’s not really fair to the tobacco industry. It’s true that companies in both industries marketed harmful products to children and tweaked their products for maximum customer retention (that is, addiction), but there’s a big difference: Teens could and did choose, in large numbers, not to smoke. Even at the peak of teen cigarette use, in 1997, nearly two-thirds of high-school students did not smoke.

Social media, in contrast, applies a lot more pressure on nonusers, at a much younger age and in a more insidious way. Once a few students in any middle school lie about their age and open accounts at age 11 or 12, they start posting photos and comments about themselves and other students. Drama ensues. The pressure on everyone else to join becomes intense. Even a girl who knows, consciously, that Instagram can foster beauty obsession, anxiety, and eating disorders might sooner take those risks than accept the seeming certainty of being out of the loop, clueless, and excluded. And indeed, if she resists while most of her classmates do not, she might, in fact, be marginalized, which puts her at risk for anxiety and depression, though via a different pathway than the one taken by those who use social media heavily. In this way, social media accomplishes a remarkable feat: It even harms adolescents who do not use it.

A recent study led by the University of Chicago economist Leonardo Bursztyn captured the dynamics of the social-media trap precisely. The researchers recruited more than 1,000 college students and asked them how much they’d need to be paid to deactivate their accounts on either Instagram or TikTok for four weeks. That’s a standard economist’s question to try to compute the net value of a product to society. On average, students said they’d need to be paid roughly $50 ($59 for TikTok, $47 for Instagram) to deactivate whichever platform they were asked about. Then the experimenters told the students that they were going to try to get most of the others in their school to deactivate that same platform, offering to pay them to do so as well, and asked, Now how much would you have to be paid to deactivate, if most others did so? The answer, on average, was less than zero. In each case, most students were willing to pay to have that happen.

Social media is all about network effects. Most students are only on it because everyone else is too. Most of them would prefer that nobody be on these platforms. Later in the study, students were asked directly, “Would you prefer to live in a world without Instagram [or TikTok]?” A majority of students said yes––58 percent for each app.

This is the textbook definition of what social scientists call a collective-action problem. It’s what happens when a group would be better off if everyone in the group took a particular action, but each actor is deterred from acting, because unless the others do the same, the personal cost outweighs the benefit. Fishermen considering limiting their catch to avoid wiping out the local fish population are caught in this same kind of trap. If no one else does it too, they just lose profit.

Cigarettes trapped individual smokers with a biological addiction. Social media has trapped an entire generation in a collective-action problem. Early app developers deliberately and knowingly exploited the psychological weaknesses and insecurities of young people to pressure them to consume a product that, upon reflection, many wish they could use less, or not at all.

8. Four Norms to Break Four Traps

Young people and their parents are stuck in at least four collective-action traps. Each is hard to escape for an individual family, but escape becomes much easier if families, schools, and communities coordinate and act together. Here are four norms that would roll back the phone-based childhood. I believe that any community that adopts all four will see substantial improvements in youth mental health within two years.

No smartphones before high school  

The trap here is that each child thinks they need a smartphone because “everyone else” has one, and many parents give in because they don’t want their child to feel excluded. But if no one else had a smartphone—or even if, say, only half of the child’s sixth-grade class had one—parents would feel more comfortable providing a basic flip phone (or no phone at all). Delaying round-the-clock internet access until ninth grade (around age 14) as a national or community norm would help to protect adolescents during the very vulnerable first few years of puberty. According to a 2022 British study, these are the years when social-media use is most correlated with poor mental health. Family policies about tablets, laptops, and video-game consoles should be aligned with smartphone restrictions to prevent overuse of other screen activities.

No social media before 16

The trap here, as with smartphones, is that each adolescent feels a strong need to open accounts on TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, and other platforms primarily because that’s where most of their peers are posting and gossiping. But if the majority of adolescents were not on these accounts until they were 16, families and adolescents could more easily resist the pressure to sign up. The delay would not mean that kids younger than 16 could never watch videos on TikTok or YouTube—only that they could not open accounts, give away their data, post their own content, and let algorithms get to know them and their preferences.

Phone‐free schools 

Most schools claim that they ban phones, but this usually just means that students aren’t supposed to take their phone out of their pocket during class. Research shows that most students do use their phones during class time. They also use them during lunchtime, free periods, and breaks between classes––times when students could and should be interacting with their classmates face-to-face. The only way to get students’ minds off their phones during the school day is to require all students to put their phones (and other devices that can send or receive texts) into a phone locker or locked pouch at the start of the day. Schools that have gone phone-free always seem to report that it has improved the culture, making students more attentive in class and more interactive with one another. Published studies back them up.

More independence, free play, and responsibility in the real world

Many parents are afraid to give their children the level of independence and responsibility they themselves enjoyed when they were young, even though rates of homicide, drunk driving, and other physical threats to children are way down in recent decades. Part of the fear comes from the fact that parents look at each other to determine what is normal and therefore safe, and they see few examples of families acting as if a 9-year-old can be trusted to walk to a store without a chaperone. But if many parents started sending their children out to play or run errands, then the norms of what is safe and accepted would change quickly. So would ideas about what constitutes “good parenting.” And if more parents trusted their children with more responsibility––for example, by asking their kids to do more to help out, or to care for others––then the pervasive sense of uselessness now found in surveys of high-school students might begin to dissipate.

It would be a mistake to overlook this fourth norm. If parents don’t replace screen time with real-world experiences involving friends and independent activity, then banning devices will feel like deprivation, not the opening up of a world of opportunities.

The main reason why the phone-based childhood is so harmful is because it pushes aside everything else. Smartphones are experience blockers. Our ultimate goal should not be to remove screens entirely, nor should it be to return childhood to exactly the way it was in 1960. Rather, it should be to create a version of childhood and adolescence that keeps young people anchored in the real world while flourishing in the digital age.

9. What Are We Waiting For?

An essential function of government is to solve collective-action problems. Congress could solve or help solve the ones I’ve highlighted—for instance, by raising the age of “internet adulthood” to 16 and requiring tech companies to keep underage children off their sites.

In recent decades, however, Congress has not been good at addressing public concerns when the solutions would displease a powerful and deep-pocketed industry. Governors and state legislators have been much more effective, and their successes might let us evaluate how well various reforms work. But the bottom line is that to change norms, we’re going to need to do most of the work ourselves, in neighborhood groups, schools, and other communities.

There are now hundreds of organizations––most of them started by mothers who saw what smartphones had done to their children––that are working to roll back the phone-based childhood or promote a more independent, real-world childhood. (I have assembled a list of many of them.) One that I co-founded, at LetGrow.org, suggests a variety of simple programs for parents or schools, such as play club (schools keep the playground open at least one day a week before or after school, and kids sign up for phone-free, mixed-age, unstructured play as a regular weekly activity) and the Let Grow Experience (a series of homework assignments in which students––with their parents’ consent––choose something to do on their own that they’ve never done before, such as walk the dog, climb a tree, walk to a store, or cook dinner).

Parents are fed up with what childhood has become. Many are tired of having daily arguments about technologies that were designed to grab hold of their children’s attention and not let go. But the phone-based childhood is not inevitable.

The four norms I have proposed cost almost nothing to implement, they cause no clear harm to anyone, and while they could be supported by new legislation, they can be instilled even without it. We can begin implementing all of them right away, this year, especially in communities with good cooperation between schools and parents. A single memo from a principal asking parents to delay smartphones and social media, in support of the school’s effort to improve mental health by going phone free, would catalyze collective action and reset the community’s norms.

We didn’t know what we were doing in the early 2010s. Now we do. It’s time to end the phone-based childhood.

This article is adapted from Jonathan Haidt’s forthcoming book, The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood Is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness.

#phones are bad #childhood

[petalruesimblr]

Hello everyone! This project was meant to be for my own personal use but I decided to share with the community. I'm not sure if anyone would find it useful but I mainly created this as a stepping stone to quickly advance in either the Inventor, Painter or Sculptor careers as well as complete the Descendant of da Vinci lifetime wish.

This is for Sims who wants to pursue their passion for the arts (sculpting, inventing and painting) but does not have enough funds to kickstart all three at the same time.

With this part-time, they get shorter working hours and a weekly stipend of at least §360‬/week, which can help with the bills at the start and improve the quality of their work as they increase their skills to sell their creations at a higher price.

If you are interested, click on ’Keep Reading’ below for more information and pictures of the YCA Program Educator Part-Time Career.

YCA Program Educator (Young Creative Artisans Program)

Download Link: Sim File Share |

🔔Updated on 05/03/2024 - added code to remove ’Retire’ option

Job Offer:

Join the Young Creative Artisans Program (YCA Program) and inspire the next generation of artistic minds! Whether you're an expert painter, a skilled sculptor, an inventive genius or just passionate about the arts, we welcome all applicants to be a part of our dynamic team. From fresh graduates to retired Sims, everyone has something valuable to contribute. Apply now and let your passion for creativity shine bright in the halls of our afterschool club!

Career Details:

Career Type: Part-Time Available for: Young Adults, Adults and Elders Available Languages: English Levels: 3 Rabbit Hole: School Work Days: M, T, W, F Work Hours: 1 - 4 PM Does it have Carpool? Yes Does it have Uniforms? Yes (same uniforms used for the Political career; Business casual, refer to pictures above) Version: 1.42 Packs Needed: The Sims 3, Ambitions (Sculpting and Inventing Skill) File Type: Package

Career Features:

The YCA Program was initially planned as a workshop hosted by the school and scheduled for weekends but it was changed to resemble more of an afterschool club. The active Sim will teach students and this change allows you to earn more during weekdays compared to the previous setup.

You don't need the Generations expansion pack; I have only set the time to coincide with the Afterschool Club, which usually starts at 2-4 PM but the Ambitions expansion pack is required for this to work.

I have created only three levels: Lecturer, Instructor and Coordinator, and also nine custom tones that focus on increasing all three skills in each level. All descriptions for the levels, tones and metrics as well as skills required, salary, uniforms and other details are provided on the pictures above.

Please note that the Gives Lecture tone in this career is different from the Education career and I already tried using the same tone EA used but I never received any bonus of §200/lecture when I tested it so it may not work for part-times.

📣This career was made with patch 1.42 and it should work for higher patches as long as you have the latest version of NRAAS Careers Mod. Please be advised that you will need NRAAS Careers Mod for this career to show up in the game, click here.

I’m not fluent in any other languages to translate so if anyone is interested in translating this career, please don’t hesitate to send me a message here or comment on this post and will let you know the details.

I have tested this career in my game, so far it is working and all scripts are showing up. All feedback is very welcome to help me learn and improve my skills so please let me know if you experience any problems on your end and I’ll do my best to sort it as soon as possible.

#petalruesimblr #custom career #the sims 3 #the sims 3 part time #ts3 #sims 3 #ts3 simblr #ts3 simmer #sims 3 download #sims 3 screenshots #ts3 download #ts3 community #ts3 screenshots

[homunculus-argument]

Intelligence is a nebulous concept that can't be perfectly and exactly measured in numbers or other metrics, but there are things people generally agree as signs of at least some intellect. An ability to learn and employ new knowledge, adapting to new information, being able to notice patterns and correlations between seemingly unrelated things. Being able to adjust one's methods as needed, ability to make deductions and educated guesses based on incomplete data, being able to improvise if necessary.

And look. Don't get me wrong here. But I learned to read on my own when I was five, I literally have no memories of ever not knowing how to read. English is not my first language, I cannot officially call myself bilingual because neither of my parents was a native english speaker. I first picked it up by hearing it on TV. I could already read and speak english when I went into school, and for the rest of it I managed to get decent enough grades purely by improvising that nobody noticed that I literally never did my homework ever before I was 11. Nobody noticed that I have an attention deficit disorder before I was 27.

I learned to play the clarinet, the piano at some point, and though I lost my voice, I used to sing. If you gave me an instrument and played me a tune, I could repeat it playing by the ear. I could even write it down, note by note, if I heard it a few times and remembered it. If you gave me notes of a song I've never heard, I could whistle it from the notes.

I learned enough swedish in school to read the back of a shampoo bottle, but still enough to compare and contrast the nuance differences in the finnish, swedish and english translations of the same notifications at bus stops. I can summarise what is the unifying element between a long list of words with the same prefix or suffix, and name their mutual definition. I remember enough of the french I learned in school and spanish I learned on my own to roughly parse together portugese.

My parents met in university, but while I never made it to college, I've still made myself a career in something I never went to school for. I have no higher education in arts past high school art classes. I am a full-time professional in something I taught myself, working with a script I also wrote myself without any guidance past brief googling.

That being said, I can't read an analog clock. I've learned how to do a lot of things in my life, but that's the one thing I can't fucking do. You can show me a clock face and I won't know what it means. If I can't look at my phone and there's nothing with a digital clock available, I've learned tricks on how to get people to tell me the time without admitting that I can't read it. Like asking someone if they think the clock on the wall is on time, prompting them to look at their own clock and tell me what their clock says. Pointedly looking at the clock and remarking to people that We Have Plenty Of Time, and assessing from their reactions whether that is true or if I was sarcastic. I never learned to read a clock face, but I've learned plenty of ways to get people to read it to me.

And every single time I tell people I can't read a clock face, they start trying to explain it to me. Like look. I'm 29. You do not know any method to explain it that I would never have encountered in the past 20 years. None of them sunk. I've tried until I cried and I still can't do it. I could learn to translate poetry from french, how to put together a car engine, or how to skin a llama, but that is the one thing I cannot do. I do not know what the positions of the arrows pointing at numbers mean, and you can't make me.

[petrolstationflowers]

Are feathered friends better than human coworkers? Why not try out an Ornithology career for your sims! Once more requested by @catrillion, we wanted to work on something that incorporated a specific form of laws protecting animals, and came up with this.

This job is available for YA - Elder, and you can join via the Arboretum. Please note you will need to either play this in Moonlight Falls or save the Arboretum lot and place it in another neighbourhood for this to show up in game!

You will need to level Fishing, Science, and the hidden skill WildlifeFriend. This latter one maxes out at level 6. You can change and track this using MasterController, and the metrics in the job panel will update as you progress it.

No opportunities, uniforms, or books, and the lower levels will not have a carpool so make sure to send your sims to work manually!

Please note if you want to use this, you must have Nraas Careers installed for it to show up!

There are three custom tones:

Read Journals (increase Science) Socialise the Birds (WildlifeFriend) Survey the Park (Fishing)

Meet/Hang With Coworker have also been changed to "Meet Birds," and "Chill With the Birds."

If anyone can translate for me, I'd be very grateful!

Level descriptions under the cut:

Enthusiast - 10 simoleans p/h, 10:00 - 16:00, M-F

Description: You’ve loved birds for as long as you can remember; the family budgie that sat on your finger, the class cockatoo that someone taught to swear. You spend most of your days working the checkout at EverFresh Supermarket staring out the window at the trees in the car park, where a flock of parakeets have their nest. Maybe it’s time to spread your wings and look for a more interesting job?

Amateur Ornithologist - 15 sp/h, 10:00 - 16:00, M-F

Description: You’ve bid farewell to the checkout and instead set up camp in the local park, photographing birds for your local twitcher group on Sims Social. The pay is chickenfeed (unless you photograph Mothman himself) but your online friends might know where you might find something that pays more of the bills…

Park Volunteer - 20 sp/h, 09:00 - 17:00, W,T,F,S,U

Description: Now this is certainly better than the supermarket! The pay is still terrible but you get to spend your time outdoors at your local wildlife park – and most importantly, with your avian associates. Clean out their pens, guide lost tourists, and do a coffee run or three; you might make enough friends to get a little higher on the perch.

Conservation Education Guide - 40 sp/h, 09:00 - 18:00, W,T,F,S,U

Description: Despite their awkward reputation, ornithologists are a chatty lot when it comes to their favourite subject. The general public don’t tend to know a lot about birds, muddling up their crows and their ravens, and think that leaving out generic birdseed is just as good as black sunflower seeds, raisins, and tasty mealworms. Give them a lecture to remember – oh, and try to shill the organic bird food in the gift shop.

Intern - 45 sp/h, 09:00 - 18:00, W,T,F,S,U

Description: An actual job title and pay that doesn’t leave you eating ramen all week! Granted, it’s a lot of book learning along with the hands-on experience, with long hours studying and memorising complicated Latin names, but keep at it. Onwards and upwards!

Park Ranger - 55 sp/h, 05:00 - 14:00, W,T,F,S,U

Description: You’ve finally got your hat but it looks like you’ll be wearing a lot of them; being a park ranger means dealing with the public too. As well as showcasing the beauty of the natural world, you’ll be delivering activities to guests and raising awareness of just how important it is to keep their natural habitats safe. Hope visitors like trail walks and nest building competitions!

Bird Keeper - 60 sp/h, 05:00 - 14:00, W,T,F,S,U

Description: Finally, a flock of your own! You’re in charge of the bird habitat at the park, taking part in the captive breeding program and making sure the conservation effort is going according to plan. You’ll be hands on developing research projects and coming up with new enrichment ideas for your charges – a pity the higher ups said no to a birdie disco ball in the main office.

Conservation Delivery Manager - 75 sp/h, 09:00 - 17:00, M-F

Description: Another flock, but this time the underlings are a team of people rather than baby birds. You’re responsible for a team of wardens across the local area, sending them nationwide to ensure they deliver conservation projects funded by City Hall. There’s a lot of business plans and project management, but someone needs to make sure resources are allocated properly (and birds can’t hold a pen).

Protected Sites Advisor - 90 sp/h, 09:00 - 17:00, M,T,F

Description: You’re deep in the science side of ornithology now; working with local farmers to make sure their food production methods are environmentally friendly, reducing the impact of climate change, and ensuring that important ecosystems thrive and flourish. You’ll also get the chance to pitch sites for new developments and green spaces – so if you want a Birdie Bistro & Bar serving Band Slams & Baked Angel Food Cake, now’s your chance!

Ecologist - 150 sp/h, 09:00 - 17:00, M,W F

Description: You’re out of the suburbs and into the woods – time to be a consultant! You’ll be travelling all over SimNation to various sites and places that have the potential to become the latest havens for your bird friends, writing up surveys and reports to convince the mayor of Barnacle Bay perhaps they can build their luxury flats somewhere else and not disturb the local condor population. Ecological assessment work might not sound the most interesting on paper, but it’s hugely important to make sure you’re protecting birds for generations to come – children and eggs alike.

With thanks: To MissyHissy's career building tutorial!

#sims 3 #the sims 3 #ts3 #ts3cc #the sims 3 cc #the sims 3 custom career #sims 3 custom career #the sims 3 custom job #ts3 custom career #ts3 custom job #sims 3 custom job #ornithology #ornithologist

[reasonandempathy]

A brief summary of how Education fails Boys

I saw people sincerely questioning and minimizing the current struggles boys face in education.

So, I wanted to collect some relevant information, with sources. All of these are from the past couple of years, from 2021 onward.

Girls have more difficulty accessing education and are more likely than boys to be out of school at primary level. However, boys are at greater risk of repeating grades, failing to progress and complete their education, and not learning while in school. Globally, 128 million boys are out of school. That’s more than half of the global out-of-school youth population and more than the 122 million girls who are also out of school. The Leave no child behind: Global report on boys’ disengagement from education shows that boys are increasingly left behind in education. They are at greater risk of repeating grades, failing to progress and complete their education, and not learning while in school. While previously boys’ disengagement and dropout were concerns mainly in high-income countries, several low- and middle-income countries have seen a reversal in gender gaps, with boys now lagging behind girls in enrolment, completion and learning outcomes. Boys are more likely than girls to repeat primary grades in 130 countries, and more likely to not have an upper secondary education in 73 countries. At tertiary level, globally only 88 men are enrolled for every 100 women. 

In 1970, women only made up 42 percent of the college population. Today, the roles have essentially reversed. The U.S. Department of Education estimates men to make up 43 percent of enrolled individuals in college. And this crisis impacts minority populations even more: only 36 percent of Black and 40 percent of Hispanic bachelor degree recipients are male. 

This is not an issue of colleges neglecting to admit men at an equal rate. Rather, colleges are receiving fewer applications from men than women. In 2010, only 44 percent of college applications were from men and that number has been steadily declining since. The decrease in male applicants is a sign that men are discouraged from pursuing higher education at a disproportionately high rate. 

These statistics point to a larger, systemic problem. The American education system perpetuates a series of gender norms that cause significant harm to children; boys are impacted by these expectations in a way that tends to be overlooked. The stereotype that boys have a higher propensity to misbehave has led to the over-punishment of boys in the classroom.        

Boys are facing key challenges in school. Inside the effort to support their success

An APA task force is spotlighting the specific issues and recommending evidence-based ways to enact swift change At school, by almost every metric, boys of all ages are doing worse than girls. They are disciplined and diagnosed with learning disabilities at higher rates, their grades and test scores are lower, and they’re less likely to graduate from high school (Owens, J., Sociology of Education, Vol. 89, No. 3, 2016; Voyer, D., & Voyer, S. D., Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 140, No. 4, 2014; “The unreported gender gap in high school graduation rates,” Brookings, 2021). These disparities persist at the university level, where female enrollment now outpaces male enrollment by 16% (Undergraduate Enrollment, National Center for Education Statistics, 2022). “The gap between boys and girls is apparent from very early on,” said developmental psychologist Ioakim Boutakidis, PhD, a professor of child and adolescent studies at California State University, Fullerton. “The disparities not only exist across the board—from kindergarten all the way to college—but they are growing over time.” For boys of color, that gap is even larger. They face suspension and expulsion from school at almost five times the rate of their White male classmates and are even less likely to finish high school or college (“Exploring Boys’ (Mis)Behavior,” Society for the Psychological Study of Men and Masculinities, 2022 [PDF, 261KB]). The implications of these disparities are huge. Doing poorly at school is strongly associated with major challenges later in life, including addiction, mental and physical health problems, and involvement with the criminal justice system—problems that also have ripple effects on society at large. In the United States, getting at least a college degree may be the one remaining, relatively stable ticket to a decent life, Boutakidis said.

In a recent New York Times essay, “It’s Become Increasingly Hard for Them to Feel Good About Themselves,” Thomas Edsall reviews a variety of research studies highlighting the plight of young men in the United States. As a front-line educator who has worked in boys’ schools for 30 years and served as the head of a boys’ school for the past 20 years, I’ve been an unhappy witness to this dilemma. Data supports the claim that boys are falling behind, and dramatically so. For example, there is a growing gender gap in high school graduation rates. According to the Brooking Institution, in 2018, about 88% of girls graduated on time, compared with 82% of boys. For college enrollment, the gender gap is even more striking, with men now trailing women in higher education at record levels. Last year, women made up 60% of college students while men accounted for only 40%, according to statistics from the National Student Clearinghouse. College enrollment in the United States has declined by 1.5 million students over the past five years, with men accounting for 71% of that drop.

#education #civics #childhood #politics #original content

[oliviax727]

Physics Friday #4: WTF is Dark Energy/Dark Matter? (Part 2)

Important Note: 50 people is a lot! (well after I blocked all the bots it was under that). And I never expected it to grow so quickly. But also I've noticed that a lot of people move in and out of following this blog. And I think one reason is because some people just want to see the physics/maths/astronomy instead of that plus random shitposts.

So what I'm going to do, is for all future posts like this, put this in a second blog to separate it from this one. And every time I post to that one I'll re-blog it here so that there's space for those who just like to see science-y stuff.

The second blog is @oliviabutsmart.

Preamble

Education level: High School (Y9/10)

Topic: Cosmology, Particle Physics (Astronomy)

This is the second part of three to the Dark Energy vs. Dark Matter post. In this part, I'm going to cover the possible ideas behind what dark matter is.

From the last part, what you need to know is that:

Dark matter and dark energy are completely different things, they're both dark because we can't see it

When we look at galaxies and orbits, what we expect is that most of the mass is concentrated in the centre (galactic bulge)

What we actually end up seeing is that there's a lot more stuff in the outer reaches of the galaxy, and we can't see any of it

This hidden matter, called 'dark matter' is what we have to use to correct our equations

Introduction: The chad MACHO vs. the virgin WIMP

Now unlike what this tile says, I don't actually think that MACHOs are better, it's just a play on- .... you know what I mean.

So, given what we know, we need to find a source for this hidden matter. The best place to start is to take a look at what we do know about dark matter:

It doesn't interact with the electromagnetic force (or if it does, it's very rare) - this allows it to appear as 'invisible'

It does have mass - as it affects the motion of stuff in galaxies

It needs to be plentiful outside of galaxies

It generally doesn't interact with other forms of matter

So now we have three different candidate groups for dark matter:

Weakly-interacting particles, including WIMPs (weakly interacting massive particles)

Really big objects that happen to not radiate a lot (also known as MACHOs)

Modified theories of gravity on the large scale

We also need to worry about the way in which this matter is produced. Which is where the cold-warm-hot metric is introduced. It has less to do with temperature and more with speed, particularly in the early universe (see free streaming length for more details - I'm oversimplifying).

What's important is what this "free streaming length" does. Larger lengths corresponds to the formation of larger structures first, then smaller internal structures later.

A cold dark matter model corresponds to dark matter with a small speed in the early universe. In the current day, we think that this is the best model - as it allows for the formation of galaxies first, then clusters of galaxies later - something that we have observed.

Hot dark matter is on the higher end of the speed spectrum and is more equivalent to the formation of big super-galactic sponges before the individual galaxies appear.

The Jocks of the Galaxies: MACHOs

A MACHO is also known as a MAssive Compact Halo Object

Massive - it's heavy Compact - "self-contained" in a way, it doesn't interfere with stars and it doesn't radiate much Halo - it exists in the galaxy's "Halo", a region surrounding the galaxy

Small or Primordial Black Holes

The immediate thought, right of the bat, is to think of a black hole. I mean, it's heavy, and it sucks up literally everything. You may object because of hawking radiation but it's very difficult to see that. So what we get is effectively no radiation.

The problem comes with the fact that it's heavy. Where are you going to get all of this stuff into one place? And won't you be able to detect the effects of these objects on star systems?

The early universe was small, really small, and there was a lot of stuff all compacted into this area. Is it not possible that portions of space end up "pinched" and turn into black holes? Well, maybe!

These black holes from the early universe continue on into the modern day to form the dark, unseeable 'mass' on galaxies.

The problems come with hawking radiation (and not because of the aforementioned radiating) ... black holes naturally emit radiation. A topic I may cover in more detail in a future post. But for now, because of this radiation, black holes actually shrink in size over time and eventually disappear.

This puts a lower bound on how small a primordial black hole can be. As any smaller black holes would've popped out of existence by now.

We could also opt for using smaller black holes that formed more recently, but that also comes with the initial issue of how do we make them?

Red Dwarfs, Brown Dwarfs, Black Dwarfs, or Rouge Planets

Often stars don't go out with a bang. In fact, it's more likely that they simply fizzle out. Black dwarfs are what results from this. And because of it they're just dark solid spheres of material.

Some stars are just small and dim. Red dwarfs are incredibly, INCREDIBLY common in our galaxy. It might be possible that we don't see them because they are so dim.

Some stars don't even form, they just don't ignite. These failed stars turn into brown dwarfs. They are unusually large gas giants with a faint glow.

Some planets get knocked out of their system - for any reason. These planets, without light, wander the galaxy alone.

These four objects, are large, dark, and too small to really interact with anything. And it might be the case that these rouge objects are more common than we think! Enough to account for the missing mass.

The issue is just how we are able to find them so far out of the reaches of the galaxy. Hypothetically, we could say that because of the lack of abundant gas in the outer reaches we end up with failed or dim stars.

Dark Stars

This is both the most interesting candidate for dark matter, and also the least documented. Primarily because we're talking about objects made of shit we haven't even seen.

Dark stars come in two varieties, ones made of dark energy, ones made of dark matter.

Dark energy stars are effectively legacy candidates of black holes, that the dark energy in the universe 'pinches' like in our primordial black hole scenario.

Dark matter stars require us having some sort of particle concentrated in a star-like object. It is of course, a strange idea, and it additionally requires the existence of small particles contributing to dark matter.

There's actually a good PBS Space Time video on this. And I recommend you watch it as I do not have the chops to understand this stuff: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUhOL38346Y

The Little Nerds: WIMPs, WISPs, and other particles

The easiest (and most likely) answer is that we're looking for some sort of small particle somewhere in the universe in big concentration.

The core idea is of the WIMP, a very large particle (large being relative i.e. as heavy as maybe an atom), which doesn't interact much.

We want larger particles because, well, then we can have less than them. It's easier to explain that then having particles that are incredibly numerous.

But there's also another type of candidate: WISPs. The S stands for slender. Maybe we don't actually require massive particles, maybe we can have a particle that doesn't interact with stuff. That in order to interact with it you have to be really close to it and so you just don't end up interacting with it.

Neutrinos

Neutrinos are the most obvious candidate. Because we already know they exist. And we know where they are produced.

Every time you undergo nuclear fusion, you actually produce neutrinos as a bi-product. When you have collapsing and exploding stars, this neutrino radiation becomes so numerous it could fry you.

The benefit of neutrinos is that they only interact via the weak force, which only operates when you're really close to the neutrino. This makes neutrinos a type of WISP.

So why do we not declare that this is dark matter? The issue is that neutrinos are hot dark matter. So if they made up dark matter it wouldn't fit with what we see when we look outside.

We could go for a new, yet similar particle, the sterile neutrino. However we end up falling into the same pattern of needing to find an undiscovered particle.

The Axion

Axions are a hypothetical WISP particle that interacts using either the strong force or the electromagnetic force. They are our best traditional candidate for dark matter. A particle that does exactly what we want it to do.

It's sort of like the "string theory" of dark matter candidates, the cleanest looking idea which we still don't have good evidence for.

Strangelets

Strangelets are particles containing the strange quark. They are candidates for dark matter because they fall more into the WIMP class than anything else.

The scary consequence of these particles is that they become more stable with more particles, so they could effectively turn other matter into strange quarks until an entire planet or star is consumed by them.

Fuzzy Dark Matter

Sometimes when you need a big particle, you actually should look for a small one. Fuzzy dark matter basically hypothesises that there are particles that are incredibly light, allowing them to form wavy fields of stuff that contributes to the mass of galaxies.

Quantum Weirdness and SUSY

SUSY, or supersymmetry, is a foundational component of string theory that states that force is directly translatable to mass. That for every fermion particle type, there exists an equivalent particle that acts as a boson. And every boson, there is an equivalent fermion.

You don't need to worry about the difference between bosons and fermions outside of that they are force carrying, and normal particles respectively.

SUSY, and other weird quantum effects are additionally proposed candidates to dark matter, as they can generate new and weird particles or forces that might contribute to the missing mass. But also, they have had a bad reputation in more recent years for returning negative results.

What if Gravity is Just Wrong?

So this is our last category. Forget the large black holes and the tiny new particles, maybe gravity is just wrong! That we got general relativity right on the scales of planets and stars, but not at all when it comes to larger masses like galaxies and clusters.

Modified Newtonian Gravity

Modified newtonian gravity, or MOND, is the idea that, when acceleration is low enough, the motion of particles stop following the rules dictated by newton's laws. Specifically becoming F=ma^2 instead of F=ma.

This, however, implies that ALL of newtonian mechanics becomes affected by this change, so it's often proposed that this modified newton's law affects only gravity compared to other forces like electromagnetism.

We can also develop this idea into our more fundamental understanding of gravity, General Relativity. Using what's known as Tensor-Vector-Scalar gravity.

The problem is that this is a pretty big change to make. Disproving gravity - it sounds less like a sound theory and more like a conspiracy theory. But of course, that's how we would've treated previous theories of gravity when they first came out.

Another problem is that the current proposed MOND theory still requires the existence of some form of dark matter MACHO or particle.

Entropic Gravity

Entropic gravity is another interesting theory, especially because it also acts as a theory of quantum gravity (i.e. solving the biggest problem in all of physics).

Basically, gravity actually doesn't exist, but is instead a cumulative effect of quantum disorder. Emerging in the same way that temperature emerges from the second law of thermodynamics.

This helps us solve the dark matter problem by demonstrating that gravity changes as we scale things up. Similar to how temperature looks different if we were, say, looking at whizzing atoms in a box compared to a warm block of metal. And MOND theories end up emerging if we extend the scales beyond that of stars and planets.

Yet, the problem still remains, that this requires us disprove the existence of gravity. It would take quite a lot to try and do that. Including accounting for how we get from the probabilistic world of the quantum to the tangible normal world.

Conclusion: So ... Which one is right?

Short Answer: None

We don't really have enough experimental evidence to prove any of these to be the true source of dark matter, or even a combination of different sources. There is experimental data of course, we've been looking for ages. But a lot these experiments either don't give conclusive results or just limit the possible ranges of their properties.

The search for dark matter is ongoing, and is still certainly under the works. It's one of the biggest unsolved mysteries in physics, and just like other theories, the ideas we come up with just end up getting disproven or are too hard to prove to begin with.

This post was a whopper! It took a lot more research and reading to wrap my head around all of the different concepts, as it is just beyond my area of knowledge. But hopefully, I at least explained it well enough for y'all to understand.

As always, feedback is much appreciated. I know I didn't cover things in too much detail, but what can you do when there's so many proposals. I more wanted to talk about the general base ideas of each one instead of getting into the nitty-gritty for a few.

Next week I'll focus on something related to computer science, and finally the week after that, cap things off with a discussion on what Dark Matter is!

#astronomy #physics #physics friday #dark matter #astrophysics #academics #stemblr #stem

[leothil]

Introduction to TV ratings

Hi! I know a lot of us in the 9-1-1 fandom have started looking more closely at episode ratings this past year, but every time I see them posted I also see a lot of comments from people being unsure what the numbers really mean. I'm someone who first got introduced to tv ratings from being involved in the pro wrestling fandom and learned a lot about them through osmosis, so I thought I could make a small informative post explaining the main concepts and why tv ratings matter!

What I'll cover below:

What are tv ratings?

What exactly are they reporting?

How do I know what the numbers mean?

Are the numbers any good?

Let's dive in!

What are tv ratings?

Tv ratings, or Nielsen ratings, is an audience measurement system operated by Nielsen Media Research that tries to figure out the audience size and composition for tv programs in the USA. The Nielsen company has been measuring this since the 1950's, and their ratings is the currency that drives business between advertisers and broadcasters. To simplify it, the higher the rating a program gets, the more the broadcaster can charge the advertisers and agencies for broadcasting their ads to the audience during that program.

The data collection methods have varied over the years, but right now they're using Portable People Meters and track data from DVR:s. Since 2017 they're also tracking data on Hulu and YoutubeTV, and select programs on Netflix. It is an approximation, since they (naturally) aren't getting the full data from every single tv in the country, but they are good enough (and trusted enough) that their reported metrics are what's considered official.

So what exactly are they reporting?

A couple of different things! The most interesting numbers are total viewers, demographic shares, and demographic ratings. According to Nielsen they also track "gender, race, ethnicity, income, education, occupation, etc." but those are usually not reported as openly as the aforementioned three numbers and are mostly used by advertisers.

Sites like Tvline, Tvseriesfinale and Showbuzzdaily often report daily ratings very quickly after Nielsen releases them. The Fast Nationals are usually what gets the most attention, since they're released the morning after, but they're time period ratings, which means it only measured what was watched during primetime. The more accurate Official Nationals are released later the day after, and are program ratings. So if a program was moved from its usual slot for some reason, the fast nationals will still count the original time slot towards its ratings, while the official nationals will count the slot it actually aired in.

There are also C3 and C7 ratings (live viewing + DVR three/seven days after the airing), but they are seen much more seldom and are largely a fighting point between networks (who want to get paid for more days) and advertisers (who only want to pay for live viewings).

How do I know what the numbers mean?

Let's dive into that! I'll use tables from Tvseriesfinale and Showbuzzdaily with ratings for Monday March 20th (the air date of 9-1-1 S6E12) as my examples.

Here's how Tvseriesfinale reports the ratings, they're using the fast nationals (or "fast affiliate ratings"). The %change is compared to last aired episode of the same show. If you're wondering how the demo change can be positive while the number of viewers change is negative, I'll get to that in a minute.

And here's Showbuzzdaily, they report Live+Same Day which include live viewership + DVR views from the same day (which should be the same as fast nationals, but sometimes varies a bit). You can see that they colour code according to how far above/below the average rating of the night a program placed in different ratings categories.

Now for what the different columns mean:

Viewers (mil) or Persons 2+ (000s): the total number of viewers, in millions, who watched the program. So here Tvseriesfinale reports that 4.3 million people watched 9-1-1, and Showbuzzdaily reports that 4.413 million people did.

18-49 demo and Sales Demo Ratings Adults 18-49: These are the numbers that everyone is really looking at! The demo rating means proportion of a certain group (in this case adults 18-49) that are watching a particular show. In other words, this is the percentage of all adults aged 18-49 in the United States that were watching the show. So a 0.6 (or 0.59) rating for 9-1-1 means that 0.6% (or 0.59%) out of all people aged 18-49 were watching 9-1-1. This is the money demo, this is the number all advertisers and networks are looking at. Persons 18-49 is considered the most lucrative demographic, so the more people in that group your show can draw, the better for the network since they then can ask for more money from the advertisers. Persons 18-49 are considered to be the group to best target advertisements towards for a variety of reasons (disposable income and interest towards buying new things being two of them).

As you can see above, Showbuzzdaily also reports the demo numbers for Adults 18-34 and Adults 25-54. Some advertisers are more interested in these demographics, but overall 18-49 is still the most popular demographic. As you can see, the audiences skew older for all programs. I believe the general consensus is that younger people (<35-year-olds) watch much less tv than older generations, and these numbers support that. This is also why total viewers and demo ratings can have different %change - the 18-49 demo rating cuts off a relatively large part of the audience.

Demographic shares: While the ratings are based on percentage of all people in a demographic, the shares are based on percentage of the number of people who were actually watching TV at that time. So a 6.0 in Women 18-49 means that of all women aged 18-49 watching TV at 8PM, 6% chose to watch 9-1-1.

So... are the numbers any good?

That depends on what you're looking at. TV ratings as a whole have been dropping steadily for many years now, so trying to compare ratings to even, say, five years ago can be hard. For example: in the late 90's, pro wrestling regularly pulled in ratings of 5.0 and higher (I'll put a few below as an example), but those same shows would now be ecstatic if they managed to get above a 1.0 rating; their regular numbers the past year (for the big shows RAW, Smackdown and Dynamite) have mostly hovered around 0.4-0.7.

The first number is the demo rating

For the best overview, it's best to compare ratings for a certain show to the ratings of other shows on air, and I believe that's what the networks are doing as well. In that context, 9-1-1 is doing very well, as it regularly ends up near the top for scripted shows, even when looking at all shows over a week. The average rating for S6 so far is 0.63, which is lower than the average rating of 0.76 for S5 (which in turn was lower than the average rating of 1.05 for S4 and so forth). The ratings consistently dropping year over year are a concern for the industry at large, and it's pretty clear streaming services have played a big role in causing this, but I find it hard to believe tv networks would consider stopping producing shows for live tv anytime soon.

And that's it! If something still feels unclear, feel free to drop me a message and I'll do my best to answer any questions! If you want to dive a bit deeper into the different metrics, I recommend this page on Showbuzzdaily, and if you want to look at ratings from previous seasons, Tvseriesfinale's 911 ratings tag is a good place to find articles summarizing both individual episode ratings and ratings for a whole season.

#tv ratings #911 ratings #911 fox

[vren-diagram]

The Nordic model has been characterized as follows:[16]

An elaborate social safety net, in addition to public services such as free education and universal healthcare[16] in a largely tax-funded system.[17]

Strong property rights, contract enforcement and overall ease of doing business.[18]

Public pension plans.[16]

High levels of democracy as seen in the Freedom in the World survey and Democracy Index.[19][20]

Free trade combined with collective risk sharing (welfare social programmes and labour market institutions) which has provided a form of protection against the risks associated with economic openness.[16]

Little product market regulation. Nordic countries rank very high in product market freedom according to OECD rankings.[16]

Low levels of corruption.[19][16] In Transparency International's 2019 Corruption Perceptions Index, Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden were ranked among the top 10 least corrupt of the 179 countries evaluated.[21]

A partnership between employers, trade unions and the government, whereby these social partners negotiate the terms to regulating the workplace amongst themselves, rather than the terms being imposed by law.[22][23] Sweden has decentralised wage co-ordination while Finland is ranked the least flexible.[16] The changing economic conditions have given rise to fear among workers as well as resistance by trade unions in regards to reforms.[16]

High trade union density and collective bargaining coverage.[24] In 2019, trade union density was 90.7% in Iceland, 67.0% in Denmark, 65.2% in Sweden, 58.8% in Finland, and 50.4% in Norway; in comparison, trade union density was 16.3% in Germany and 9.9% in the United States.[25] Additionally, in 2018, collective bargaining coverage was 90% in Iceland, 88.8% in Finland (2017), 88% in Sweden, 82% in Denmark, and 69% in Norway; in comparison collective bargaining coverage was 54% in Germany and 11.7% in the United States.[26] The lower union density in Norway is mainly explained by the absence of a Ghent system since 1938. In contrast, Denmark, Finland and Sweden all have union-run unemployment funds.[27]

The Nordic countries received the highest ranking for protecting workers rights on the International Trade Union Confederation 2014 Global Rights Index, with Denmark being the only nation to receive a perfect score.[28]

Sweden at 56.6% of GDP, Denmark at 51.7%, and Finland at 48.6% reflect very high public spending.[29] Public expenditure for health and education is significantly higher in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden in comparison to the OECD average.[30]

Overall tax burdens as a percentage of GDP are high, with Denmark at 45.9% and both Finland and Sweden at 44.1%.[31] The Nordic countries have relatively flat tax rates, meaning that even those with medium and low incomes are taxed at relatively high levels.[32][33]

The United Nations World Happiness Reports show that the happiest nations are concentrated in Northern Europe. The Nordics ranked highest on the metrics of real GDP per capita, healthy life expectancy, having someone to count on, perceived freedom to make life choices, generosity and freedom from corruption.[34] The Nordic countries place in the top 10 of the World Happiness Report 2018, with Finland and Norway taking the top spots.[35]

x

I think a lot of people are missing that the Nordic model is:

generally very friendly to businesses

composed of largely organically set standards (workers rights secured by collective bargaining and trade-unions, not by a centralized authority) (as opposed to a centralized bureaucracy)

Largely structured to provide citizens with benefits that make workforce participation easier. The ordering of the social safety net and welfare state make it relatively easy to upskill and hold a job.

[masseffectdoctor]

I think it's important to start dismantling the idea and metric usage of the word terrorist.

It DOES have a "proper" definition of course. But people are being deemed terrorists for protesting. For saying genocide is bad.

Also when the state is saying genocide is good, being what they would deem a terrorist is NOT a bad thing.

Most of the people I know now could be removed from higher education, jobs, etc. under the false justification that they are "terrorists" when the most they've done is add their name to a ceasefire demand from a group they're a part of.

Yet the white supremacists that have been commiting blatant acts of terrorism for years now is still an uphill battle to have it defined and treated that way.

The institution of white supremacy is clear and on display. Be critical of those that have been deemed "terrorist".

#Palestine #genocide #politics #soap box #white supremacy #gaza #fuck israel #fuck genocide #idk what i expect to come of these things #but i fully expect that as my nation falls further and further into the rot at its core #the capitalism the facism the colonialism the globalism the white supremacy #i will come to a point where i have no other options but to just BE #and by my very nature of being and standing for human rights i will be labeled a terrorist #and it terrifies me to have to come to a reckoning with this thinking #my life will be given as service and aid to others because i never had a choice #fuckin hate it all #fuckin hate it here #anyways!

[hellomynameisbisexual]

After waking up naked and hungover in the beds of countless men in college, I began to wonder if maybe I…wasn’t straight. (Reasonable!) I knew I loved women—dating them, having sex with them, connecting with them emotionally—so being gay didn’t seem right. So 12 years ago, while sitting in my sophomore dorm, I turned to the holder of all knowledge: Google. I searched for “bisexual man,” which didn’t reveal much beyond studies about gay/bisexual men and HIV, and an off-hand listicle arguing that male bisexuality was, in fact, real. (No kidding.) There wasn’t much else.

If you Google “bisexual man” today, you’ll find hundreds of articles pertaining to bisexuality. In fact, if you expand your search to just “bisexuality,” you’ll find thousands more. These articles aren’t just attempting to justify our existence; they discuss the nuances of bi identity—how to date as a bi person, how to come out as bi, how to know if you’re bi, and where to find a bi community.

There are also countless celebrities now proudly claiming bi or pansexual labels—Stephanie Beatriz, Willow Smith, Janelle Monae, and Aubrey Plaza, to name a few. For the love of God, Susan Sarandon just came out as bi. (Would I like to see more male celebrities coming out as bi? Yes, so I’m going to have to get famous myself.)

Media representation has also gotten stronger and more serious. We’re no longer depicted as morally dubious weirdos or the punch-lines of jokes. Instead, we're given complex bi characters in shows like Big Mouth, the new Gossip Girl, The Sandman, Sense8, Harley Quinn, and so many more. There was even a show called The Bisexual on Hulu in 2018.

In some arenas, we are in the heyday of bisexual visibility, and I, for one, am living. For the first time ever, women aren’t refusing to date me because I’m bisexual—they want to date me because I’m bisexual! But to be honest, I'm still not satisfied (even though I now get laid significantly more often—bless).

“Sadly, many people still believe that bisexuality doesn’t exist or that bisexuality is a character flaw—a wishy-washy failure to commit to one gender—rather than a commitment to embrace our whole selves," says Robyn Ochs, activist for bisexual visibility and editor of Bi Women Quarterly. “While we have made great strides, we are not yet visible enough. We still have very basic educational work to do.”

Of course, Ochs is right. We haven’t solved biphobia, and bi people still have the worst mental health outcomes of any sexuality by nearly every single metric, including higher rates of depression, anxiety, and suicidal thoughts than both gay and straight folks, according to Current Sexual Health Reports. This is largely due to the double discrimination bi people face by not feeling welcomed or like part of either straight or gay communities, causing us to feel alone and isolated.

That aside, it's important to recognize that we are in (forgive me) unprecedented territory—where we can promote bi visibility while simultaneously moving beyond it, and where we can work to more directly address some of the issues plaguing our community. Visibility isn’t a cure-all. It’s just the first step in any movement, and yes, bi people are having a goddamn movement!

Visibility essentially says: Look, we’re real! You need to treat us with some damn respect. It also helps people realize they’re not alone, that they have a community. Given the aforementioned higher rates of mental health issues for bi people, community is essential. But seeing yourself on screen or reading about someone else’s experience doesn’t automatically transport you to a room full of bi people trying to make friends and find romantic partners. There is a large gap between bisexual visibility and bisexual community. Since I don’t think scientists are on the brink of discovering the key to human teleportation, we’re going to have to create and attend bi spaces ourselves in order to feel less alone. We, the bi people of the world, are going to have build bi communities.

“After visibility comes bi life,” Ian Lawrence-Tourinho, executive director of the American Institute of Bisexuality, says. “We’re not so easy to erase anymore, as much as some will try, there are just too many of us out in the open.”

Right now, bi communities are predominantly online. We have bisexual Reddit, bi Twitter, and my favorite, bisexual TikTok (or BiTok). Using hashtags, we can find and connect with other bi folks around the world, which is wonderful and how I’ve met many of my own bi friends. But it’s time for bi people to move away from the internet (and digital spaces) and actually exist in the real world. We need physical bi spaces.

We need bisexual bars! I want a queer place where I can bring my queer girlfriend and feel comfortable making out with her without gay men judging me for erroneously believing we’re a straight couple co-opting their space. (For what it’s worth, I get why gay men are protective of their spaces, but like, shit, where am I supposed to go? A straight bar? I’d rather die.)

We need bisexual sex clubs! At every queer sex party I’ve been to, I’ve only ever seen women hooking up with women, and men…also hooking up with women. Which, fine! But men should feel empowered to hook up with all genders—in raunchy positions, no less! I want a safe place where my boyfriend, girlfriend, theyfriend, and I can all go to town on each other. As it is now, it feels like sex clubs either cater to gay men exclusively or to a very straight clientele (e.g., men aren’t allowed down in the play section unless accompanied by a woman)—they are fundamentally not inclusive of bisexual folks.

Of course, we also need sober, non-sexual places for bi people. Hello, bisexual rock climbing meet-ups! Bisexual people are obsessed with rock climbing. Why? Unclear. Personally, I’m a grown-ass man who has better things to do than climb rocks, but I’m in the minority of bi folks. I’ve accepted that. So let’s give the bi people what they want!

Maybe you’re not a rock climbing bisexual, but instead, you’re a Dungeons and Dragons bisexual. (Don’t you dare make a “Why not both?” joke!) Why not D&D meet-ups where bi folks can bring everyone in their polycule and nerd the fuck out?

"LGBTQIA+ spaces are often dominated by gay people, in particular gay men,” Vaneet Mehta, author of the forthcoming book Bisexual Men Exist, says. “And while you’d hope that they would be more accepting of bisexuality, they often do not understand or support others in the [bi] community.”

So let's make our own damn spaces. Any bi person can work to create a safe bi space, even those who work traditional nine-to-five jobs. I know this, as I actually threw a massive sex party (over 170 attendees) in Brooklyn, New York called BISLUT. Since I hadn’t been to a sex club that felt genuinely bisexual for all genders, I threw a party for bi men and their admirers. At the risk of tooting my own horn, everyone has been and continues to be absolutely obsessed with it—not just because of the sex, though the sex was awesome, but because bi people were in a safe space surrounded by other bi folks where they could express their sexuality fully and be their most authentic selves.

“Like people of any sexuality, most bis want to have fun, meet each other, and have friends who ‘get’ them,” says Lawrence-Tourinho. “And let’s be honest, we want to have exciting, fulfilling sex and love lives.”

A loving, supportive, and fun bisexual community is what comes after bi visibility. Not only can this type of community improve mental health outcomes, but it can also encourage more bi folks to come out and embrace who they are. Countless studies have indicated how much better life can get once you embrace your sexuality, but there’s a caveat: Queer folks need to have friends, community, and support in coming out. If you lose your friends, your family and your home as a result, your mental health only deteriorates. Safe, physical spaces to foster community can be game-changers in helping bi people come out safely.

These spaces may even help decrease rates of homelessness in the bisexual community. For bi youth who get displaced or kicked out after coming out, safe spaces are essential for finding support.

Am I dreaming big here? Maybe. But why the hell not? By giving people the opportunity to be themselves, we might unknowingly raise the next President of the United States, or the next Lady Gaga, or the next bisexual icon.

Sign me up. My fellow bis: Let’s get to work.

#bisexuality #bisexual community #lgbtq community #lgbtq #bi #support bisexuality #lgbtq pride #pride #bi tumblr #bisexuality is valid #bisexual #bi pride #bisexual nation #bisexual pride #bisexual education #bisexual youth #support bisexual people #bisexual men #respect bisexual people #bisexual rights #bisexual women #bisexual people #bi visibility #bisexual visibility

[memento-morri-writes]

I'm an autistic with low empathy or possibly no empathy (i do not vicariously experience other peoples' emotions except literally once which confused me, spent a lot of time unaware that it's a real thing other people experience, and may have subnormal cognitive empathy (idk), but otherwise i'm "normal" i guess), but i can't really use myself as a metric for what a low-empathy autistic character could be like because i was literally bullied from since i was a toddler to the first year of trade school and literally never had friends which propably fucked me up (i was propably nicer as a tiny child, but idk if i would've grown out of it if i wasn't bullied), plus i'm bad at self-analysis so...

Obviously low-empathy people can be compassionate, outgoing, and emotional and expressive (at least i think so; i've seen other low-empathy people talk or imply weirdly about their emotions). But would it make sense for a low-empathy autistic character to have low affective and seminormal cognitive, and be emotionally intelligent? Or emotionally open and vulnerable?

Hi Anon! I can only speak as to my personal experiences, plus a little bit of what other low/no empathy people I've met have told me. So please take my answers with a grain of salt!

First off, low/no empathy people can definitely still be compassionate. Compassion is defined as "sympathetic concern for the suffering of others". And while showing compassion and/or sympathy is definitely easier with "normal" empathy, it's not impossible.

Based on the definitions of cognitive vs affective empathy, being able to be compassionate would rely more on having higher cognitive empathy, since the idea of compassion is more based understanding someone else's emotions, rather than feeling the exact same as them.

So if you want a character to have low/no empathy, but still be very compassionate, they should probably have seminormal cognitive empathy, like you said.

In my personal experience, most of the people I've talked to who experience low empathy experience low affective empathy. Which isn't to say that the reverse doesn't exist, because it definitely does. But it seems that a lack of cognitive empathy is a bit more common? (I don't have data to back this up, but based on experience it seems to be the case? Again, grain of salt.)

I personally tend to be more closed-off emotionally, but that's not the case for all low-empathy people. That's going to be another thing that will probably depend on your character's background and upbringing. If they lived in a place where they had support, and felt safe and loved, no matter their emotions, they're probably more likely to be emotionally open and vulnerable. If they were often bullied or had their emotions dismissed, they're probably more likely to be closed-off.

As for emotional intelligence, empathy is just one part of that. The other parts include recognizing emotions (your own, and those of others), and regulating your own emotions. So while empathy is key to part of that (recognizing the emotions of others falls under cognitive empathy), regulating and understanding one's own emotions does not require strong empathy. Thus, a low/no empathy character could still be very emotionally intelligent when it comes to themself, or even other people, provided they had seminormal cognitive empathy.

So, basically: It depends. Think about what kind of empathy your character struggles with, as well as their background and personality as a whole. That should help give you a path to decide how your character handles their own emotions.

(once again, take my replies with a grain of salt. I'm only one person, and I don't have a formal education in psychology, etc. My input is based largely on my own experiences, as well as input from friends.)

#Anonymous #Morrigan replies #low empathy #no empathy #writing autistic characters #writing low empathy characters #empathy tag #<- because I need one of those now ig

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/barbara-kay-heres-what-happens-when-the-gender-gap-index-is-adjusted-for-bias

By: Barabara Kay

Published: Jan 8, 2019

The apparently neutral phrase, “gender inequality,” is not neutrally understood in our society. It normally conjures up women’s lower numbers in male-dominated corporate directorships and STEM professorships or other high-status domains that are in fact accessible only to a sliver of the male population, never mind the narrower female sliver.

Social scientists allegedly strive for a much more holistic picture, especially when setting nations beside each other for a global assessment of gender inequality. One frequently cited authority is the Global Gender Gap Index (GGGI), introduced in 2006, and relied on by policy makers worldwide. But a provocative new study, released Jan. 3, takes critical distance from GGGI premises, providing its own set of metrics for analyzing gender inequalities and arriving at some startlingly disparate conclusions.

Entitled “A Simplified Approach to Measuring National Gender Inequality,” authors Gijsbert Stoet from the U.K.’s University of Essex, and David C. Geary from the University of Missouri, contend that the GGGI is unreliable, because it is “biased to highlight women’s issues.” They argue that the GGGI does not measure men’s areas of disadvantage, such as compulsory military service, harsher punishments for the same crime, and workplace deaths — 95 per cent male.

By definition, they say, the GGGI “excludes the possibility that men can be less well off than women – this is because the GGGI focuses on women’s advancement.” As well, they contend that the GGGI uses indicators that are only relevant to elite women, and that the GGGI includes indicators more reflective of choice than of discrimination.

The researchers propose a truly gender-neutral set of metrics for calculating equality scores, named the Basic Index of Gender Inequality (BIGI). BIGI focuses on three factors: educational opportunities (literacy, years of primary and secondary education), healthy life expectancy (years expected to live in good health), and overall life satisfaction which, taken together, are the “minimum ingredients of a good life.”

These metrics can be applied anywhere, regardless of income level, cultural paradigm or national economic development tier. In the words of the study abstract, because of its focus on issues that are important to all men and women in any nation, BIGI “better captures variation in gender inequality than other measures, with inclusion of outcomes that can be favourable or unfavourable to either sex, not simply unfavourable to women.”

Stoet and Geary calculated BIGI scores over five years (2012 through 2016) for 134 nations, representing 6.8 billion people. They relied on GGGI reports published by the World Economic Forum and the Gallup World Poll for data. To their surprise, they found that using the BIGI as a yardstick, men are on average disadvantaged in 91 countries, while women are disadvantaged in 43 countries, most of them economically under-developed. Sometimes the deviations from parity are quite small or even negligible, as for example in the case of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Turkey, China and Switzerland.

Saudi Arabia? Parity? Yes. Because equality between the sexes does not mean men and women are doing equally well, on average, “just that they are more or less equal within their life circumstances.” While women in countries with a poor reputation for gender equality may fall behind men in one area, men may fall behind in another area, cancelling out both scores.

Saudi Arabia is a highly developed nation in which women fall behind in education, but score higher on healthy life expectancy and life satisfaction. This may seem counterintuitive to Western women, but culture, with the expectations it imposes, is a strong determinant of what constitutes “satisfaction.” A Saudi wife in a polygynous marriage to a wealthy husband might find life quite satisfying, while a poor Saudi man with almost no marriage prospects at all may find life quite unsatisfying.

Canada’s figures put it amongst the countries with a slight female advantage. Feminists may not be delighted to hear this. But given the BIGI metrics, it makes sense.

Canadian women’s life expectancy is seven years longer than men’s. Men’s health in Canada is on average poorer than women’s. They are more prone to alcoholism and drug abuse, and more vulnerable to violence. Male suicide rates are considerably higher, especially during Family Court battles, where women are greatly advantaged (and which causes great life dissatisfaction in fathers). Canadian men are nine times more likely than women to be imprisoned. They perpetrate more crimes, to be sure, but they also receive harsher sentences for the same crimes, even when committing the same crime in tandem. Men constitute about 85 per cent of homeless adults. Canadian men show higher dropout rates at every level from primary school to university. Canadian women own a disproportionate share of private wealth. (I could go on.)

This is an important study, not nearly as simplistic as it may seem in this reductive summary, and worth reading — without gender bias if possible — before judging.

--

Abstract

The Global Gender Gap Index is one of the best-known measures of national gender inequality, used by both academics and policy makers. We argue that that this measure has a number of problems and introduce a simpler measure of national levels of gender inequality. Our proposed measure is based on sex differences in the opportunity to lead a long healthy and satisfied life that is grounded on educational opportunities. The measure better captures variation in gender inequality than other measures, with inclusion of outcomes that can be favorable or unfavorable to either sex, not simply unfavorable to women. We focus on some of the most basic measures available for 134 countries from 2012–2016 (i.e., disadvantages in children’s basic education, life satisfaction, and healthy life span) and we relate these to various measures, including the United Nations' Human Development Index. We found that low levels of human development are typically associated with disadvantages for girls and women, while medium and high levels of development are typically associated with disadvantages for boys and men. Countries with the highest levels of human development are closest to gender parity, albeit typically with a slight advantage for women. We argue that the disparities, when they are found, are related to the sexual division of labor (i.e., traditional gender roles) in poorly developed countries as well as the underinvestment in preventative health care in more developed nations.

#Barbara Kay #gender equality #equality #gender gap #sex differences #education #lifespan #health #life satisfaction #BIGI #Basic Index of Gender Inequality #religion is a mental illness

[nodynasty4us]

Traditionally, Republicans have viewed higher education as job training, so the metric for doing a good job is how much money graduates make. Democrats have tended to regard it as a place where students learn to think for themselves and criticize things they see as wrong. These views are not really compatible, and it is clear why college towns are hotbeds of anti-Republican politics and why the Republicans are unhappy about that.

Electoral-vote.com

#education #college towns

[zorciarkrildrush]

And American college students wept, for there were no more causes for protest - LGBT rights were guaranteed forever, racial bias finally put to rest for good and with reparations. Reproductive rights received ironclad legislation, and native rights were finally achieved with a good mutual consensus. Global warming went the same way as the hole in the ozone - the US lead a striking, globally coordinated effort to finally mitigate and undo the damage - and all finally breathed fresh, clean air. The refugee crisis at the border was of course a thing of the past - either well integrated into society or sent back to homes finally made safe. Police violence and racial profiling, of course, were non-issues now - especially with inclusive, community-based and social policing replacing the heavy handed protection-and-serving-of-the-few of the past. Their own higher education was of course now fully funded by the state, and the concept of predatory 'student loans' seemed laughable. Medical care, transportation, shelter, nutrition - all became enshrined in law as human rights. Preventable deaths from hunger, from exposure, from mental illness - all went down into insignificance.

And so finally they looked out to the world for injustices to correct, but they were hard pressed to find them - Ukraine and Russia were at peace, finally, and reparations and assistance to rebuild in Ukraine were ongoing. Russia was, of course, free from tyranny, and undoing decades of stagnation, nepotism, internal racism, LGBTphobia -no, they had to look elsewhere. China, of course, had long freed the Uyghurs to live their lives with dignity, afforded numerous new freedoms to its citizens, and made a brave series of agreements with Taiwan and the US and Japan to end decades of suspicion and mutual jabs.

Romani anywhere in the EU were finally properly guaranteed their safety, alongside Irish Travelers, Canadian First Nations, Assyrians, the Bashkir (well, we already said Russia was doing better now!) -

And Sudan - well, the process of peace and reconciliation was tough, but inspirational. The hundreds of thousands dead, displaced - all wrongs were finally acknowledged and put to rights. Haiti is finally recovering from its own upheavals, Boko Haram, ISIS, the Taliban all agreed to disarm, vowed to compensate all they have wronged, to rebuild from the damage. Syria and Lebanon were no longer tormented by despots, and Iran with them - finally, again, the pride of Persian heritage, a place of dignity and comfort for all its people.

On and on the American college students looked for causes - some even went so far as to reignite pineapple on pizza, but society has of course moved on from such divides - so naturally, there could only be one remaining issue at hand. Clocking in at roughly 10 thousand kilometers away as the crow flies, depending on where you take off and land exactly, in an objectively tiny strip of land, there was one war they had to weigh in on. All other issues, near and far, greater in every possible metric, were finally fine - it was time to tell one country it shouldn't exist in favour of another, to harass people of that country - or even those basically unrelated to it, who were still somehow unclean for not working to dismantle that country. The American college students wept tears of joy, now, for the last and most important cause was at hand.

#I don't understand I really don't #Palestinians? Of course #Jews? Of course #People who have fucking skin in the game #Why is it that EVERYBODY ELSE decided they *must* have an opinion about this thing AND that it trumps all other struggles #have they lost their mind? #what the fuck is this? #“globalize the intifada” yes I'm sure you'll be righteous and glad when your grandpa sits on a bus that blows up #give me a fucking break #i/p

[incarnateirony]

Ok I get that direct viewership is affected by general tv demo decline, different weekdays, time slots, etc. But that doesn't explain the lower +3 and +7 of GK vs Walker. If GK is more popular, it should have higher numbers

Hello idiot that self-argued, "I know these things, I swear, but then I whine and point out I don't, and pretend this counts as a challenge. I'm going to make confused monkey noises on why GK is in top HBO and Walker isn't and hasn't been for 2 years beyond the week it was first uploaded. I am being very logical."

I cannot emphasize enough I desire nothing more than you to stop being combative ignoramuses in my inbox.

Also please see a therapist if you think Walker has averaged higher. One day that you perceive as low because you simply do not understand the TV environment does not make up for three whole seasons where Walker was not reaching the number you are pointing a finger that GK didn't for one whole episode. I am over you people trying to find a way to be valid

If you understand days, you understand that Tuesday operates at 20% deficit compared to the rest of the week. If you understand that particular night it did 20% worse than the prior Tuesday and not just on GK. If you understand time slots you know that 9:00 p.m. comes after 8:00 p.m. and has low ratings. And if you check there plus threes and plus sevens and the percentile of who has performed in the range of 0.2 this year, Walker managing one or two episodes over a 20 episode season is not the flex you think it is sweetheart.

And if you understand reality, Walker has never been on a top digital chart ever beyond the first week that it's content was bulk uploaded and held the slot for that week. Not after not since and frankly never again. Walker independence is not the same show. I have mentioned very often it does well digitally. And this doesn't even TOUCH covering the normal decline on show premieres in almost every show ever, GK's held out +2 eps longer than normal, and that 20% value. Now what's 100% minus 60%. That's right, 40%. GK premiered at 0.1. If it declined according to the night it would have been a 0.04. It wasn't. Now take the concern trolling and start applying it to "why did walker only round to 0.2 on 10% of its season?" instead of cosplaying being concerned on why GK supposedly didn't for one whole episode.

Sit on a tack and spin and realize that all you did was verify my last post that you guys continue to send combative asks that only illustrate that you don't have any idea what you're talking about while claiming you do

Saying you understand it and then turning around and in the same sentence pointing out how much you don't understand it reads like a child that is trying to say they understand how to read and pointing at the word bird and saying that they think it means cat. Stop

Saying in words that you understand something only to immediately illustrate that you don't does not prove that you actually know the thing that you just proved you did not I do not understand why this is complicated for you guys to compute internally and process to yourselves.

Somehow i'm expected to educate an entire fandom of stubborn ignorant motherfuckers that don't want educated, they just want to argue to feel smart, while proving perpetual mental vacuity to anyone but their own friends lined up to hear the wind tunnels blowing through their own ears. You guys don't understand scale for SHIT, you're all obsessed with your personal shows to slapfight about like ten year olds and pretend there's no media industry with actual rules, like it's some made up gambit you can all pee and opinion about and somehow all be right, because none of you ever take accountability after years of being wrong.

You don't understand linear, you don't understand ratings, comms, productions, studios, mergers, you don't understand any of the large scale shit in play, you don't understand the metrics and yet for some godsbaned reason you still feel both compelled and entitled to argue as long as you tell yourself "I understand it" first and expect me to chew this garbage cud after years of this cyclic bullshit.

I goddamn fucking repeat. Stop wasting my time and cry about "bias" to Nexstar and WB because they're having the same discussions with the same understanding of these metrics, whether you duncecaps compute it or not. Go complain at them and call it bias. I'm DONE with your shit. I'm done humoring you jackasses, I'm done overexplaining because you don't WANT to fucking learn. I'm tired of you pretending you can't see the years of me cracking your skulls open with full breadth media coverage of major studios and mergers because you were too busy being mad that the CW Supernatural got real gay or some shit. go back to whatever delusional cw twitter stan war rock you crawled out of and resume telling yourself whatever you need to feel better. You unbearable fuckfaces are impervious to reality and history anyway, why are you acting like you'll be bothered when reality hits and you're wrong? You know you'll just ignore it and find new bullshit to spam anons about for attention.

So let's roll back to your badly framed "WHY GK DO GOOD DIGITAL BAD TV" and my initial answer of, it's not bad tv, you're just an idiot that doesn't know what you're looking at, then you went yuh huh I do, then immediately proved you didn't. So roll back to my first point: has it occurred to you that you're an ignorant duncecap and for all the reasons above, it's doing fine live, and you're just desperate to feel smart correcting someone or protecting a show you like/attacking one you don't while pretending you're not because you hope people won't point out your active dipshittery and embarrass you out for trying?

Like what do you even perceive your end goal to be here arguing against the way ratings have worked since the dawn of time whether you educated yourself on this shit for the last 20 years or not? What do you think going NUH UH, RATINGS ARE FAKE, THERES NO LOGIC EVERYTHING RUNS PARALLEL AND EQUAL OR IS A FAIL REGARDLESS OF DAY TIME SLOT OR CHANNEL-- what do you FUCKING think you're accomplishing? Do you think you look smart? Is your goal to mutually waste our time? Do you think you'll change reality if you argue real hard? What. Is. Your. Fucking. Objective. In. Being. So. Obtuse.

If you "understood" this shit at all, you should understand that Walker should have been mortally embarrassed it was only performing equal to, and often under, a Tuesday 9P show from a prime Thurs 8P slot. That was fucking embarassing. If you guys understood this at all, you'd know GK's 0.1 Tues 9P took a big foamy dump over Walker's Thurs 8P 0.1 but you guys don't want to have that conversation. All you want to do is point without context date time +3s or whatever else to try to drag GK down, because one day it almost looks like its lives were as "bad" to the untrained eye as Windy's debut. And it doesn't work like that. That argument only works on idiot fans. Not financing institutions. Unlike you, they know how their fucking money and schedule works.