5
OPINION
Thursday, July 13, 2017
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
N
early
all
last
year,
every time I would go
on Facebook and scroll
through my newsfeed, I would see
dozens of articles I wanted to read.
But as someone who is generally
too busy for their own good, I often
had to save articles for later. So, 99
percent of the time, I saved the link
to the article in a note-taking app
on my computer. Finally, this year,
I sat down, and I started to clicking
through my list of nearly 150 articles
that I had been meaning to read.
And as overwhelming as it seemed
in the moment, I quickly realized
something as I browsed through the
articles.
After reading the first twenty or so
articles, I began to recognize the title
or the cover art as that of an article
I’d already read. And even when the
title and cover art didn’t remind me
I’d read the article, the contents of it
would sound vaguely familiar, and
I would eventually remember I’d
already read that one. I put two and
two together and realized that as the
year had gone by, many of the same
articles that I saw and had saved to
read popped up again, months later,
when I’d forgotten about them, and,
again intrigued (after all, it would be
the same article), I would save it to
read.
Last semester at the Daily, the
staff talked extensively about how to
increase our publication’s presence
online, and one particular topic
of discussion has still stuck with
me: Facebook and how its newest
algorithm made it so users will only
see posts that — based on likes and
interactions with accounts, articles
and pages — Facebook believed they
would be interested in.
While it can be nice not to have to
sift through every single post from
each one of my Facebook friends
— especially when it had been so
long that I only recognized some
my Facebook friends by name —
seeing first-hand how Facebook
not only filtered profile pictures,
statuses and cover photos, but
also
articles,
was
especially
alarming to me. Equally alarming
is that the majority of Americans
are getting their news from social
media, therefore the algorithms
that determine what we see are
increasingly important.
While my Twitter presence is
dismal at best, I have seen how
Twitter can have the same effect.
In March 2016, Twitter launched
a new algorithm. Like Facebook,
instead of showing posts from all
the people you follow, you would
now only see certain tweets based
on what the algorithm thought were
your preferences. And even though
there
was
significant
backlash
against the switch to an algorithmic
timeline, prompting Twitter to
provide users the option to opt out of
the new algorithm in favor of the old
timeline where you saw every post
in chronological order, only about
two percent of users opted out and
took the time to actively change the
settings back to the old version.
As technology has become more
innovative and complex, so have
programs that analyze what we
“like” on Facebook, what we read,
what we listen to, the places we shop
online and the searches we put into
Google. Though tailoring content
can be useful at times, it can also be
problematic.
Because of these algorithms, we
are seeing more of the same type of
articles and same type of posts, and
we aren’t so much exposing ourselves
to new ideas or opinions. As I wrote
about in my most recent column,
opinions won’t always change, but
if we never hear the other side, we
will never have the opportunity to
challenge our opinions. We won’t
have that chance to think and expand
our worldview. With algorithms that
show us what it thinks we want to
see, it’s helping to vastly shrink our
world, not encouraging exploration
and openness, which I argue is
crucial in any society.
Politics aside, though, the issue of
tailored content based on algorithms
and computer programs is also
problematic because they can help,
even subtly, reinforce stereotypes.
Recently, MLB.TV had a half-off
discount for Fathers Day, but, at least
when it comes down to the playoffs
and postseason, women account for
nearly one-third of those who watch
sports such as baseball, basketball
and football, to name only a few, so
why not a Mothers Day discount?
Furthermore,
even
though
networks
almost
always
have
monetary gain as a main concern,
by assuming X or Y parties won’t be
as interested, they could be missing
out on a large market (I know the
Father’s Day discount enticed me to
purchase the rest of the MLB season
even though I never would have for
the regular price).
And though less pressing an issue,
with tailored content, companies
and analysts assume people won’t
find something interesting they
previously may not have thought
much about. Yeah, I like what I like,
but that doesn’t mean I won’t be open
to new content. That doesn’t mean it
will be a surefire indicator of what I
will like in the future.
Netflix, for example, has a new
feature where it tells users, based on
previously watched movies and TV
shows, the percent “match” a movie
or show is for you. I recently saw
Lee Daniels’ “The Butler,” which
Netflix told me was a 70 percent
match, but it was one of my favorite
movies I’ve seen this year. In fact,
two of my favorite movies could not
be more opposite each other. But
had I listened to an algorithm or a
matching program, I may never have
seen them.
In fact, everyone from movie
producers
to
car
companies,
journalists to sports teams, lose
out when they are always trying
to predict which audiences will be
most likely to be interested in their
content. I’m not saying trying to place
Heineken ads on Disney Channel is a
good idea or putting an article about
the stock market on an eleven-year-
old’s Facebook page makes sense,
but it wouldn’t hurt for everyone to
expand and experiment and think
outside the box that says X or Y won’t
find the article, product or movie
interesting.
In the last year, The New York
Times
morning
briefings
have
started to include a section on
partisan articles, to try to bridge a
gap between people on different
sides of the aisles. Companies and
newspapers need to do what the
Times is doing. They need to rethink
how and where they disseminate
information, what articles they
should provide that might help them
see and understand other side of the
aisle, how to promote a movie that
Netflix’s matching system would
otherwise say they wouldn’t like or
how to play with a potential market
for a product that analysts said people
who watch that TV channel wouldn’t
be interested in.
As for people like me who aren’t
making the advertising decisions or
who can’t control the algorithms,
we should take the initiative to read
articles that aren’t just the first ones
to pop up on Facebook or Twitter,
seek out information on topics we
wouldn’t think we’d be interested
in, watch movies regardless of the
fact that they were or were not
recommended to us, branch out and
try new products. It can be fun, and
not to mention important, to try new
things.
— Anna Polumbo-Levy can be
reached at annapl@umich.edu.
Expand your horizons
H
ow do we know the existence
of something? For most, we
use one or more of our five
senses. For example, we know a car
exists because we can see or hear it.
We know an apple exists because we
can see the apple and taste it. This is
one of the basic ideas of metaphysics,
yet we run into a problem when we
ponder the existence of something
without the use of our sense, such
as atoms. How do we know that
atoms exist? According to my senses,
I cannot see, hear, taste nor feel
atoms, yet I “know”they exist. At its
cornerstone, when we postulate the
existence of atoms, we can suddenly
explain a lot about the world. We can
describe how we as humans are built,
why certain reactions occur and how
certain materials are better for our
technology than others. The basis, as
you might notice, is that society uses
atomic theory to explain how our
world exists. However, as explained
by Socratic metaphysics, we search
not simply for an explanation, but for
the best explanation.
Metaphysics,
as
much
as
it
distinguishes itself from science, is an
area of philosophy I keep returning
to in my scientific debates. As a
person who does extensive research
in the neurolinguistics laboratory at
the University of Michigan, studies
neuroscience and is usually surrounded
by “science activities” throughout my
day, I have become a full supporter of
the scientific process. Yet, on a daily
basis, I am inundated with news of
scientific doubt, be it climate change,
evolution or vaccines. Why does this
doubt occur? Will it help to increase
science education? If we should, how
do we do so? Is scientific doubt really
the problem? Perhaps our problem as a
nation is rooted elsewhere.
As stated in Socratic metaphysics,
we cannot use our senses to
determine the existence of climate
change, evolution or vaccines. We can
do research and posit an explanation
for the increase of carbon in the
atmosphere, the breaking of ice caps
or how homo sapiens came to be.
Through peer review and replicated
studies, we, as a society, come to the
best explanation of these issues. Even
though we may agree on this process,
doubt is inherently human, especially
of something that is not confirmed by
our senses. Many science skeptics,
as well as contributors and analysts
on the news, say this scientific doubt
has simply gone awry in our country;
however, I propose it is more than
that: at its core, science skepticism
isn’t based in doubt, it is often based
on how we identify ourselves.
Our identities, especially today,
are often correlated with a political
party, a religion and many other
“cultural identities.” We as humans
construct our societies and belief
systems based on emotions, so it
should be no surprise that emotional
attachment to scientific research can
influence the way one approaches
climate
change,
evolution
or
vaccines. Research done at Yale Law
School on cultural cognition shows
that a layperson’s belief in science
does not reflect the knowledge that
the person possesses — on evolution,
for instance. Evidently, knowledge
of science in this country does not
always correlate to scientific trust.
That means a significant portion
of those who believe in climate
change don’t understand the basics
of the science. The problem isn’t
the inherent doubt, it’s our society’s
inability to remove identity from
science.
Climate change, evolution and
vaccines have large swaths of
doubters because of the conflict
the theories pose to an individual’s
emotions and belief systems. In order
to fix this, scientists and educators
need to become more creative in their
educational endeavors. We, as a diverse
society with many perspectives, must
extricate the science from identity.
Those who support climate change
theory do so because, in many cases, it
supports his or her identity. The same
can be said for those who doubt it.
Association with a particular political
party, a religion and other emotionally-
charged
identifiers
creates
the
misunderstanding surrounding the
science, not the science itself. Removing
science from these markers is a possible
way we can gain a consensus on
scientific evidence supporting climate
change. This has begun in many
schools that teach genetics, where
evolution is approached but freed
from a belief system. This is the next
crucial step needed in climate change
education to nonscientists.
Though
science
education,
as well as exposure to scientific
literature, can be improved in our
schools as well, this, in my view,
is not the root of science mistrust.
We must find a way to remove the
stigmatism surrounding science by
introspectively recognizing the role
our identities play in influencing
policy. Only then, we can come to a
consensus on the best explanations
for our global problems.
— David Kamper can be reached
at dgkamper@umich.edu.
DAVID KAMPER| COLUMN
ANNA POLUMBO-LEVY| COLUMN
The man who mistook his senses