Teoria Racial Crítica - o que é e o que não é, por David Miguel Gray

 Critical race theory: What it is and what it isn’t, by David Miguel Gray, at The Conversation 

David Miguel Gray - Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Affiliate, Institute for Intelligent Systems, University of Memphis

June 30, 2021 8.14am EDT

U.S. Rep. Jim Banks of Indiana sent a letter to fellow Republicans on June 24, 2021, stating: “As Republicans, we reject the racial essentialism that critical race theory teaches … that our institutions are racist and need to be destroyed from the ground up.”

Kimberlé Crenshaw, a law professor and central figure in the development of critical race theory, said in a recent interview that critical race theory “just says, let’s pay attention to what has happened in this country, and how what has happened in this country is continuing to create differential outcomes. … Critical Race Theory … is more patriotic than those who are opposed to it because … we believe in the promises of equality. And we know we can’t get there if we can’t confront and talk honestly about inequality.”

Rep. Banks’ account is demonstrably false and typical of many people publicly declaring their opposition to critical race theory. Crenshaw’s characterization, while true, does not detail its main features. So what is critical race theory and what brought it into existence?

The development of critical race theory by legal scholars such as Derrick Bell and Crenshaw was largely a response to the slow legal progress and setbacks faced by African Americans from the end of the Civil War, in 1865, through the end of the civil rights era, in 1968. To understand critical race theory, you need to first understand the history of African American rights in the U.S.

Read news coverage based on evidence, not tweets

The history

After 304 years of enslavement, then-former slaves gained equal protection under the law with passage of the 14th Amendment in 1868. The 15th Amendment, in 1870, guaranteed voting rights for men regardless of race or “previous condition of servitude.”

Between 1866 and 1877 – the period historians call “Radical Reconstruction” – African Americans began businesses, became involved in local governance and law enforcement and were elected to Congress.

This early progress was subsequently diminished by state laws throughout the American South called “Black Codes,” which
- limited voting rights, property rights and compensation for work;
- made it illegal to be unemployed or
- not have documented proof of employment;
- and could subject prisoners to work without pay on behalf of the state.
These legal rollbacks were worsened by the spread of “Jim Crow” laws throughout the country requiring segregation in almost all aspects of life.

Grassroots struggles for civil rights were constant in post-Civil War America. Some historians even refer to the period from the New Deal Era, which began in 1933, to the present as “The Long Civil Rights Movement.”

The period stretching from Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, which found school segregation to be unconstitutional, to the Fair Housing Act of 1968, which prohibited discrimination in housing, was especially productive.

The civil rights movement used practices such as
- civil disobedience,
- nonviolent protest,
- grassroots organizing and
- legal challenges to advance civil rights.
The U.S.’s need to improve its image abroad during the Cold War importantly aided these advancements. The movement
- succeeded in banning explicit legal discrimination and segregation,
- promoted equal access to work and housing and
- extended federal protection of voting rights.

However, the movement that produced legal advances had no effect on the increasing racial wealth gap between Blacks and whites, while school and housing segregation persisted.

The racial wealth gap between Blacks and whites has persisted. Here, Carde Cornish takes his son past blighted buildings in Baltimore. ‘Our race issues aren’t necessarily toward individuals who are white, but it is towards the system that keeps us all down, one, but keeps Black people disproportionally down a lot more than anybody else,’ he said. AP Photo/Matt Rourke

What critical race theory is

Critical race theory is a field of intellectual inquiry that demonstrates the legal codification of racism in America.

Through the study of law and U.S. history, it attempts to reveal

how racial oppression shaped the legal fabric of the U.S.

Critical race theory is traditionally
- less concerned with how racism manifests itself in interactions with individuals and
- more concerned with how racism has been, and is, codified into the law.

There are a few beliefs commonly held by most critical race theorists.

First, race is not fundamentally or essentially a matter of biology, but rather a social construct. While physical features and geographic origin play a part in making up what we think of as race, societies will often make up the rest of what we think of as race. For instance, 19th- and early-20th-century scientists and politicians frequently described people of color as intellectually or morally inferior, and used those false descriptions to justify oppression and discrimination.

Legal scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw, who devised the term ‘critical race theory,’ explains what it is – and isn’t.

Second, these racial views have been codified into the nation’s foundational documents and legal system. For evidence of that, look no further than the “Three-Fifths Compromise” in the Constitution, whereby slaves, denied the right to vote, were nonetheless treated as part of the population for increasing congressional representation of slave-holding states.

Third, given the pervasiveness of racism in our legal system and institutions, racism is not aberrant, but a normal part of life.

Fourth, multiple elements, such as race and gender, can lead to kinds of compounded discrimination that lack the civil rights protections given to individual, protected categories. For example, Crenshaw has forcibly argued that there is a lack of legal protection for Black women as a category. The courts have treated Black women as Black, or women, but not both in discrimination cases – despite the fact that they may have experienced discrimination because they were both.

These beliefs are shared by scholars in a variety of fields who explore the role of racism in areas such as education, health care and history.

Finally, critical race theorists are interested not just in studying the law and systems of racism, but in changing them for the better.

What critical race theory is not

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, giving his version of what critical race theory is.

“Critical race theory” has become a catch-all phrase among legislators attempting to ban a wide array of teaching practices concerning race. State legislators in Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas and West Virginia have introduced legislation banning what they believe to be critical race theory from schools.

But what is being banned in education, and what many media outlets and legislators are calling “critical race theory,” is far from it. Here are sections from identical legislation in Oklahoma and Tennessee that propose to ban the teaching of these concepts. As a philosopher of race and racism, I can safely say that critical race theory does not assert the following:

(1) One race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex;

(2) An individual, by virtue of the individual’s race or sex, is inherently privileged, racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or subconsciously;

(3) An individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment because of the individual’s race or sex;

(4) An individual’s moral character is determined by the individual’s race or sex;

(5) An individual, by virtue of the individual’s race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex;

(6) An individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or another form of psychological distress solely because of the individual’s race or sex.

What most of these bills go on to do is limit the presentation of educational materials
- that suggest that Americans do not live in a meritocracy,
- that foundational elements of U.S. laws are racist,
- and that racism is a perpetual struggle from which America has not escaped.

Americans are used to viewing their history through a triumphalist lens, where we overcome hardships, defeat our British oppressors and create a country where all are free with equal access to opportunities.

Obviously, not all of that is true.

Critical race theory provides techniques to analyze U.S. history and legal institutions by acknowledging that racial problems do not go away when we leave them unaddressed.

[Understand what’s going on in Washington. Sign up for The Conversation’s Politics Weekly.]

Tecnologia e inteligência

 A tecnologia inteligente não está nos tornando mais burros: estudo, pela Universidade de Cincinnati, em phys.org [Tradução: Vander Resende - texto original, com links, ao final]

2 de julho de 2021

Existem muitos aspectos negativos associados à tecnologia inteligente - tech neck (pescoço tecnológico), texting (mensagens de texto enquanto dirigindo), raios de luz azul - mas também há um aspecto positivo: a era digital não está nos tornando estúpidos, como muitos afirmam, diz Anthony Chemero, especialista social e comportamental na Universidade de Cincinnati (UC).

"Apesar das manchetes, não há evidências científicas que mostrem que smartphones e tecnologia digital prejudicam nossas habilidades cognitivas biológicas", disse o professor de filosofia e psicologia da UC, que recentemente foi coautor de um artigo afirmando isso na Nature Human Behavior.

No artigo, Chemero e colegas da Rotman Escola de Administração da Universidade de Toronto expõem a evolução da era digital, explicando como a tecnologia inteligente suplementa o pensamento, ajudando-nos a nos destacar.

"O que os smartphones e a tecnologia digital parecem fazer, em vez disso, é mudar as maneiras pelas quais envolvemos nossas habilidades cognitivas biológicas", diz Chemero, acrescentando que "essas mudanças são na verdade benéficas do ponto de vista cognitivo".

Por exemplo, diz ele, seu smartphone conhece o caminho para o estádio de beisebol, de modo que você não precisa procurar num mapa ou pedir informações, o que libera energia do cérebro para pensar em outra coisa. O mesmo se aplica a um ambiente profissional: "Não estamos resolvendo problemas matemáticos complexos com papel e caneta, nem memorizando números de telefone em 2021."

Computadores, tablets e smartphones, diz ele, funcionam como auxiliares, servindo como ferramentas boas na memorização, cálculo, armazenamento e apresentação de informações quando necessário.

Além disso, a tecnologia inteligente aumenta as habilidades de tomada de decisão as quais teríamos dificuldade em realizar sozinhos, diz o autor principal do artigo, Lorenzo Cecutti, estudante de doutorado na Universidade de Toronto. Usar a tecnologia GPS em nossos telefones, diz ele, não só pode nos ajudar a chegar a um lugar, mas também nos permite escolher uma rota com base nas condições do tráfego. "Seria uma tarefa desafiadora ao dirigir em uma cidade desconhecida."

Chemero acrescenta: "Você coloca toda essa tecnologia, junto com um cérebro humano "nu" e você obtém algo que é mais inteligente ... e o resultado é que nós, suplementados por nossa tecnologia, somos realmente capazes de realizar tarefas muito mais complexas do que poderíamos com nossas habilidades biológicas não suplementadas. "

Embora possa haver outras consequências devido ao uso tecnologia inteligente, "nos tornar estúpidos não é uma delas", diz Chemero.

 https://phys.org/news/2021-07-smart-technology-dumber.html

Smart technology is not making us dumber: study, by University of Cincinnati, at phys.org

July 2, 2021

There are plenty of negatives associated with smart technology—tech neck, texting and driving, blue light rays—but there is also a positive: the digital age is not making us stupid, says University of Cincinnati social/behavioral expert Anthony Chemero.

"Despite the headlines, there is no scientific evidence that shows that smartphones and digital technology harm our biological cognitive abilities," says the UC professor of philosophy and psychology who recently co-authored a paper stating such in Nature Human Behaviour.

In the paper, Chemero and colleagues at the University of Toronto's Rotman School of Management expound on the evolution of the digital age, explaining how smart technology supplements thinking, thus helping us to excel.

"What smartphones and digital technology seem to do instead is to change the ways in which we engage our biological cognitive abilities," Chemero says, adding "these changes are actually cognitively beneficial."

For example, he says, your smart phone knows the way to the baseball stadium so that you don't have to dig out a map or ask for directions, which frees up brain energy to think about something else. The same holds true in a professional setting: "We're not solving complex mathematical problems with pen and paper or memorizing phone numbers in 2021."

Computers, tablets and smart phones, he says, function as an auxiliary, serving as tools which are good at memorization, calculation and storing information and presenting information when you need it.

Additionally, smart technology augments decision making skills that we would be hard pressed to accomplish on our own, says the paper's lead author Lorenzo Cecutti, a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Toronto. Using GPS technology on our phones, he says, can not only help us get there, but lets us choose a route based on traffic conditions. "That would be a challenging task when driving round in a new city."

Chemero adds: "You put all this technology) together with a naked human brain and you get something that's smarter...and the result is that we, supplemented by our technology, are actually capable of accomplishing much more complex tasks than we could with our un-supplemented biological abilities."

While there may be other consequences to smart technology, "making us stupid is not one of them," says Chemero. 

 https://phys.org/news/2021-07-smart-technology-dumber.html

Construíndo pensamento crítico e aprendizes de longo prazo: alta carga de leitura e/ou pensamento analítico e avaliativo

A faculdade ainda pode ser rigorosa sem excesso de trabalhos de casa, por Kc Culver, The Conversation [Tradução: Vander Resende - texto original, com links, ao final]

28 de junho de 2021

Quão difícil deve ser conseguir um diploma universitário?

Quando o livro "Academically Adrift" apareceu em 2011, gerou uma preocupação generalizada de que a faculdade não estava educando efetivamente os alunos e preparando-os para o mundo de hoje. Entre outras coisas, os autores Richard Arum e Josipa Roksa afirmaram que a maioria das faculdades não era rigorosa ou exigente, em parte porque os estudantes universitários nem liam, nem escreviam o suficiente para desenvolver suas habilidades de pensamento crítico. Contudo, é realmente a quantidade de trabalho atribuída aos alunos que torna a faculdade rigorosa e os ajuda a aprender?

Como um estudioso do ensino superior, observei de perto as experiências e resultados acadêmicos de estudantes universitários durante vários anos. Algumas pessoas definem o rigor como quantas páginas um aluno lê ou quantas páginas um aluno escreve. No entanto, em um estudo revisado por pares de 2021 que publiquei com os colegas John Braxton e Ernie Pascarella, descobri que se eles fizerem isso, podem perder elementos-chave do que é necessário para ajudar os alunos a desenvolver habilidades de pensamento crítico e se tornarem aprendizes de longo prazo. Eles também podem criar uma carga desnecessária para os alunos que têm outras demandas de seu tempo.

O que é rigor?

Na educação, o rigor acadêmico tende a ser definido de duas maneiras diferentes: como uma carga de trabalho exigente e difícil ou como experiências de aprendizagem que desafiam e apoiam os alunos a pensar mais profundamente.

Dada a importância do pensamento crítico, a forma como o rigor é definido faz uma grande diferença em termos de como o público em geral - bem como administradores, formuladores de políticas, jornalistas e pesquisadores - avalia se uma faculdade é rigorosa. Também faz diferença em termos das expectativas do corpo docente para os alunos, os tipos de atividades em sala de aula que usam e as tarefas que dão.

Em outras palavras, se rigor significa carga de trabalho, os alunos que passam muito tempo estudando devem se tornar melhores pensadores críticos. Em contraste, se rigor significa desafio acadêmico, então os alunos que praticam habilidades de pensamento de alto nível, como análise e avaliação, durante a aula, nas tarefas e durante os exames, devem se tornar melhores pensadores críticos.

É por isso que meu estudo examina cada definição de rigor - carga de trabalho e desafio acadêmico - em termos de ajudar os alunos a desenvolver habilidades de pensamento crítico. O estudo também examina essas definições de rigor em relação a duas dimensões relacionadas da aprendizagem ao longo da vida. Um é ler e escrever por prazer e o outro é o hábito de pensar profunda e criticamente sobre as coisas.

A diferença da faculdade

O estudo incluiu cerca de 2.800 alunos que frequentaram uma das 46 faculdades de quatro anos nos Estados Unidos entre 2006 e 2012. Esses alunos participaram do Estudo Nacional Wabash de Educação em Artes Liberais, que foi um grande estudo longitudinal de como as experiências na faculdade afetaram os resultados associado a uma educação em artes liberais. Eles completaram pesquisas e testes em três momentos diferentes durante a faculdade: no início do primeiro ano, no final do primeiro ano e no final do quarto ano.

Nessas pesquisas, os alunos relataram a carga de trabalho do curso, incluindo quantos
- livros que lêem,
- páginas que escreveram e
- horas que passaram estudando para a aula.
Eles também relataram o quanto seus cursos os desafiaram a se envolver no pensamento de ordem superior.
O corpo docente pede aos alunos que pratiquem o pensamento de ordem superior quando eles
- faça perguntas desafiadoras em sala de aula e
- dar tarefas que pedem aos alunos que analisem informações ou formem um argumento.

Como o Wabash National Study mediu o pensamento crítico e as habilidades de aprendizagem ao longo da vida dos alunos em vários pontos temporais, meu estudo analisou o quanto os alunos desenvolveram essas habilidades em relação à carga de trabalho e ao desafio acadêmico de suas aulas.

Claro, alunos que são
- motivado para tirar boas notas
pode ser mais propenso a desenvolver essas habilidades. E muitas outras experiências de faculdade, como
- interagir com o corpo docente fora da classe ou
- estar em um programa de honras,
também pode fazer a diferença. Meu estudo leva em conta esses fatores, a fim de compreender melhor a influência única de cada definição de rigor.

O que importa

Aqui está o que encontramos.

No primeiro ano da faculdade, o pensamento de ordem superior estava relacionado a um aumento em ambas as dimensões da aprendizagem ao longo da vida:
- ler e escrever por prazer e
- a tendência de pensar profundamente.
O pensamento de ordem superior não estava relacionado ao desenvolvimento de habilidades de pensamento crítico. A carga de trabalho não foi relacionada ao pensamento crítico dos alunos ou qualquer dimensão da aprendizagem ao longo da vida.

Ao longo de quatro anos de faculdade,
* pensamento de ordem superior estava relacionado a
- um aumento nas habilidades de pensamento crítico dos alunos e
- ambas as dimensões da aprendizagem ao longo da vida.
* A carga de trabalho estava relacionada a apenas uma dimensão da aprendizagem ao longo da vida:
- ler e escrever por prazer.
Essa relação foi impulsionada principalmente pela quantidade de leituras que os alunos faziam, e não pela quantidade de textos que eles escreveram ou pelo tempo que gastaram estudando.

Talvez o mais importante, meu estudo sugere que os alunos aprendem
- pensamento crítico importante e
- habilidades de aprendizagem ao longo da vida
por causa de experiências de aula desafiadoras, independentemente da carga de trabalho.

Em outras palavras, a faculdade pode ajudar os alunos a serem melhores
- pensadores críticos e
- alunos ao longo da vida
sem exigir que eles gastem muito tempo estudando.

Implicações para faculdades

Este estudo tem implicações em como os cursos e faculdades são avaliados como rigorosos. Também tem implicações para a forma como o corpo docente ensina, pois sugere que eles devem criar cursos que
- envolver os alunos no pensamento de ordem superior,
em vez de pedir-lhes que concluam longas tarefas de leitura e escrita.

Essas implicações são importantes principalmente para estudantes de baixa renda, que são mais propensos a trabalhar em tempo integral durante a faculdade. Os alunos de baixa renda também são mais propensos a ir para o campus e ter responsabilidades familiares.

Por causa dessas responsabilidades, os alunos de origens de baixa renda geralmente têm menos tempo para se dedicar ao dever de casa em comparação com os alunos de origens mais abastadas que moram no campus e não trabalham tantas horas. Isso cria uma lacuna de oportunidade na capacidade dos alunos de serem bem-sucedidos. Um relatório de 2018 do Pell Institute mostra que os alunos de baixa renda se graduam a taxas muito mais baixas do que os alunos de classes de renda mais alta.

Se os campi desejam que os alunos de baixa renda se formem na mesma proporção que seus colegas, é importante que esses alunos tenham uma carga horária razoável em seus cursos, para que não tenham que escolher entre a faculdade e suas outras responsabilidades.

https://theconversation.com/college-can-still-be-rigorous-without-a-lot-of-homework-162225

 

 Este artigo foi republicado de The Conversation sob uma licença Creative Commons. Leia o artigo original.

 

College can still be rigorous without a lot of homework, by Kc Culver, The Conversation,

June 28, 2021

How hard should it be to earn a college degree?

When the book "Academically Adrift" appeared in 2011, it generated widespread concern that college was not effectively educating students and preparing them for today's world. Among other things, authors Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa claimed that most colleges were not rigorous or demanding, in part because college students were not reading and writing enough in order to build their critical thinking skills. But is it really how much work students are assigned that makes college rigorous and helps them learn?

As a scholar of higher education, I have taken a close look at college students' academic experiences and outcomes for several years. Some people define rigor as how many pages a student reads or how many pages a student writes. But in a 2021 peer-reviewed study that I published with colleagues John Braxton and Ernie Pascarella, I found that if they do that, they might miss key elements of what it takes to help students develop critical thinking skills and become lifelong learners. They also might create an unnecessary burden for students who have other demands on their time.

What is rigor?

In education, academic rigor tends to be defined in two different ways: as a workload that is demanding and difficult or as learning experiences that challenge and support students to think more deeply.

Given the importance of critical thinking, the way rigor is defined makes a big difference in terms of the ways that the general public—as well as administrators, policymakers, journalists and researchers—assess if a college is rigorous. It also makes a difference in terms of faculties' expectations for students, the types of classroom activities they use and the assignments they give.

In other words, if rigor means workload, then students who spend a lot of time studying should become better critical thinkers. In contrast, if rigor means academic challenge, then students who practice higher-order thinking skills, such as analysis and evaluation, during class, on assignments and during exams should become better critical thinkers.

That's why my study examines each definition of rigor—workload and academic challenge—in terms of helping students develop critical thinking skills. The study also looks at those definitions of rigor in relation to two related dimensions of lifelong learning. One is reading and writing for pleasure, and the other is the habit of thinking deeply and critically about things.

The college difference

The study included about 2,800 students who attended one of 46 four-year colleges in the U.S. between 2006 and 2012. These students took part in the Wabash National Study of Liberal Arts Education, which was a large, longitudinal study of how college experiences affected outcomes associated with a liberal arts education. They completed surveys and tests at three different points during college: at the beginning of their first year, at the end of their first year and at the end of their fourth year.

In these surveys, students reported their course workload, including how many
- books they read,
- pages they wrote and
- hours they spent studying for class.
They also reported how much their courses challenged them to engage in higher-order thinking.
Faculty ask students to practice higher-order thinking when they
- ask challenging questions in class and
- give assignments that ask students to analyze information or form an argument.

Since the Wabash National Study measured students' critical thinking and lifelong learning skills at multiple timepoints, my study looked at how much students developed these skills in relation to their workload and the academic challenge of their classes.

Of course, students who are
- motivated to get good grades
may be more likely to develop these skills. And lots of other college experiences, like
- interacting with faculty outside of class or
- being in an honors program,
might also make a difference. My study accounts for these factors in order to better understand the unique influence of each definition of rigor.

What matters

Here's what we found.

In the first year of college, higher-order thinking was related to an increase in both dimensions of lifelong learning:
- reading and writing for pleasure and
- the tendency to think deeply.
Higher-order thinking was not related to development of critical thinking skills. Workload was not related to students' critical thinking or either dimension of lifelong learning.

Across four years of college,
* higher-order thinking was related to
- an increase in students' critical thinking skills and
- both dimensions of lifelong learning.
* Workload was related to only one dimension of lifelong learning:
- reading and writing for pleasure.
This relationship was driven primarily by the amount of reading students did, rather than the amount of writing they did or the amount of time they spent studying.

Perhaps most importantly, my study suggests that students learn
- important critical thinking and
- lifelong learning skills
because of challenging class experiences regardless of the workload. 

In other words, college can help students be better
- critical thinkers and
- lifelong learners
without requiring them to spend a lot of time studying.

Implications for colleges

This study has implications for how courses and colleges are assessed as being rigorous. It also has implications for how faculty teach, as it suggests that they should create courses that
- engage students in higher-order thinking,
rather than asking them to complete long reading and writing assignments.

These implications matter particularly for students from low-income backgrounds, who are more likely to work full-time during college. Low-income students are also more likely to commute to campus and have family responsibilities.

Because of these responsibilities, students from low-income backgrounds often have less time to dedicate to homework compared to students from wealthier backgrounds who live on campus and who don't work as many hours. This creates an opportunity gap in students' ability to be successful. A 2018 report from the Pell Institute shows that low-income students graduate at much lower rates than students from higher-income backgrounds.

If campuses want students from low-income backgrounds to graduate at the same rate as their peers, then it is important that these students have a reasonable workload in their courses so that they don't have to choose between college and their other responsibilities.

https://theconversation.com/college-can-still-be-rigorous-without-a-lot-of-homework-162225

 

 This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Censura nos EUA: à imprensa e ao ensino

A censura nos EUA é cada vez mais oficial, por Alan MacLeod, em Fair.org ([Tradução: Vander Resende - texto original, com links, ao final]

Embora muitos ainda gostem de considerar os Estados Unidos um bastião da liberdade de expressão não inibida pela censura do governo, nesta nova era, a ideia está se tornando cada vez mais difícil de sustentar. Enquanto a mídia corporativa gosta de destacar as muitas deficiências de liberdade de imprensa de nações estrangeiras hostis, as preocupações com a censura começam muito mais perto de casa.

O governo Biden ganhou as manchetes na semana passada quando se moveu para fechar os sites de 33 meios de comunicação estrangeiros, incluindo aqueles baseados no Irã, Bahrein, Iêmen e Palestina. As autoridades justificaram a decisão alegando que as organizações eram agentes de "desinformação".

A mais notável delas é provavelmente a emissora estatal iraniana Press TV, em inglês. Os visitantes da PressTV.com agora recebem o selo do Departamento de Justiça e do FBI, e uma mensagem notificando-os de que o domínio [.com] “foi confiscado pelo governo dos Estados Unidos”. (O site já migrou para um domínio baseado no Irã, PressTV.ir.)

Press TV: este site foi apreendido

O governo dos EUA se gabando de sua censura à Press TV.

Isso está longe de ser a primeira vez que a Press TV foi alvo. Há 18 meses, o Google excluiu a conta do canal iraniano no YouTube; no início deste ano, o Facebook fez o mesmo, banindo sua página, que tinha mais de 4 milhões de seguidores. Em 2019, os EUA também prenderam a apresentadora da  Press TV americana Marzieh Hashemi, mantendo-a sem acusações por mais de uma semana. Hashemi, uma muçulmana, disse que seu lenço foi removido à força e que ela só recebeu carne de porco para comer.

Os meios de comunicação ocidentais que cobrem as novas apreensões não as enquadram como um ataque à Primeira Emenda (Washington Post, 23/06/21; CNN, 23/06/21; Fox News, 23/06/21), muitos preferindo discutir as deficiências do panorama da mídia iraniana. O [site] Slate (24/06/21), por exemplo, lembrou aos leitores que o Irã "bloqueia sites de mídia social estrangeiros, censura veículos estrangeiros críticos e prende repórteres". Embora isso possa ser perfeitamente verdade, Slate sugeriu que era possível para o governo Biden fazer uma “distinção clara” entre quando o Irã o faz e quando os EUA realizam ações semelhantes; “Desinformação e interferência eleitoral são problemas sérios”, observou proveitosamente.

Mergulhando na liberdade de imprensa

Desprezar a liberdade de imprensa em estados oficiais inimigos é um passatempo favorito da mídia corporativa (FAIR.org, 01/11/06, 20/05/19, 20/10/19). É um motivo de orgulho para os EUA que a liberdade de expressão esteja inscrita na Constituição. Cada vez mais, no entanto, se quisermos encontrar censura direta do governo ao discurso, não precisamos viajar para muito longe.

NYT: Trump visa anti-semitismo e boicotes israelenses em campi universitários

A alegação de Donald Trump de que sua ordem anti-BDS "visa o anti-semitismo" foi apresentada como fato na manchete do New York Times (12/10/19); a perspectiva dos “críticos” de que se tratava de “um ataque à liberdade de expressão” foi tratada como uma denúncia do subtítulo.

Sob a liderança do presidente Donald Trump, a liberdade de imprensa despencou. Repórteres que trabalhavam para veículos estrangeiros como a RT America [ Russia Today America] foram forçados a se registrar como “agentes estrangeiros”, sob uma lei de 1938 aprovada para conter a propaganda nazista. O canal foi posteriormente retirado do ar em Washington, DC.

Enquanto isso, os críticos ou oponentes da política externa dos EUA têm sido constantemente penalizados e muitas vezes retirados das principais plataformas de mídia social (FAIR.org, 4/16/19). A administração Trump também tentou forçar a venda do aplicativo de mídia social de propriedade chinesa TikTok para uma empresa americana e interromper a expansão da Huawei como fornecedora de rede 5G preferencial para o mundo.

Internamente, Trump exigiu que o quarterback estrela da NFL [ Liga de Futebol Americano], Colin Kaepernick, protestasse pacificamente durante o hino nacional. Ele também interferiu diretamente no currículo universitário; seu Departamento de Educação ordenou que as universidades de Duke e Carolina do Norte em Chapel Hill reescrevessem seus programas de Estudos do Oriente Médio, já que eram excessivamente "positivos" em relação ao Islã e não promoviam as metas de segurança nacional dos EUA.

Trump também emitiu uma ordem proibindo o movimento de Boicote de Desinvestimento e Sanções (BDS) contra Israel. Desde a era dos Direitos Civis, os boicotes são entendidos como um discurso protegido pela Primeira Emenda. No entanto, desde 2015, 35 estados dos EUA aprovaram leis que penalizam o BDS. Efetivamente, qualquer pessoa que queira receber dinheiro público de qualquer forma deve assinar uma promessa de nunca boicotar o estado de Israel.

No ano passado, a jornalista Abby Martin (ela mesma alvo da censura nas redes sociais) foi impedida de dar uma palestra na Georgia Southern University porque se recusou a assinar os direitos da Primeira Emenda. Funcionários de escolas públicas foram demitidos pelo mesmo motivo.

Talvez o mais preocupante seja o fato de a base de Trump concordar em rasgar a Primeira Emenda. Uma pesquisa de 2018 revelou que 43% dos republicanos concordaram que “o presidente deve ter autoridade para fechar veículos de notícias engajados em mau comportamento”.
Gravação em telefone celular de policiais pode ser tornar crime, em legislação que avança em Ohio

Uma proposta de lei de Ohio poderia proibir vídeos como o que levou à condenação de Derek Chauvin pelo assassinato de George Floyd (News 5 Cleveland, 24/06/21).

Mesmo após a derrota de Trump, o Partido Republicano ainda está pressionando por regulamentações que limitam a liberdade de expressão na América. Uma nova lei de Ohio tornando ilegal filmar policiais está avançando rapidamente (News 5 Cleveland, 6/24/21). Os críticos observam que o projeto de lei tornaria ilegal o registro de crimes como o assassinato de George Floyd.

Enquanto isso, as leis que proíbem o ensino da Teoria racial Crítica - um paradigma que examina o racismo estrutural nas instituições dos EUA - foram aprovadas ou estão sendo consideradas em pelo menos 21 estados (US News, 6/23/21). Isso foi estimulado pela imprensa conservadora, que transformou a escola de pensamento em uma fixação ideológica, mencionando-a quase 1.300 vezes nos últimos três meses e meio (Media Matters, 6/15/21).

Essas proibições da Teoria Racial Crítica são espelhadas pelas novas leis "Don't Say Gay", que proíbem o ensino da história LGBT em escolas K-12, ou dão aos pais a oportunidade de tirar as crianças das aulas mencionando eventos históricos importantes como os motins de Stonewall . Uma faixa de estados vermelhos aprovou ou estão atualmente considerando tal legislação (Nova República, 6/28/21).

Em outro movimento preocupante para os defensores da liberdade de expressão, o governador da Flórida Ron DeSantis acaba de assinar um projeto de lei exigindo que os estudantes universitários e seus professores registrem suas opiniões ideológicas com o estado (Salon, 23/06/21), supostamente em uma tentativa de promover “Diversidade intelectual” no campus. A equipe teme que os resultados sejam usados ​​para eliminar ou negar empregos àqueles considerados insuficientemente conservadores.

DeSantis também está supervisionando uma grande reformulação do currículo escolar do estado, em um esforço para garantir que as crianças sejam definitivamente instruídas de que "o comunismo é diabólico", em suas próprias palavras (WBNS, 22/06/21). As crianças receberão "relatos em primeira pessoa de vítimas de filosofias de governo de outras nações, que podem comparar essas filosofias com as dos Estados Unidos". DeSantis apresenta o movimento como fornecendo fatos às crianças, em vez de "tentar doutriná-las com ideologia".

Muito antes de Trump

Bombardeio da OTAN ao RTS

Os escritórios da Rádio TV Sérvia depois de ser deliberadamente alvo de bombardeiros norte-americanos.

As tentativas de amordaçar a imprensa não começaram com Trump, entretanto. O presidente Obama supervisionou uma guerra contra denunciantes como Edward Snowden e garantiu que Julian Assange passasse a maior parte de uma década escondido ou na prisão. A ação jornalística mais notável de Assange foi divulgar os Registros da Guerra do Iraque e o vídeo Assassinato Colateral, que mostrava pilotos americanos massacrando civis - incluindo dois jornalistas da Reuters - a sangue frio.

O ataque direto aos meios de comunicação é uma tática comum para os militares dos Estados Unidos. Durante a Guerra do Kosovo, os EUA alvejaram deliberadamente os edifícios da emissora estatal sérvia RTS, matando 16 pessoas (FAIR.org, 8/2/00). Quatro anos depois, conduziu ataques aéreos contra os escritórios da TV Abu Dhabi e da Al Jazeera em Bagdá, ao mesmo tempo em que tanques americanos bombardeavam o Hotel Palestine. Sobre o incidente, Repórteres Sem Fronteiras, afirmou: “Só podemos concluir que o Exército dos EUA deliberadamente e sem avisar visou os jornalistas” (FAIR.org, 4/10/03). Este estava longe de ser o único ataque militar à Al Jazeera durante a invasão. O governo Bush até mesmo sequestrou o jornalista da rede Sami al-Hajj, mantendo-o dentro do notório campo de prisioneiros da Baía de Guantánamo por seis anos sem acusações.

Embora muitos ainda gostem de considerar os Estados Unidos um bastião da liberdade de expressão não inibida pela censura do governo, nesta nova era, a ideia está se tornando cada vez mais difícil de sustentar. Enquanto a mídia corporativa gosta de destacar as muitas deficiências de liberdade de imprensa de nações estrangeiras hostis, as preocupações com a censura começam muito mais perto de casa.

 

 

US Censorship Is Increasingly Official, byAlan MacLeod, at Fair.org (

Although many still like to hold up the United States as a bastion of free speech uninhibited by government censorship, in this new era, the idea is becoming increasingly difficult to sustain. While corporate media like to highlight the many press freedom shortcomings of hostile foreign nations, the censorship worries start much closer to home.

The Biden administration made headlines last week as it moved to shut down the websites of 33 foreign media outlets, including ones based in Iran, Bahrain, Yemen and Palestine. Officials justified the decision by claiming the organizations were agents of “disinformation.”

The most notable of these is probably English-language Iranian state broadcaster Press TV. Visitors to PressTV.com are now met with the seal of the Department of Justice and the FBI, and a message notifying them that the domain “has been seized by the United States government.” (The site has since migrated to an Iranian-based domain, PressTV.ir.)

 

The US government boasting of its censorship of Press TV.

This is far from the first time Press TV has been targeted. Eighteen months ago, Google deleted the Iranian channel’s YouTube account; earlier this year, Facebook did the same, banning its page, which had over 4 million followers. In 2019, the US also arrested American Press TV presenter Marzieh Hashemi, holding her without charge for over a week. Hashemi, a Muslim, said her headscarf was forcibly removed, and she was offered only pork to eat.

Western outlets covering the new seizures did not frame them as an attack on the First Amendment (Washington Post, 6/23/21; CNN, 6/23/21; Fox News, 6/23/21), many preferring instead to discuss the shortcomings of the Iranian media landscape. Slate (6/24/21), for example, reminded readers that Iran “blocks foreign social media sites, censors critical foreign outlets and jails reporters.” While this may be perfectly true, Slate suggested it was possible for the Biden administration to make a “clear distinction” between when Iran does it and when the US carries out similar actions; “disinformation and election interference are serious problems,” it helpfully noted.

Nosediving press freedom

Decrying the state of press freedoms in official enemy states is a favorite pastime of corporate media (FAIR.org, 11/1/06, 5/20/19, 10/20/19). It is a point of pride in the US that freedom of speech is written into the Constitution. Increasingly, however, if we want to find direct government censorship of speech, we don’t have to travel far.

Donald Trump’s claim that his anti-BDS order “targets antisemitism” was presented as fact in the New York Times headline (12/10/19); the perspective of “critics” that it was “an attack on free speech” was treated as an allegation in the subhead.

Under President Donald Trump’s leadership, freedom of the press nosedived. Reporters working for foreign outlets like RT America were forced to register as “foreign agents,” under a 1938 law passed to counter Nazi propaganda. The channel was subsequently taken off the air in Washington, DC.

Meanwhile, critics or opponents of US foreign policy have been constantly penalized and often pulled off major social media platforms (FAIR.org, 4/16/19). The Trump administration also attempted to force the sale of Chinese-owned social media app TikTok to an American company, and to halt Huawei’s spread as 5G network provider of choice to the globe.

Internally, Trump demanded the NFL fire star quarterback Colin Kaepernick for peacefully protesting during the national anthem. He also directly interfered in the university curriculum; his Department of Education ordered the universities of Duke and North Carolina at Chapel Hill to rewrite their Middle Eastern Studies programs, as they were overly “positive” towards Islam and did not promote US national security goals.

Trump also issued an order all but outlawing the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel. Since the Civil Rights era, boycotts have been understood to be protected speech under the First Amendment. Nevertheless, since 2015, 35 US states have approved laws penalizing BDS. Effectively, anyone wanting to take public money in any form must sign a pledge to never boycott the state of Israel.

Last year, journalist Abby Martin (herself a target of social media censorship) was blocked from giving a lecture at Georgia Southern University because she refused to sign those First Amendment rights away. Public school staff have been fired for the same thing.

Perhaps most worryingly, Trump’s base is on board with tearing up the First Amendment. A 2018 poll found that 43% of Republicans agreed that “the president should have the authority to close news outlets engaged in bad behavior.”

State censorship by states

A proposed Ohio law could outlaw videos like the one that led to Derek Chauvin’s conviction for murdering George Floyd (News 5 Cleveland, 6/24/21).

Even after Trump’s defeat, the GOP is still pushing through regulations limiting speech across America. A new Ohio law making filming police illegal is currently rapidly advancing (News 5 Cleveland, 6/24/21). Critics note that the bill would outlaw recording crimes like the murder of George Floyd.

Meanwhile, laws banning the teaching of Critical Race Theory—a paradigm that examines structural racism in US institutions—have been passed or are being considered in at least 21 states (US News, 6/23/21). This has been egged on by the conservative press, who have turned the school of thought into an ideological fixation, mentioning it nearly 1,300 times in the past three and a half months (Media Matters, 6/15/21).

These bans on Critical Race Theory are mirrored by new “Don’t Say Gay” laws, which forbid the teaching of LGBT history in K-12 schools, or give parents the opportunity to pull children from classes mentioning key historical events like the Stonewall Riots. A swath of red states have either passed or are currently considering such legislation (New Republic, 6/28/21).

In another worrying move for free speech advocates, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has just signed a bill requiring both university students and their professors to register their ideological views with the state (Salon, 6/23/21), supposedly in a bid to promote “intellectual diversity” on campus. Staff fear the results will be used to purge or deny employment to those deemed insufficiently conservative.

DeSantis is also currently overseeing a huge rewrite of the state’s school curriculum, in an effort to ensure that children are definitively instructed that “communism is evil,” in his own words (WBNS, 6/22/21). Children will be provided with “first-person accounts of victims of other nations’ governing philosophies who can compare those philosophies with those of the United States.” DeSantis presents the move as providing children with facts rather than “trying to indoctrinate them with ideology.”

Long before Trump

The offices of Radio TV Serbia after being deliberately targeted by US bombers.

The attempts to muzzle the press did not start with Trump, however. President Obama oversaw a war on whistleblowers like Edward Snowden, and ensured that Julian Assange has spent the best part of a decade in hiding or in prison. Assange’s most notable journalistic action was to release the Iraq War Logs and the Collateral Murder video, which showed US pilots massacring civilians—including two Reuters journalists—in cold blood.

Outright attacking media outlets is a common tactic for the US military. During the Kosovo War, the US deliberately targeted the buildings of Serbian state broadcaster RTS, killing 16 people (FAIR.org, 8/2/00). Four years later, it conducted airstrikes on the offices of Abu Dhabi TV and Al Jazeera in Baghdad at the same time as American tanks shelled the Hotel Palestine. On the incident, Reporters Without Borders, stated: “We can only conclude that the US Army deliberately and without warning targeted journalists” (FAIR.org, 4/10/03). This was far from the only military attack on Al Jazeera during the invasion. The Bush administration even had the network’s journalist Sami al-Hajj kidnapped, holding him inside the notorious Guantánamo Bay prison camp for six years without charge.

Although many still like to hold up the United States as a bastion of free speech uninhibited by government censorship, in this new era, the idea is becoming increasingly difficult to sustain. While corporate media like to highlight the many press freedom shortcomings of hostile foreign nations, the censorship worries start much closer to home.

Saúde mental - (des)conexão entre o tempo gasto em dispositivos e problemas de saúde mental.

Dados falhos levaram à descoberta de uma conexão entre o tempo gasto em dispositivos e problemas de saúde mental - nova pesquisa, por Craig J.R. Sewall (Pós-doutorado em Saúde Mental Infantil e Adolescente, Universidade de Pittsburgh
23 de junho de 2021 8h25 EDT)

... pesquisar por que essas tecnologias eram prejudiciais e o que poderia ser feito para prevenir esses danos. À medida que mergulhei na literatura científica e conduzi meus próprios estudos, percebi que a ligação entre tecnologia digital e bem-estar era muito mais complicada do que a narrativa típica retratada pela mídia popular. A literatura científica era uma confusão de contradições: alguns estudos encontraram efeitos prejudiciais, outros encontraram efeitos benéficos e outros ainda não encontraram efeitos. As razões para essa inconsistência são muitas, mas a medição falha está no topo da lista.

Mesmo um seguidor casual das notícias dos últimos anos provavelmente terá encontrado histórias sobre pesquisas que mostram que tecnologias digitais, como mídia social e smartphones, estão prejudicando a saúde mental dos jovens. As taxas de depressão e suicídio entre os jovens têm aumentado continuamente desde meados dos anos 2000, na época em que os primeiros smartphones e plataformas de mídia social estavam sendo lançados. Essas tecnologias se tornaram onipresentes e a angústia dos jovens continuou a aumentar desde então.

Muitos artigos na imprensa popular e acadêmica afirmam que a culpa é da tecnologia digital. Alguns especialistas, incluindo aqueles recentemente apresentados em matérias de grandes veículos de notícias, afirmam que o uso excessivo da tecnologia digital está claramente relacionado ao sofrimento psicológico dos jovens. Negar essa conexão, de acordo com um proeminente defensor do vínculo, é o mesmo que negar o vínculo entre a atividade humana e as mudanças climáticas.

Em um esforço para proteger os jovens dos danos da tecnologia digital, alguns políticos introduziram uma legislação que, entre outras coisas, limitaria automaticamente o tempo dos usuários gasto em uma plataforma de mídia social a 30 minutos por dia. Se as evidências são tão definitivas de que a tecnologia digital está prejudicando a juventude da América de maneiras tão substanciais, a redução do uso desses dispositivos pelos jovens poderia ser uma das intervenções de saúde pública mais importantes da história americana.

Há apenas um problema: a evidência de uma ligação entre o tempo gasto usando tecnologia e saúde mental é fatalmente falha.

Conheça a si mesmo - mais fácil falar do que fazer

Ausente da discussão sobre os possíveis danos da tecnologia digital está o fato de que praticamente todos os estudos acadêmicos nessa área usaram medidas de autorrelato altamente falhas. Essas medidas normalmente pedem às pessoas que dêem seus melhores palpites sobre a frequência com que usaram as tecnologias digitais na última semana, mês ou mesmo ano. O problema é que as pessoas são péssimas em estimar o uso da tecnologia digital, e há evidências de que pessoas psicologicamente angustiadas são ainda piores nisso. Isso é compreensível porque é muito difícil prestar atenção e lembrar com precisão algo que você faz com frequência e habitualmente.

Pesquisadores começaram recentemente a expor a discrepância entre o uso auto-relatado e real de tecnologia, incluindo Facebook, smartphones e internet. Meus colegas e eu realizamos uma revisão sistemática e meta-análise das discrepâncias entre o uso real e o auto-relatado da mídia digital e descobrimos que o uso auto-relatado raramente é um reflexo preciso do uso real.

Isso tem implicações enormes. Embora a medição não seja um tópico atraente, ela forma a base da pesquisa científica. Simplificando, para tirar conclusões - e recomendações subsequentes - sobre algo que você está estudando, você deve garantir que está medindo o que pretende medir. Se suas medidas estiverem defeituosas, seus dados não são confiáveis. E se as medidas são mais imprecisas para certas pessoas - como jovens ou pessoas com depressão - então os dados são ainda menos confiáveis. Esse é o caso da maioria das pesquisas sobre os efeitos do uso da tecnologia nos últimos 15 anos.

Imagine que tudo o que se sabe sobre a pandemia de COVID-19 se baseia em pessoas que dão seus melhores palpites sobre se têm o vírus, em vez de testes médicos altamente confiáveis. Agora imagine que as pessoas que realmente têm o vírus têm maior probabilidade de se diagnosticarem erroneamente. As consequências de confiar nessa medida pouco confiável seriam de longo alcance. Os efeitos do vírus na saúde, como ele se espalha, como combatê-lo - praticamente todas as informações coletadas sobre o vírus seriam contaminadas. E os recursos gastos com base nessa informação falha seriam em grande parte desperdiçados.

A verdade incômoda é que a medição inadequada, bem como outras questões metodológicas, incluindo maneiras inconsistentes de conceber os diferentes tipos de uso de tecnologia digital e projeto de pesquisa que não consegue estabelecer uma conexão causal, é generalizada. Isso significa que a suposta ligação entre a tecnologia digital e o sofrimento psicológico permanece inconclusiva.

A mídia social tem muito a responder, mas em termos de tempo gasto com ela, a saúde mental dos jovens pode não estar na lista. 

Em minha própria pesquisa como estudante de doutorado em serviço social, descobri que a ligação entre o uso da tecnologia digital e a saúde mental era mais forte quando medidas de autorrelato eram usadas do que quando medidas objetivas foram usados. Um exemplo de medida objetiva é o aplicativo “Tempo de tela” da Apple, que rastreia automaticamente o uso do dispositivo. E quando usei essas medidas objetivas para rastrear o uso da tecnologia digital entre jovens adultos ao longo do tempo, descobri que o aumento do uso não estava associado ao aumento da depressão, ansiedade ou pensamentos suicidas. Na verdade, aqueles que usaram seus smartphones com mais frequência relataram níveis mais baixos de depressão e ansiedade.

De crente a cético

O fato de a ligação entre o uso da tecnologia digital e o sofrimento psicológico ser inconclusivo teria sido uma grande surpresa para mim, cinco anos atrás. Fiquei chocado com os níveis de depressão e pensamentos suicidas entre os alunos que tratei quando trabalhei como terapeuta de saúde mental em um centro de aconselhamento universitário. Eu, como a maioria das pessoas, aceitei a narrativa convencional de que todos esses smartphones e mídias sociais estavam prejudicando os jovens.

Querendo investigar isso mais a fundo, deixei a prática clínica por um doutorado. para que eu pudesse pesquisar por que essas tecnologias eram prejudiciais e o que poderia ser feito para prevenir esses danos. À medida que mergulhei na literatura científica e conduzi meus próprios estudos, percebi que a ligação entre tecnologia digital e bem-estar era muito mais complicada do que a narrativa típica retratada pela mídia popular. A literatura científica era uma confusão de contradições: alguns estudos encontraram efeitos prejudiciais, outros encontraram efeitos benéficos e outros ainda não encontraram efeitos. As razões para essa inconsistência são muitas, mas a medição falha está no topo da lista.

Isso é lamentável, não apenas porque representa uma enorme perda de tempo e recursos, ou porque a narrativa de que essas tecnologias são prejudiciais aos jovens foi amplamente popularizada e é difícil colocar o gato de volta na bolsa, mas também porque me força a concordar com Mark Zuckerberg.
 

Chegando à verdade

Agora, isso não significa que qualquer quantidade ou tipo de uso de tecnologia digital seja adequado. É bastante claro que certos aspectos, como vitimização cibernética e exposição a conteúdo online prejudicial, podem ser prejudiciais para os jovens. Mas simplesmente tirar a tecnologia deles pode não resolver o problema, e alguns pesquisadores sugerem que isso pode realmente fazer mais mal do que bem.

Se, como e para quem o uso da tecnologia digital é prejudicial é provavelmente muito mais complicado do que a imagem frequentemente apresentada na mídia popular. No entanto, é provável que a realidade permaneça obscura até que surjam evidências mais confiáveis.


https://theconversation.com/flawed-data-led-to-findings-of-a-connection-between-time-spent-on-devices-and-mental-health-problems-new-research-162585

Edição e tradução: Vander Resende

Flawed data led to findings of a connection between time spent on devices and mental health problems – new research 

Craig J.R. Sewall

Postdoctoral Scholar of Child and Adolescent Mental Health, University of Pittsburgh

June 23, 2021 8.25am EDT

https://theconversation.com/flawed-data-led-to-findings-of-a-connection-between-time-spent-on-devices-and-mental-health-problems-new-research-162585

Even a casual follower of the news over the last few years is likely to have encountered stories about research showing that digital technologies like social media and smartphones are harming young people’s mental health. Rates of depression and suicide among young people have risen steadily since the mid-2000s, around the time that the first smartphones and social media platforms were being released. These technologies have become ubiquitous, and young people’s distress has continued to increase since then.

Many articles in the popular and academic press assert that digital technology is to blame. Some experts, including those recently featured in stories by major news outlets, state that excessive use of digital technology is clearly linked to psychological distress in young people. To deny this connection, according to a prominent proponent of the link, is akin to denying the link between human activity and climate change.

In an effort to protect young people from the harms of digital tech, some politicians have introduced legislation that would, among other things, automatically limit users’ time spent on a social media platform to 30 minutes a day. If the evidence is so definitive that digital technology is harming America’s youth in such substantial ways, then reducing young people’s use of these devices could be one of the most important public health interventions in American history.

There’s just one problem: The evidence for a link between time spent using technology and mental health is fatally flawed.

Know thyself – easier said than done

Absent from the discussion about the putative harms of digital tech is the fact that practically all academic studies in this area have used highly flawed self-report measures. These measures typically ask people to give their best guesses about how often they used digital technologies over the past week or month or even year. The problem is that people are terrible at estimating their digital technology use, and there’s evidence that people who are psychologically distressed are even worse at it. This is understandable because it’s very hard to pay attention to and accurately recall something that you do frequently and habitually.

Researchers have recently begun to expose the discrepancy between self-reported and actual technology use, including for Facebook, smartphones and the internet. My colleagues and I carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis of discrepancies between actual and self-reported digital media use and found that self-reported use is rarely an accurate reflection of actual use.

This has enormous implications. Although measurement isn’t a sexy topic, it forms the foundation of scientific research. Simply put, to make conclusions – and subsequent recommendations – about something you’re studying, you must ensure you’re measuring the thing you’re intending to measure. If your measures are defective, then your data is untrustworthy. And if the measures are more inaccurate for certain people – like young people or those with depression – then the data is even more untrustworthy. This is the case for the majority of research into the effects of technology use over the past 15 years.

Imagine that everything known about the COVID-19 pandemic was based on people giving their best guesses about whether they have the virus, instead of highly reliable medical tests. Now imagine that people who actually have the virus are more likely to misdiagnose themselves. The consequences of relying on this unreliable measure would be far-reaching. The health effects of the virus, how it’s spreading, how to combat it – practically every bit of information gathered about the virus would be tainted. And the resources expended based on this flawed information would be largely wasted.

The uncomfortable truth is that shoddy measurement, as well as other methodological issues including inconsistent ways of conceiving of different types of digital tech use and research design that falls short of establishing a causal connection, is widespread. This means that the putative link between digital technology and psychological distress remains inconclusive.

Social media has a lot to answer for, but in terms of time spent on them, the mental health of young people might not belong on the list. David Stewart/Flickr, CC BY

In my own research as a doctoral student in social work, I found that the link between digital technology use and mental health was stronger when self-report measures were used than when objective measures were used. An example of an objective measure is Apple’s “Screen Time” application, which automatically tracks device use. And when I used these objective measures to track digital technology use among young adults over time, I found that increased use was not associated with increased depression, anxiety or suicidal thoughts. In fact, those who used their smartphones more frequently reported lower levels of depression and anxiety.

From believer to skeptic

That the link between digital tech use and psychological distress is inconclusive would have come as a big surprise to me five years ago. I was shocked by the levels of depression and thoughts of suicide among the students I treated when I worked as a mental health therapist at a college counseling center. I, like most people, accepted the conventional narrative that all these smartphones and social media were harming young people.

Wanting to investigate this further, I left clinical practice for a Ph.D. program so I could research why these technologies were harmful and what could be done to prevent these harms. As I dove into the scientific literature and conducted studies of my own, I came to realize that the link between digital technology and well-being was much more convoluted than the typical narrative portrayed by popular media. The scientific literature was a mess of contradiction: Some studies found harmful effects, others found beneficial effects and still others found no effects. The reasons for this inconsistency are many, but flawed measurement is at the top of the list.

This is unfortunate, not just because it represents a huge waste of time and resources, or because the narrative that these technologies are harmful to young people has been widely popularized and it’s hard to get the cat back in the bag, but also because it forces me to agree with Mark Zuckerberg.

Getting at the truth

Now, this doesn’t mean that any amount or kind of digital technology use is fine. It’s fairly clear that certain aspects, such as cyber-victimization and exposure to harmful online content, can be damaging to young people. But simply taking tech away from them may not fix the problem, and some researchers suggest it may actually do more harm than good.

Whether, how and for whom digital tech use is harmful is likely much more complicated than the picture often presented in popular media. However, the reality is likely to remain unclear until more reliable evidence comes in.

[Get the best of The Conversation, every weekend. Sign up for our weekly newsletter.]

Negação da ciência: por que isso acontece e 5 coisas que você pode fazer a respeito, em The Conversation, by Barbara K. Hofer, and Gale Sinatra,

 Negação da ciência: por que isso acontece e 5 coisas que você pode fazer a respeito, em The Conversation, de Barbara K. Hofer, Professora de Psicologia Emerita, Middlebury, e Gale Sinatra, Professora de Educação e Psicologia, University of Southern California

A negação da ciência tornou-se mortal em 2020. Muitos líderes políticos falharam em apoiar o que os cientistas sabiam ser medidas de prevenção eficazes. Durante o curso da pandemia, pessoas morreram de COVID-19 ainda acreditando que ele não existia.

A negação da ciência não é nova, é claro. Mas é mais importante do que nunca entender por que algumas pessoas negam, duvidam ou resistem às explicações científicas - e o que pode ser feito para superar essas barreiras para aceitar a ciência.

(O texto completo, em inglês, vai a seguir. Se necessário, utilize ferramentas como o Google Tradutor, por exemplo)

Science denial: Why it happens and 5 things you can do about it, at The Conversation, by Barbara K. Hofer, Professor of Psychology Emerita, Middlebury, and Gale Sinatra, Professor of Education and Psychology, University of Southern California

 

Science denial became deadly in 2020. Many political leaders failed to support what scientists knew to be effective prevention measures. Over the course of the pandemic, people died from COVID-19 still believing it did not exist.

Science denial is not new, of course. But it is more important than ever to understand why some people deny, doubt or resist scientific explanations – and what can be done to overcome these barriers to accepting science.

In our book “Science Denial: Why It Happens and What to Do About It,” we offer ways for you to understand and combat the problem. As two research psychologists, we know that everyone is susceptible to forms of it. Most importantly, we know there are solutions.

Here’s our advice on how to confront five psychological challenges that can lead to science denial.

The Conversation is a news organization dedicated to facts and evidence

Challenge #1: Social identity

People are social beings and tend to align with those who hold similar beliefs and values. Social media amplify alliances. You’re likely to see more of what you already agree with and fewer alternative points of view. People live in information filter bubbles created by powerful algorithms. When those in your social circle share misinformation, you are more likely to believe it and share it. Misinformation multiplies and science denial grows.

Can you find common ground to connect on? LinkedIn Sales Solutions/Unsplash, CC BY

Action #1: Each person has multiple social identities. One of us talked with a climate change denier and discovered he was also a grandparent. He opened up when thinking about his grandchildren’s future, and the conversation turned to economic concerns, the root of his denial. Or maybe someone is vaccine-hesitant because so are mothers in her child’s play group, but she is also a caring person, concerned about immunocompromised children.

We have found it effective to listen to others’ concerns and try to find common ground. Someone you connect with is more persuasive than those with whom you share less in common. When one identity is blocking acceptance of the science, leverage a second identity to make a connection.

Challenge #2: Mental shortcuts

Everyone’s busy, and it would be exhausting to be vigilant deep thinkers all the time. You see an article online with a clickbait headline such as “Eat Chocolate and Live Longer” and you share it, because you assume it is true, want it to be or think it is ridiculous.

Action #2: Instead of sharing that article on how GMOs are unhealthy, learn to slow down and monitor the quick, intuitive responses that psychologist Daniel Kahneman calls System 1 thinking. Instead turn on the rational, analytical mind of System 2 and ask yourself, how do I know this is true? Is it plausible? Why do I think it is true? Then do some fact-checking. Learn to not immediately accept information you already believe, which is called confirmation bias.

Challenge #3: Beliefs on how and what you know

Everyone has ideas about what they think knowledge is, where it comes from and whom to trust. Some people think dualistically: There’s always a clear right and wrong. But scientists view tentativeness as a hallmark of their discipline. Some people may not understand that scientific claims will change as more evidence is gathered, so they may be distrustful of how public health policy shifted around COVID-19.

Journalists who present “both sides” of settled scientific agreements can unknowingly persuade readers that the science is more uncertain than it actually is, turning balance into bias. Only 57% of Americans surveyed accept that climate change is caused by human activity, compared with 97% of climate scientists, and only 55% think that scientists are certain that climate change is happening.

How did you come to know what you know? ridvan_celik/E+ via Getty Images

Action #3: Recognize that other people (or possibly even you) may be operating with misguided beliefs about science. You can help them adopt what philosopher of science Lee McIntyre calls a scientific attitude, an openness to seeking new evidence and a willingness to change one’s mind.

Recognize that very few individuals rely on a single authority for knowledge and expertise. Vaccine hesitancy, for example, has been successfully countered by doctors who persuasively contradict erroneous beliefs, as well as by friends who explain why they changed their own minds. Clergy can step forward, for example, and some have offered places of worship as vaccination hubs.

Challenge #4: Motivated reasoning

You might not think that how you interpret a simple graph could depend on your political views. But when people were asked to look at the same charts depicting either housing costs or the rise in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere over time, interpretations differed by political affiliation. Conservatives were more likely than progressives to misinterpret the graph when it depicted a rise in CO2 than when it displayed housing costs. When people reason not just by examining facts, but with an unconscious bias to come to a preferred conclusion, their reasoning will be flawed.

Action #4: Maybe you think that eating food from genetically modified organisms is harmful to your health, but have you really examined the evidence? Look at articles with both pro and con information, evaluate the source of that information, and be open to the evidence leaning one way or the other. If you give yourself the time to think and reason, you can short-circuit your own motivated reasoning and open your mind to new information.

Challenge #5: Emotions and attitudes

When Pluto got demoted to a dwarf planet, many children and some adults responded with anger and opposition. Emotions and attitudes are linked. Reactions to hearing that humans influence the climate can range from anger (if you do not believe it) to frustration (if you are concerned you may need to change your lifestyle) to anxiety and hopelessness (if you accept it is happening but think it’s too late to fix things). How you feel about climate mitigation or GMO labeling aligns with whether you are for or against these policies.

Action #5: Recognize the role of emotions in decision-making about science. If you react strongly to a story about stem cells used to develop Parkinson’s treatments, ask yourself if you are overly hopeful because you have a relative in early stages of the disease. Or are you rejecting a possibly lifesaving treatment because of your emotions?

Feelings shouldn’t (and can’t) be put in a box separate from how you think about science. Rather, it’s important to understand and recognize that emotions are fully integrated ways of thinking and learning about science. Ask yourself if your attitude toward a science topic is based on your emotions and, if so, give yourself some time to think and reason as well as feel about the issue.

[You’re smart and curious about the world. So are The Conversation’s authors and editors. You can read us daily by subscribing to our newsletter.]

Everyone can be susceptible to these five psychological challenges that can lead to science denial, doubt and resistance. Being aware of these challenges is the first step toward taking action to meet them.