Timothy Morton, Rice University

Uncommon Courses is an occasional series from The Conversation U.S. highlighting unconventional approaches to teaching.

Title of course:

What Is a Fact?

What prompted the idea for the course?

With all the conspiracy theories floating around in 2020 when COVID-19 hit, I wanted to help my students learn to identify and deal with them. I was also concerned about political propaganda. And in my STEM-heavy school, I wanted to showcase what humanities scholars can do. So I created this class, which is distilled humanities for freshmen. Almost every student so far has been a science, technology, engineering and math major.

What does the course explore?

We start with a week called What Is Data? In Latin, “data” just means “things that are given.” Data can be in the form of measurements: “This bowlful of water weighs x.” But data can also mean “it reminds me of my grandma.” How can you tell when something could be meaningful, or whether it's just nonsense?

A later class that students find especially interesting is on apophenia, the tendency to see patterns where there aren't any, like the man in the Moon, or constellations of stars.

Why is this course relevant now?

A fact is an interpretation of data. In physics class, you learn how to interpret physics data, find patterns, relate those patterns to other ones, and produce facts about them. If your argument hangs together logically, your interpretation can appear in the journal Nature Physics.

Humanities classes, however, prepare you to understand what facts are, period – whether they're based on biology or on the Bible, nutrition science or novels.

What's a critical lesson from the course?

One critical lesson is that many big conspiracy theories such as QAnon are about jumping to conclusions as quickly as possible. Being a good student and a good scholar means accepting that what you're examining might not be meaningful or might not indicate a pattern. What we're exploring here is how not to jump to conclusions. And this lesson applies as much to stuff in the real world as it does to lab work.

What materials does the course feature?

We watch YouTuber hbomberguy debunking global warming denialism. We read Kurt Gödel on how logical systems must always be flawed. We read poems and stories, introducing science majors to interpreting artistic data, a process every bit as rigorous as interpreting scientific data.

What will the course prepare students to do?

Without the kinds of critical thinking this course teaches, scientists can be susceptible to propaganda and unable to share their ideas effectively, whether it's in the media or to their colleagues, friends and family.

Students learn to look at the world with fresh, skeptical eyes. They learn to identify illogical arguments and rhetorical strong-arm tactics. In the Middle Ages, humanities – grammar, logic, rhetoric – prepared you to do science. What Is a Fact? is like that, helping students see how collecting data and being skeptical don't stop once you've left the lab. A questioning, open-minded attitude is an essential life skill.

Timothy Morton, Rita Shea Guffey Chair of English, Rice University

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

Jingwen Hu, University of Michigan

The future of automobiles is electric, but many people worry about the safety of today's electric vehicles.

Public opinion about EV crash safety often hinges on a few high-profile fire incidents. Those safety concerns are arguably misplaced, and the actual safety of EVs is more nuanced.

I've researched vehicle safety for more than two decades, focusing on the biomechanics of impact injuries in motor vehicle crashes. Here's my take on how well the current crop of EVs protects people:

The burning question

EVs and internal combustion vehicles undergo the same crash-testing procedures to evaluate their crashworthiness and occupant protection. These tests are conducted by the National Highway Safety Administration's New Car Assessment Program and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

These analyses use crash test dummies representing midsize male and small female occupants to evaluate the risk of injuries. The tests can evaluate fire hazard either caused by thermal runaway – when lithium-ion batteries experience rapid uncontrollable heating – in ruptured EV batteries or gas tank leaks of internal combustion vehicles.

None of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety crash tests of EVs have sparked any fires. New Car Assessment Program crash test reports yield comparable findings. While real-world data analysis on vehicle fires involving EVs is limited, it appears that media and social media scrutiny of EV fire hazard is blown out of proportion.

Weighty matters

What stands out about EV safety is that crash test results, field injury data and injury claims from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety all reveal that EVs are superior to their internal combustion counterparts in protecting their occupants.

This EV advantage boils down to a blend of physics and cutting-edge technologies.

Thanks to their hefty battery packs positioned at the base of the car, EVs tend to carry considerably more weight and enjoy lower centers of gravity than conventional vehicles. This setup drastically reduces the likelihood of rollover accidents, which have a high rate of fatalities. Moreover, crash dynamics dictate that in a collision between two vehicles, the heavier one holds a distinct advantage because it doesn't slow down as abruptly, a factor strongly linked to occupant injury risks.

On the technology side, most EVs represent newer models equipped with state-of-the-art safety systems, from advanced energy-absorbing materials to cutting-edge crash avoidance systems and upgraded seat-belt and air-bag setups. These features collectively bolster occupant protection.

Where risks do rise

Unfortunately, EVs also present numerous safety challenges.

While the inherent weightiness of EVs offers a natural advantage in protecting occupants, it also means that other vehicles bear the burden of absorbing more crash energy in collisions with heavier EVs. This dilemma is central to the concept of “crash compatibility,” a well-established field of safety research.

Consider a scenario in which a small sedan collides with a heavy truck. The occupants in the sedan always face higher injury risks. Crash compatibility studies measure vehicle “aggressivity” by the level of harm inflicted on other vehicles, and heavier models are almost always deemed more aggressive.

In addition, the increased energy associated with impacts from heavier EVs, particularly electric pickups, poses significant challenges for highway guardrails. Moreover, EVs – especially those operating silently at low speeds – pose increased risks to pedestrians, bicyclists and others who may not hear the EVs approach.

Better technologies, better safety

While EVs offer safety advancements for their own occupants, it's crucial to acknowledge and tackle the safety concerns they pose for others on the road.

I believe that technological advancements will serve as the primary catalyst for overcoming the safety hurdles faced by EVs. Lightweight materials, more powerful sensing technologies and safety algorithms, improved seat belts and better air bags will play pivotal roles in addressing these challenges.

Moreover, the tight connection between EVs and rapidly evolving computing capabilities is likely to foster the development of new safety technologies.

Jingwen Hu, Research Professor of Mechanical Engineering, University of Michigan

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

Nora McDonald, George Mason University

Social media apps regularly present teens with algorithmically selected content often described as “for you,” suggesting, by implication, that the curated content is not just “for you” but also “about you” – a mirror reflecting important signals about the person you are.

All users of social media are exposed to these signals, but researchers understand that teens are at an especially malleable stage in the formation of personal identity. Scholars have begun to demonstrate that technology is having generation-shaping effects, not merely in the way it influences cultural outlook, behavior and privacy, but also in the way it can shape personality among those brought up on social media.

The prevalence of the “for you” message raises important questions about the impact of these algorithms on how teens perceive themselves and see the world, and the subtle erosion of their privacy, which they accept in exchange for this view.

Teens like their algorithmic reflection

Inspired by these questions, my colleagues John Seberger and Afsaneh Razi of Drexel University and I asked: How are teens navigating this algorithmically generated milieu, and how do they recognize themselves in the mirror it presents?

In our qualitative interview study of teens 13-17, we found that personalized algorithmic content does seem to present what teens interpret as a reliable mirror image of themselves, and that they very much like the experience of seeing that social media reflection.

Teens we spoke with say they prefer a social media completely customized for them, depicting what they agree with, what they want to see and, thus, who they are.

If I look up something that is important to me that will show up as one of the top posts [and] it'll show, like, people [like me] that are having a nice discussion.

It turns out that the teens we interviewed believe social media algorithms like TikTok's have gotten so good that they see the reflections of themselves in social media as quite accurate. So much so that teens are quick to attribute content inconsistencies with their self-image as anomalies – for instance, the result of inadvertent engagement with past content, or just a glitch.

At some point I saw something about that show, maybe on TikTok, and I interacted with it without actually realizing.

When personalized content is not agreeable or consistent with their self-image, the teens we interviewed say they scroll past it, hoping never to see it again. Even when these perceived anomalies take the form of extreme hypermasculine or “nasty” content, teens do not attribute this to anything about themselves specifically, nor do they claim to look for an explanation in their own behaviors. According to teens in our interviews, the social media mirror does not make them more self-reflective or challenge their sense of self.

One thing that surprised us was that while teens were aware that what they see in their “for you” feed is the product of their scrolling habits on social media platforms, they are largely unaware or unconcerned that that data captured across apps contributes to this self-image. Regardless, they don't see their “for you” feed as a challenge to their sense of self, much less a risk to their self-identity – nor, for that matter, any basis for concern at all.

Shaping identity

Research on identity has come a long way since sociologist Erving Goffman proposed the “presentation of self” in 1959. He posited that people manage their identities through social performance to maintain equilibrium between who they think they are and how others perceive them.

When Goffman first proposed his theory, there was no social media interface available to hold up a handy mirror of the self as experienced by others. People were obligated to create their own mosaic image, derived from multiple sources, encounters and impressions. In recent years, social media recommender algorithms have inserted themselves into what is now a three-way negotiation among self, public and social media algorithm.

“For you” offerings create a private-public space through which teens can access what they feel is a largely accurate test of their self-image. At the same time, they say they can easily ignore it if it seems to disagree with that self-image.

The pact teens make with social media, exchanging personal data and relinquishing privacy to secure access to that algorithmic mirror, feels to them like a good bargain. They represent themselves as confidently able to tune out or scroll past recommended content that seems to contradict their sense of self, but research shows otherwise.

They have, in fact, proven themselves highly vulnerable to self-image distortion and other mental health problems based on social media algorithms explicitly designed to create and reward hypersensitivities, fixations and dysmorphia – a mental health disorder where people fixate on their appearance.

Given what researchers know about the teen brain and that stage of social development – and given what can reasonably be surmised about the malleability of self-image based on social feedback – teens are wrong to believe that they can scroll past the self-identity risks of algorithms.

Interventions

Part of the remedy could be to build new tools using artificial intelligence to detect unsafe interactions while also protecting privacy. Another approach is to help teens reflect on these “data doubles” that they have constructed.

My colleagues and I are now exploring more deeply how teens experience algorithmic content and what types of interventions can help them reflect on it. We encourage researchers in our field to design ways to challenge the accuracy of algorithms and expose them as reflecting behavior and not being. Another part of the remedy may involve arming teens with tools to restrict access to their data, including limiting cookies, having different search profiles and turning off location when using certain apps.

We believe that these are all steps that are likely to reduce the accuracy of algorithms, creating much-needed friction between algorithm and self, even if teens are not necessarily happy with the results.

Getting the kids involved

Recently, my colleagues and I conducted a Gen Z workshop with young people from Encode Justice, a global organization of high school and college students advocating for safe and equitable AI. The aim was to better understand how they are thinking about their lives under algorithms and AI. Gen Zers say they are concerned but also eager to be involved in shaping their future, including mitigating algorithm harms. Part of our workshop goal was to call attention to and foster the need for teen-driven investigations of algorithms and their effects.

What researchers are also confronting is that we don't actually know what it means to constantly negotiate identity with an algorithm. Many of us who study teens are too old to have grown up in an algorithmically moderated world. For the teens we study, there is no “before AI.”

I believe that it's perilous to ignore what algorithms are doing. The future for teens can be one in which society acknowledges the unique relationship between teens and social media. This means involving them in the solutions, while still providing guidance.

Nora McDonald, Assistant Professor of Information Technology, George Mason University

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