Facebook Likes Could Potentially Make or Break You

"Be careful with what you post online" is a common phrase I hear from my parents, teachers, employers--basically all adults I encounter in my life. I think we hear this phrase extremely often in our world today, since social media is such a big influence in our lives. Seniors even change their names on Facebook so colleges can't find them (or so they think). But now, posting may not be the only thing that can determine your job or college; your likes can have a big impact as well.  

In a recent study, researchers used a computer model to see if they could read someones personality based on their Facebook likes. They had their test subjects fill out personality reports on themselves to test out the accuracy of the machines, and sure enough, the computers filed very accurate matches to a subject's personality. In addition to predicting one's personality, they could also predict the average life outcome of that person, like health or political views. Researchers argue that this could potentially be the future of recruitment for companies. 

I'm not sure how I feel about this new tactic for hiring processes. I agree that employers should be able to know a lot of information about the person they are potentially hiring, but I don't know if stalking them on Facebook is the right way to do that. If someone likes a lot of rap music, for example, does that  reflect a certain way on their personality or work ethic? I listen to songs with explicit lyrics, but that doesn't mean I swear all the time. I believe that the computer programs really work, if fed enough likes, to gauge a person's personality, but I still think face to face interviews and conversations are the way to go. People make mistakes all the time. I don't think one "like" should determine one's fate, and I don't think employers should judge potential employees based on their personal lives. 

"Rich People Problems"

In American Studies, we frequently discuss our community around us and how we differ from the rest of the world. We live in the "bubble", and live in an affluent community. At our school, there is thousands of students filled with anxiety and stress, especially now, right before finals week. We compete, we struggle, and we definitely don't always feel like we're in the top one percent. So when I was flipping through the news and saw an article titled "Growing Up on Easy Street Has Its Own Dangers", I decided to read on. 

This article starts with the story of a 30-year-old man who killed his father after a disagreement on the allowance he was given. My first reaction: wow, that guy must be pretty crazy. My second reaction: what thirty year old still receives an allowance from his parents? I asked my parents if they would think about giving me an allowance when I'm thirty, and they laughed in my face. I found the second part of the article more interesting than that story, however, because it talked about how studies have shown that children from affluent families often have "higher rates of depression and anxiety and elevated levels of substance abuse and certain delinquent behaviors". This is shocking to me; you would think that it would be the exact opposite! Children from affluent families, who live in suburbs probably similar to ours, have more resources and opportunities, in my opinion, than others of poorer communities. So why is it that they are the ones that fall victim to these mental disorders?

Suniya Luther, a psychologist, supported this idea by data from low-income families compared to high-income families. Teenagers of high income families have more pocket money, therefore money to spend on drugs and alcohol, and usually have the means of getting to places where they can buy it from. After reading this study, I thought about the argument more and understood her idea. However, I don't agree with this completely because I think that there are different kinds of stress and mental disorders that face low-income and high-income families. The kids come from completely different backgrounds, so I don't think it's easy to compare the two. I definitely don't think it's okay to say that children coming from wealthy families don't have any problems compared to others. The phrase "money buys happiness" is false; everyone has problems, and money isn't the driving variable that causes one to have more or less problems. I feel like the "rich kids" usually get made fun of the most for their "false" problems, whether it's on social media or in real life. Why do you think children from wealthy families are seen to have smaller problems in comparison to those from poorer families? 

Robot Cars

When I was going to pick up my brother last night, my car made a mini doughnut on the street due to the enormous amount of ice on the roads. I'm sure most people in the area have been experiencing car difficulties since it seems like we might be having our second polar vortex in two years. This morning, I found an interesting article about the concept of self-driven cars. Sorry, what?

Recently, Audi released an experimental A7 Sedan equipped with piloted driving capabilities. They sent journalists to test out these self-driven cars by having them travel 550 miles, from Silicon Valley to Las Vegas. The process included a day of training before even getting in a car, resulting in the journalist's receiving their licenses for driving an autonomous vehicle. One journalist reflected on the experience saying it was "mundane, almost boring" in his reflection on the trip. He also remarked that if it didn't have the Audi Piloted Driving on the side of the car, one would never know that it in fact was that--people would think of it as just another car. The car drives smoothly, keeps you square in the lane,  and speeds up when necessary; everything you would want your car to do if you were the one driving it. In order to gain control of the car again, all you have to do is grab the steering wheel or tap the brake.  This seems great and all, but what's the point? Why do we need a car to drive itself, what's the benefit?

It turns out that Audi isn't the only car company discussing the possibility of making a self-driven car. Google started the trend, creating a car without a steering wheel even, and other companies are deciding whether or not to try and compete. It seems as though none of the companies, even Audi, necessarily want to produce a robot car, but none want to fall behind technologically to Google either. However, Toyota says they refuse to fall victim to this idea: "Toyota firmly says that computer technology exists to compensate for the driver's incompetence; not accommodate his desire to be doing something else". I think Toyota actually makes a good point here; if the reason for making this driverless car is to multitask, then I don't think it's safe or necessary.

Many driving injuries result from drivers not paying attention to what they're doing. Either they're talking on the phone, texting, applying makeup, or other simple tasks that they believe they can do while safely driving. The reality is, this leads to dangerous behavior. The point is, I don't see why we should endorse this. By making a car that is basically hands-free, it would cause drivers to be more careless on the roads, even if the technology is so good that they don't need to be physically steering. Drivers still need to be aware and alert while driving, or else there will be even more accidents than there are today. I don't know if this trend will become larger and more companies will start making driverless cars, but I don't think it would be a good idea.

In one of the Back to the Future movies, they said in 2015 there would be hover cars. Maybe the movie wasn't so off after all. What do you think? Should there be driverless cars on the roads?

"Entertainment" Today

Over winter break, I watched a lot of television. And by television, I mean I watched Grey's Anatomy on Netflix for hours at a time. Before Grey's, I had never watched a hospital based television show in my life, but now I could see myself watching another one once I finish it. This is why, when I was scanning the news over the weekend, an article about NY Med (a medical documentary television show filmed in New York Presbyterian Hospital in New York City) caught my eye. 

NY Med is a series and follow-up of sister shows like Hopkins and Boston Med, all real-life footage and stories about patients that enter their hospitals. It aired in 2012 and has had two seasons so far. The show has had mixed reviews, with medical groups worrying about patients privacy. There have been many laws and rules set by hospitals to protect their patients, however the AMA (American Medical Association) has worried that shows like NY Med potentially exploit patients and their families who aren't typically in the position to make decisions on whether or not they are allowed to be filmed. Terence Wrong, executive producer of NY Med, believes that the show inspires potential future doctors and educates the public on doctor's work. Like I said before, I have witnessed many surgeries and traumas before on the screen, but that doesn't make me more inclined to be a surgeon at all. 

A cameraman recording a surgery for NY Med

The article tells the story of a family who was featured on NY Med without their consent. Mark Chanko, Anita Chanko's husband, died in 2011 when hit by a garbage truck while crossing the street. Anita and her family were immediately rushed to NY Presbyterian Hospital where he had been brought to say their goodbyes. Little did they know that he was being filmed during his traumatic death. When Anita was watching the show months later, she immediately recognized her husbands voice and knew it was his story they were showing, without asking her if they were allowed to film. 

The family suffered greatly after hearing this news and having to relive Mark's death, so they filed complaints against the hospital and television show. In 2013, New York ruled that the hospital had violated Chanko's rights, but when Chanko's family sued the show, doctor, and hospital, they were dismissed. In court, the show claimed that since NY Med is "produced by it's news division", it's protected by the first amendment. The NY Presbyterian hospital argued that the state did not have any privacy rights against this case, and that Chanko's privacy rights ended when he passed. So basically when our loved ones die they lose all their rights? I don't think thats right at all. 

In my opinion, I think it was wrong to exploit Mark Chanko and his family on national television without their consent. Even though they blurred out his face and made him "unrecognizable", the show should have asked before airing. I think this also dives deeper into our countries privacy laws. We should feel safe and protected with regards to our privacy, but I think this show may expose patients when they are in critical conditions and possibly can't make these decisions. They shouldn't have to wonder if someone is filming them during surgery; I know I wouldn't want someone filming my intestines. And who wants to see that? Why do we want to watch people suffering in hospitals? This relates back to my previous blog post about America's obsession with death and murder; it seems like that is all we hear and watch on the news. How is this show considered entertainment?