Neurolaw

After the discussion this evening, I found this article on the NPR website. It's about a neuroscientist named Jim Fallon. He tested his family, including some extended family, for the equivalent (I think) of the Warrior and Psychopath genes that Brad referred to tonight (the psychopath tendency actually wasn't a genetic test, but a brain scan). Apparently, there is a third factor that can mediate the psychopath and warrior predispositions. According to the article:

Jim Fallon says he had a terrific childhood; he was doted on by his parents and had loving relationships with his brothers and sisters and entire extended family.

Significantly, he says this journey through his brain has changed the way he thinks about nature and nurture. He once believed that genes and brain function could determine everything about us. But now he thinks his childhood may have made all the difference.
"We'll never know, but the way these patterns are looking in general population, had I been abused, we might not be sitting here today," he says.

As for the psychopaths he studies, Fallon feels some compassion for these people who, he says, got "a bad roll of the dice."

"It's an unlucky day when all of these three things come together in a bad way, and I think one has to empathize with what happened to them," he says.
But what about people who rape and murder — should we feel empathy for them? Should they be allowed to argue in court that their brains made them do it? Enter the new world of "neurolaw" — in which neuroscience is used as evidence in the courtroom.

 Just wanted to share. Interesting world of neuroscience where there are physical tests that can detect tendencies or likelihoods. But as this article points out, that's sometimes not the whole story. However, I suppose if we can access all factors, including the way we are treated in our childhood, would we be justified in taking measures to limit the possible damage - or ...what?

Internet Shines a Light on Hate

One thing that the Internet exposes is that hate for certain groups has not run its course and that many hateful, negative feelings that people harbor toward certain groups are still as strong as ever.

In Sarkeesian's article the amount of viciousness displayed for simply researching discriminatory practices in video games, was ridiculously hateful, mean and malicious and I'm sure, took her and others back a bit.

Though, saddened by this article and others I have read, I cannot say that I am surprised. Though women and minorities have come a long way in the fight for equality, this article shows that there is still quite a ways to go. Television does an excellent job of down playing stereotypes and discrimination. So clever is it disguised, that many question whether or not certain stereotypes, (Blacks as criminals, women as bitches, Asians as brainiacs), are even a problem. The Internet, fortunately or unfortunately- depending on how you look at it) is not afforded this same luxury, as individuals, (who are not as meticulous in their approach to disguise their hate), showcase their true, exposed feelings of hate and nonacceptance. Though many cowardly hide behind false identities, the message of hate is clear.

While most see the Internet as a place of equality and freedom, I see it as a place where realities are played out, sometimes unmercifully. By taking an honest look at the Internet, perhaps, it will helps us to take an honest look at the world we live in and stop making excuses when, for instance, women's basic rights are challenged and debated as if the arguments are even plausible. Perhaps, by examining Internet content, it will help us take an honest look at the real world we live in today and instead of saying "things are much better", we will open our eyes to the realities of hate toward women and others and  begin to confront and address these issues, as Sarkeesian is doing.

Derailing Sarkeesian

After reading the optional articles, I was appalled. Being who I am, I decided to see what I could find out there. And I found this: an article about a Sarkeesian-type project (in Kotaku)--which is basically a BS troll. Sadly, there will be people who find this entertaining.

However, is it truly amusing? What is it about mocking feminism that is so appealing to certain people--men, in general? The logic is that, by lampooning Sarkeesian, they are discrediting what she is attempting to do. It is feeding into the rude, explicit, sarcastic, denigrating, and vile actions, words, and thoughts of the men who are somehow threatened by an attempt to challenge gender tropes in the gaming world.

Interestingly enough, the original site was taken down. I could not access the google.doc, and I was certainly not going to ask for permission to access it; lord knows what I would find.

The author of the above article states that, "yes, most of the stuff in the early drafts document was more than a little ridiculous (when it wasn't being offensive), it would appear that its creators are not just having a laugh;" and points to other writers around twitter talking about actually attacking this. Which brings me to the next point: the male hegemony.

My topic for this class's final project will be gender and the internet, though from what angle I do not know. If there are legitimate attempts to pursue misandry, I am of two mind about this. I appreciate it, as the internet could be a truly gender-neutral or gender-free space. At the same time, since it is currently a gendered space focused on male hegemony, should we not first address that? Or, will it take people of all gender and all races challenging all the current norms to really effect change?

Definitely some interesting supplementary materials this week!

Accountability & Sock-Puppets: Why This Matters to the Future of the Online Frontier

Accountability online is a tricky thing. The thing that too many people forget, or never realize, is that you are not the label associated with you--your name, handle, or unpronounceable symbol associated with your online identity--and as a consequence you can (and people do) swap out labels as corporations do. Online, this often has the same effect: a change in name often means a reset of identity, unless those following you are willing and able to keep up with your snake-like label-shedding.

This is because those individuals or groups that create the software that run discussion fora, social networks, etc. are either unwilling or unable to implement technical means to prevent users from shedding labels that no longer possess neutral or positive value to said users in favor of assuming one that does. This practice is sometimes called "sock-puppetting", which is not accurate--it properly means using two or more accounts at the same time to give the illusion of agreement or interest where there is none--but is close enough for most usage.

(e.g. "Bob" becomes known as a troll and serial cyber-stalker; "Bob" quits that label and shifts to "Jane", changing apparent behavior to deflect suspicion and shifting methodologies to allow resumption of favored activities without immediate consequence. It should be noted that, as with real-space criminals, most online trouble-makers are nowhere near this savvy- most slip up and out themselves. The few that don't, as with real-space, are the truly dangerous ones that Hollywood loves to write about.)

Truly dedicated trolls, stalkers, etc. can and will use sock-puppets in a malicious way. That method is meant to overwhelm a user's ability to block/ignore other users, as this takes the form of a virtual gang-stalking, which works well when a target is also hit with gas-lighting attacks to drive the target to insanity or death.

For now, the tools that administrators and moderators have to deal with individuals who use sock-puppets to get around accountability are often quite few. Most can do no more than compare the logs of IP addresses incoming to their site of concern against the logs of user accounts, encourage users to submit abuse reports to them, and wait for the aggressor to do something.

That something is either a violation of the user agreement (which, to be fair, often results in the offender switch socks and little more) or violates a criminal statute in a manner that demands prompt action. (This is difficult in large part due to the conflicting jurisdictions of real-space; the victim is in one place, the accused in another, and the scene of the crime in a third place in terms of real-space. Within a nation-state it's confusing; across those lines, it becomes much harder for justice to be had.)

Various governments and international organizations propose various solutions, none of which are politically acceptable to all of the key players in the international system, but all of them are doing the one thing that will result in a solution: they are focusing not on human solutions, but technical ones- they are focusing upon means by which common users simply cannot sever the connection between themselves and what online labels they go by as they can (and do) now.

The problem is that this is not a problem that governments or similar institutions can solve. Much like alcoholism, this problem can't be effectively remedied through criminalization and brute-force leg-breaking (i.e. Prohibition and the War On (Some) Drugs). What works is a combination of instructing users as to how the technology of the Internet works, instructing them on the psychology of both the offenders and of the offenses, and then synthesizing the two subjects together in a demonstration of how to apply the latter through the former to shut down the offenders and filter them out of one's life.

In other words, how frontier cultures deal with frontier dilemmas: by helping others to help themselves, and then working together to handle our own problems effectively, without the need to call upon something outside the community to do it for us.

The real-space frontiers closed because too many people, too long accustomed to having a Big Daddy figure do the dirty work, called for that figure to handle this work instead of doing it themselves. (There's a euphemism and symbol for this sort of mentality: White Picket Fences.) If we want the Internet, and its potential, to be open and free for generations to come then we must accept that a frontier milieu demands a frontier approach to problems: we must do it ourselves.

And, as this is the Internet, doing for ourselves is not only viable- it's easy. The knowledge we need to comprehend and master these technologies is at our fingertips- we need only ask just one knowledgeable search expert what to search for and where to look. Once found, we can link to it (if linkable) or send copies of it (if not); we follow up, implement measures (and keep doing it until it works), and then--once we confirm it's dealt with--we get on with having fun with our lives.

We need not call upon things that are increasingly obsolete in this networked society we live in; we should, instead, make use of it- we route around the trouble-makers by cutting them out of the network. The sock-puppet problem with regards to accountability online, while a problem here and now, won't be for much longer- and we need not let Orwellian (or Huxleyan) methods favored by Too Big To Fail governments and private institutions infantilize us in search for security either. We're capable of handling this ourselves, so we should. Our posterity demands it.

Internet: Friend or Foe?

I have experienced both positive and negative effects in social media spaces on the internet. The internet has been a great place to connect with old friends and to keep in touch with current friends. There are many spaces where you can find support groups (Black women, domestic abuse, immigrants, poets) and where you can connect with people who share your experience and point of view.The internet can be a wonderful place of support when you are dealing with a specific issue or going through a rough time in your life. There have been times when  felt like I was the only one who thought a certain way, only to serf the web and find others who not only saw the same thing, but could expand my knowledge on the subject. Even the fact that you can search for dates, (no, I haven't done it), shows how the internet can bring people together-people that may have never met if not for the internet.

I have also stumbled into some sites that were offensive, hurtful and angering. Even as I did research for my bibliographies, I was often bombarded with racist rants from people who spurt the same ignorance..Blacks are violent, Blacks are lazy, Blacks are draining this country. ....blah, blah, blah.
Sometimes I respond to these rants, sometimes I don't. Sometimes, (if allowed), I report it as abuse, sometimes I don't. Either way I'm left to simmer deep inside and wonder why people are still so ignorant.

I don't think a lot of people are held accountable for what they do on the internet because many hide behind false identities or what they do is not known by others. People are a lot more aggressive when they are amongst strangers and only when they get exposed are they held accountable, otherwise, they can do and say pretty much what they want, because whose going to know them. Now, in social circles where you are known, people are extra careful of what they say because they will be held accountable, maybe even harsher than necessary.

My adolescence came way after the internet, so I'm not sure how it would have changed me socially if it had been around. I could see it being a positive experience: making new friends, connecting with St. Paul and North students, meeting new guys, and sharing music. I could also see it being trouble: arguing with peers for all to see, boyfriend stealers lurking about, fights stemming from online argument, embarrassing photos being posted. In any event, I'm glad it came when it did, though researching at the library was no fun!!

In the Heart of the Beast

I find the internet a beast of great pleasure and excitement - and also of time theft, distraction and worry. During my adolescence and young adulthood it was necessary to get information about the news of the day from the daily newspaper or televised news report (only at noon and 6pm) and other information from magazines or periodicals and by checking out books at the library (or rummage sales or bookstores) or going to the stacks for journal articles.

The internet information at my fingertips is, therefore, feels to me like a dreamland where I can find almost anything by doing a Google search and clicking a link. For me, that would be enough. I never anticipated the social connection aspect of the internet as I grew into it in my adulthood.

I was in my early-30s when I started taking undergraduate classes at the University of Minnesota Extension. After a few years of taking one evening class at a time, I quit my management job and matriculated as a full time student. During the course of my time there, I discovered the wonder of email and the internet. I had 3 student jobs on campus that fed my interests. I was a student liaison for the Registrar's Office, a Research Assistant in the Psychology Department and a Teaching Assistant in Computer Services. I have been characterized as a "super user" and I am also a website designer with html and css programming skills.

So, I blog, I create content and I know my way around the internet pretty well. I have entered, sunk into, and left many of the games and entertainments I've found on the internet. I have experienced first-hand the pitfalls of engagement and over and over again commit to disciplined use. However, I find that I have a curiosity that drives me to look at the new, and sometimes find myself throwing more and more hours into something that often eventually seems like a waste of time (like the Castle Age game I talked about during class - or mindless solitary card or puzzle games).

I suppose there are real-life examples of that kind of activity - my grandmother loved to play solitaire with real cards in the evenings after dinner. Or what about addictive gambling or other real activities that seem to steal our time? The internet doesn't have a corner on that market, but it still seems to be yet another place where the bait is held out and easy to take.

One of the things I would like to discover about the internet is what would it take to make it less of a threat to my time and more of a friend to my interests. I am starting to discover what I'll call the "heart" of the internet that exists in the human connection that it facilitates. Not a compulsive checking of email and Facebook, but a thoughtful sharing of ideas and invitations to connect in real life for good cause and genuine knowledge of each other. It is slow developing and needs building, but I am very interested in influencing a good outcome for this network in the air.

Julia Gillard attack on hypocisy Going Viral

I'm not a follower of Australian politics, but when I saw this video of Julia Gillard, Prime Minister of Australia, make this speech (which has gone viral), I was stunned. In our current political environment (in the U.S.), hypocrisy and gamesmanship run rampant and often are completely unexamined for what they are - in the media or in the political arena. It is also often the case that emotional outcries seem false and calculated when they occur.

In my first reaction to this video (play on the left or click to see in YouTube) I had some sympathy for the "Leader of the Opposition" (his name is Tony Abbott) who I at first thought was being publicly shamed by the Prime Minister. Was this OK in any circumstances? That is a philosophical ethics question that I struggle with. Even when I may agree with a particular argument, the treatment of one's opponent as a human being is important. (note: I think now that the Prime Minister kept good boundaries.)

In later research on the ways that Tony Abbott has characterized and attempted to embarrass the Prime Minister, I am reminded of my reaction to the U.S. political arena as what I call "5th grade playground politics." Hurtful in ways we don't, as adults, like to acknowledge, but nonetheless influential in our ultimate attitudes and behavior.

I decided that the speech could be a first step in opening the can of worms that is political rhetoric, and, though messy, perhaps needs to be opened. It is not that I generally believe in shaming or embarrassing one's opponent in an argument, but it is satisfying to see the kind of political hypocrisy that exists in most forms of government and most political arenas called out. (e.g. the 5th grader yelling, "you acted like a bully and it hurt me, and I'm not going to take it anymore!")

Many are calling on Barack Obama to take this kind of stance and tone with the endless hypocritical attacks that he has borne from Republican politicians. From the New York Times blog:

It was so powerful that some analysts suggested that President Barack Obama, who appeared distracted and even submissive in his first debate with Mitt Romney last week, might use Ms. Gillard’s performance as a model and motivation for the next debate.

Of course, the counter-attacks have begun, and there will be damage control and there will be retribution - but as I watched this display, it occurred to me that perhaps  the most powerful thing Tony Abbott could have done in response to this tirade would have been to take the Prime Minister's advice, reflect on his behavior and sincerely apologize. Wouldn't that have been a moment to remember? Wouldn't that have had the most neutralizing effect of this whole episode?

I think this video is going viral, not because Julia Gillard "slammed" the opposition, but because she brought her real self into the chamber. Whether or not those that hear agree with her, she has set her own boundary of toleration. Has she given others the gift of her true voice?