There are no items in your cart
Add More
Add More
Item Details | Price |
---|
Read the passage and answer the following questions
One of the problems we face in working out where we stand on surveillance is that none of us know exactly how we are being surveilled, and what the coming years might bring. Surveillance technology is developing at breakneck speed, and what seemed science-fiction 10 years ago is today old news. As a thought experiment, consider a hypothetical government that demands that every citizen wears a biometric bracelet that monitors body temperature and heart-rate 24 hours a day. The resulting data is hoarded and analysed by government algorithms. The algorithms will know that you are sick even before you know it, and they will also know where you have been, and who you have met. The chains of infection could be drastically shortened, and even cut altogether. Such a system could arguably stop the epidemic in its tracks within days. Sounds wonderful, right?
The downside is, of course, that this would give legitimacy to a terrifying new surveillance system. If you know, for example, that I clicked on a Fox News link rather than a CNN link, that can teach you something about my political views and perhaps even my personality. But if you can monitor what happens to my body temperature, blood pressure and heart-rate as I watch the video clip, you can learn what makes me laugh, what makes me cry, and what makes me really, really angry.
It is crucial to remember that anger, joy, boredom and love are biological phenomena just like fever and a cough. The same technology that identifies coughs could also identify laughs. If corporations and governments start harvesting our biometric data en masse, they can get to know us far better than we know ourselves, and they can then not just predict our feelings but also manipulate our feelings and sell us anything they want - be it a product or a politician. Biometric monitoring would make Cambridge Analytica's data hacking tactics look like something from the Stone Age. Imagine North Korea in 2030, when every citizen has to wear a biometric bracelet 24 hours a day. If you listen to a speech by the Great Leader and the bracelet picks up the tell-tale signs of anger, you are done for.
You could, of course, make the case for biometric surveillance as a temporary measure taken during a state of emergency. It would go away once the emergency is over. But temporary measures have a nasty habit of outlasting emergencies, especially as there is always a new emergency lurking on the horizon. My home country of Israel, for example, declared a state of emergency during its 1948 War of Independence, which justified a range of temporary measures from press censorship and land confiscation to special regulations for making pudding (I kid you not). The War of Independence has long been won, but Israel never declared the emergency over, and has failed to abolish many of the "temporary" measures of 1948 (the emergency pudding decree was mercifully abolished in 2011).
Read the passage and answer the following questions
Doomsayers of the past two centuries have blamed, among other things, novels, the radio, jazz, rock 'n roll, television, horror films, Dungeons & Dragons, video games, the internet, smartphones and social media for the sad decline of the young. John Protzko, a psychologist... wondered whether things might not be quite so gloomy as they seemed. To try to bring some rigour to the question, he went hunting for examples of a cognitive experiment called the marshmallow test. This test, first performed at Stanford University in the 1960s, measures how good young children are at self-control - specifically, whether or not they can defer a small but immediate reward, such as a marshmallow, in favour of a bigger one later. It was one of the first examples of a standardised psychological test, so it gave him plenty of historical data to work with.
The set-up is simple. A child is taken into a room and presented with a choice of sugary snacks. A researcher explains that the child can choose his favourite treat and eat it whenever he likes - but, if he waits 15 minutes, he can have two instead. The researcher then leaves the room. Age is the strongest predictor of successfully resisting the temptation [to take the treat immediately]. Among children of the same age, however, doing well on the test is associated with plenty of good things later in life, from healthy weight to longer school attendance and better exam results.
Dr Protzko...polled 260 experts in child cognitive development, inviting them to predict what he might find. Just over half thought that children would have become worse at delaying gratification - perhaps thinking about a plethora of recent studies into the supposedly deleterious effects of modern technology. Another third predicted no change.
Only $16 \%$ of the experts made the correct prediction. This is, that children have become steadily and significantly better at the test over the past half century. In 1967 , the average waiting time before succumbing to temptation was around three minutes. By 2017, that had risen to eight minutes - an increase of about a minute a decade. And that increase seems to be happening at all levels of ability. The most impulsive children are improving at the same rate as the most prudent.
The rate of increase caught Dr Protzko's eye as well. That rate, a fifth of a standard deviation every decade, is about the same improvement as has been seen in IQ tests over the past 80 years.... The cause of this increase in IQ, which is dubbed the Flynn effect after the psychologist who brought it to the world's attention, remains mysterious - as does whether $\mathrm{Dr}$ Protzko's results are related to it. $I Q$ is associated with the ability to delay gratification, but the correlation is far from perfect.