Article- How algorithms rule the world.

The article widely discusses how algorithms are used in day to day life and how they help society, however, mentions the possible implications of using algorithms. It implies that the use of algorithms could harm people's lives due to the possible predictions based on data. This has some validity as statistical data cannot represent a whole population or social group as there will always be outliers and those who do not follow the trend. Which means that statistical correlations or patterns cannot equal causation, as mentioned in the article. However, the harm of algorithms is based on the idea of action caused by predictions.

Memphis's Operation Blue Crush expresses an efficient method of using algorithms avoiding the implications. They are not identifying possible crimes of people beforehand and acting on their statistical results. Instead, they use algorithms to predict crime hot spots and ensure the presence of the "right people". This prevents any unfair arrests due to a false prediction, it just implements necessary precautions in an attempt to reduce crime rates. 

Mathematics, including algorithms, present the purest form of investigation and methodology, especially when compared to the human sciences and natural sciences. The application of investigation is where the soundness of the results become less sound or even interpretational as the data's results cannot fully predict the future purely through statistical correlation and analysis. Human behaviour and action are extremely unpredictable if you could measure or even predict the human psyche in a numerical form and found the value in which serial killers commonly express. Society still cannot act on that prediction as the numerical form or measurement may predict future harm of others, however, the act has not taken place yet which destabilises the law and moral system many are accustomed to. It is non-sensical to completely act on a prediction in a way which could dramatically impact someone's life as mentioned in the article. This presents the extent in which we rely on algorithms and the extent we act on them. From my understanding of the Blue Crush system, it does not predict the exact crime or even the person, it is not accurate or complex enough for that, but calculates the hotspots for crime allowing for employment in those areas. The method prevents too much involvement to influence individuals or society but apprehends those committing crimes.

Using algorithms this way, society must become aware of relying on it too much as they can work both ways. Criminals have the ability to use algorithms parallel to the police force which may contradict their movements. Algorithms can't predict everything and may miss large spontaneous events which could be heightened by police forces being focused on other locations. \

A mentioned in the article there is a number of social problems that are present like security or privacy which can be explored in the future. 

RLS: 13 Reasons Why

Second-order knowledge claims:

1. Surveys are an accurate form of research method in the human sciences which can be used to generalise the public. 
2. Common timeframes equal causation.
3. Correlational based research is an accurate support for causation which defines certain relationships of multiple events.
4. Experts are a reliable source of knowledge.
5. Theories within the Human Sciences are sound.
 
Knowledge Question:
1. To what extent do research methods in the Human Sciences provide knowledge on behaviour? 

The article focuses on how a TV show may increase suicidal behaviour which may cause increased suicide rates. Much of the data that supports the mentioned claims are statistical and correlation making the people and experts come to various conclusions.

Empirical data is used quite often to gain insight on human behaviour first-hand, researchers may delve into the ways humans may react to events or each other. This can provide conditional results on behaviour which can help a conclusion, however, many of these experiments acknowledge a lot of outside variables that may influence results. For example, the mere knowledge of a situation may influence behaviour unconsciously creating slightly unreliable or invalid results.

The article "Did 13 Reasons Why Spark a Suicide Contagion Effect?" does not feature any empirical data as support rather qualitative through statistical and correlational studies. It relies on a correlational of events linked simply by time frame, the time frame of searches or internet activity and the run of the show. The information presented implies that the media coverage on the show and the show itself may increase suicidal tendencies and attempted suicides. For much of the article, it pushes this idea but does not consider the closed aspect of the method taking.

Google queries being increased during the release of the show gives insight into a change in human behaviour but not specifically the behaviour itself. Its one-sided acquiring of data neglects the intent behind the searches as the show could have just increase fascination with suicide. a fascination does not always equal the behaviour of the and subject, even if it does, the information does not research or discuss these elements. This neglects a large portion of human behaviour being intent and decision-making due to the vague information.

Unreliability is further increased with the ignoring of external factors, the time frame is heavily relied upon in this data. This makes their correlational non-substantial as the events may be contributed to other matters happening within the world which, again, is caused by the results broadness.

Blog Post #11: Ethical Guidelines Investigation

Do you consider the IB ethical guidelines in psychology adequate? Are there any extra rules you would want to add? If so, what are your reasons? Are there any rules that you would want to take away? Why?

I would not add or take away any rules from the IB ethical guidelines simply because they allow a school environment to stay safe for experimentation. Students only need to follow these rules when they are conducting an experiment in their IA, at this point in life there are not psychologists trying to form a new theory or hypothesis. This form of examination simply teaches them how to carry out a study and explore something small so they may use these skills for possible future adventures. If students are after doing a more serious experiment they need experience and the IB is a form of preparation for University where they can have a bit more freedom. The rules allow them to carry out a study while maintaining a safe environment considering they are most likely testing on peers.

How do we decide where to balance the interests of the psychological community in advancing knowledge (that might well give benefits in the future) with the protection of experimental subject?

I think the only balance needed is consent, in my opinion, I believe the psychological community is able to advance as much as they want as long as their participant has consented. Consent doesn't mean protection and it is a human life in which is being experimented on but if a person is willing to be a part of an experiment knowing full well the repercussions or that there are unknown repercussions then the test should be carried out. Many of the studies may be inhuman or harmful but if the participant has been briefed on everything the experimenters will be doing and know the possible outcomes then they should be able to carry out the experiment. There are only a handful of brain-related studies and if there were more we could learn so much about the brain and hopefully advance our understanding. If no one in the whole world gives consent then you simply don't carry out the study just like all the studies that get rejected because they violate the ethical guidelines.

For example, all over the world there are constantly drug trials happening for new marketable drugs or treatment for the disease this leads to thousands signing up to be a part of the program. They subject themselves to the substance because they want to, have to or need the money, this gives researchers their consent and begin testing. Animals are constantly used in studies and testing, they may have their own guidelines, however, they are tested on for our knowledge which from my perspective is more inhuman. It's a topic which differs from person to person due to their own cultural or personal values which cause people to have different reasons and emotion when deciding.

Why is it not always possible to tell the subject the aim of the experiment beforehand?

In many cases telling the participant what the aim of an experiment will influence their actions or response that is why there is justified deception and double-blind experiments. If someone is apart of a experiment on conformity and they are told this then they will try their best not to conform due to the social stigma on conforming which will provide in accurate behaviour. Deception is especially important when people are apart of a study diguring out peoples natural reactions and responses as if they are told what the real intention is or that they are being ibserved in a specific way then it ruins the natural response. 

Blog Post #10: Measuring Intent

http://www.happiness-survey.com/

"The Oxford Happiness Questionnaire is being used here with kind permission of Elsevier Ltd., license #1885930815114. It was extracted from Personality and Individual Differences, Vol.33, #7, pp. 1080-1081 and developed by: Peter Hills and Micahel Argyle from The Oxford Happiness Project, School of Psychology, Oxford Brookes University, Headington Campus, Gipsy Lane, Oxford OX3 0BP, UK."

Surveys are described by google as a general view or examination of someone, a group or something, this 'general' view allows the examiners of the survey to form correlations between results and external factors in order to form a conclusion. Correlations can be extremely weak or provide an in depth insight into our society, however, these correlations are formed by interpretations of data which makes them flimsy due to each person's personal bias. 
The Oxford Happiness Questionnaire which has about 29 questions which will provide you your "happiness" level, "1" being the unhappiest and "6" being the happiest. All this statements ask you to rank certain things from a scale of 1-6, "1" being strongly disagree and "6" being strongly agree. The intent of the survey is unclear but it assures you that they will not disclose any of your personal details. 
It poses an extensive amount of issues as the idea of measuring happiness seems empty to due it being an emotion which differs completely from person to person as it is an internal thought process. Humans attempt to communicate this emotion through language, however, language is not always accurate and doesn't express the full extent of emotion so to generalize happiness numerically removes this key communicator of dialectical language. 
The idea of measuring happiness is problematic enough but then you add in statements which participants must rank based on their life and it creates further interpretation problems or even emotions lost in translation. People taking the surveys may interpret the specific statements and numerical values differently to the person who created the survey or even the person evaluating the results. Some statements may cause emotions to get lost in translation as their significance to happiness may differ from person to person with the creators or examiners values of happiness differentiating from society's. "I have very warm feelings towards almost everyone," here is a statement from the survey which the participant has to rate whether they agree or not with it. The creator's intent fro the question may express his values of happiness which is defined by how much he likes the people around him. While others may only need to enjoy the company of a few people around them to achieve significant happiness rather than the greater who believes liking everyone achieves greater happiness. The lack of justification the person gets while answering the survey restricts to them reasoning their answer manipulating the examiners interpretations due to the purely numerical values. A emotional language barrier is further created by the creator using the word "warm" which can greatly vary from person to person as he is using a temperate metaphor to describe feelings. In my previous discussions, I immediately perceived it as like but this terminology is so broad to describe emotion that it may vary causing complications. 
Clarifications in the short statements may aid comprehensions but it has the risk of further confusing the participants. The lack of justification they get in their answers restricts the interpretations and correlations that can be made about happiness due the the implementation of personal mindsets of the examiners. Even with the addition of text boxes there is no guarantee of how honest people will be on an online survey and their responses may be lost in translation, that is why many studies are preferred to be done in person. 

Blog Post #9: Real-Life Application

Task: Choose two examples that help your audience understand competing views or different perspectives of the same issue you focused on for your group inquiry. Provide an understanding of the situation, what issue it helps to discuss, and how that issue relates to your chosen essay title.
Be sure to link your topic into the appropriate area of the knowledge framework and use TOK terminology where possible. This blog post should in sufficient detail to show deep thinking about the AOK. You have lots of time to complete this post so take it seriously and practice applying your TOK terminology and concepts.

A is a simplified representation of some aspect of the world. In what ways may models help or hinder the search for knowledge?

In this blog post, I will explore different real life models that we use in day to day life in the scientific field. I don't want to focus on just two because I feel many models have the same problem as well as the same benefit. Models within the field can be sparked by either inductive or deductive reasoning as it may depict a theory, observation or both. Google defines a model as either "a three-dimensional representation of a person or thing or of a proposed structure, typically on a smaller scale than the original," or "a thing used as an example to follow or imitate." They key concept from both definitions is that they are supposed to be a "smaller scale" or an "example" which implies that they are a simplified version of something larger. This is evident in the natural sciences as models are supposed to be simplified versions of concepts or theories that aid the understanding of knowledge. They can be used to depict methodology, theories or historical development. However, the fundamental quality of the simplicity of a model is what restricts science and the scientific field.

Models are used to understand information on a certain level, no matter how detailed a model is they are simply used to develop our knowledge and reason within the field rather than express the entire story as that would over complicate concepts. This simplistic nature is what makes the most basic models "wrong" to some extent but you can't say they are exactly "wrong" as they just do not express the fine details that may be important.

A simple model used for health and biology is the Harvard Food Pyramid which expresses the foods individuals should focus on in order to maintain a healthy body and satisfy their biological needs. This display of the "healthy diet" condenses thousands and thousands of studies down into one generalised portrayal of the human diet which causes the assumption that a substantial amount of information of side notes was left out. Over the years it has been manipulated and changed so many times which makes us question whether the human race is evolving. However, the biggest cause of its constant manipulation is due to the constant realisations nutritionists go through using new experiments or reevaluating the old ones. The basic pyramid manages to printed examples of food it is discussing and presents a slight variety but many say it focuses on specific foods too much or the pyramid group's certain groups together which should be separate. This pyramid is the perfect representation of a simple model as has the ability to provide a wide range of data from numerous studies across a large duration of time. Its information manages to express the fundamentals that most of the human race must consume taking results from people of multiple races within the US. It may have many benefits but the constant change is evidence that it may confuse or harm the community in certain ways due to its simplicity which is common in all models. Things like proportion confused the public which transitioned the pyramid to a plate but the plate fails to provide as many examples as the pyramid. Nutritionists also complain that the grouping of certain items allude to false ideas of that product, for example, the grouping of carbohydrates continues to be a problem as they do not divide complex and simple carbs or good and bad carbs. It bases a heavy amount of its data on what people like to eat but not what they nutritionally need as it has been proved that it is not necessary to consume processed wheat like bread or cows milk. This imagery implies that it is needed to be healthy even though are other "healthier" forms of consumption for nutrition like dairy.

https://utw10426.utweb.utexas.edu/Topics/False.models/Text.html
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/centennial-food-guides-history/
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/pyramidtest/

Another model which is commonly used in the field often used for the methodological side. Animal testing has been used for years due to animals similar and the reduced ethical considerations surrounding animal testing. They are used for cosmetics, diseases, cures, gene manipulation and other scientific developments as well as human sciences like psychology. The experimentation on animals which are similar in humans genes aid many biological and medical developments. Their physical and mental growth is faster than a human with them usually having a shorter lifespan which allows scientists to identify and manipulate the experiments easier receiving faster results. It is considered the most accurate form of experimentation without using as human as testing on cells does not provide sufficient information or observational knowledge. Scientists can test on animals a little bit more freely as there are less ethical concerns subjected to animal testing in comparison to human testing. Even though many animals have DNA similar to humans it is not the same which means there are a number of unknown factors and affects transitioning to human trials. This different DNA also makes it hard to create claims which require a significant amount of research exposing hundreds of animals to testing. Ethical considerations may prevent the animals from some harm but they also prevent scientists from experimenting a number of methods restricting their aims and results. Since the growth of many animals used is faster than humans any results found may be completely different over the entire lifetime of a human.

Animal testing may be a methodical model and more complex than certain diagrams or visual models but it is still a simplified version of reality in order to understand knowledge and manipulate it. Its simplicity is what makes it so useful to scientists and the public while making it unreliable as it is not the real thing or the whole picture.

http://futureofworking.com/12-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-animal-testing-on-cosmetics/
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/241690681_Advantages_and_disadvantages_of_the_animal_models_v_in_vitro_studies_in_iron_metabolism_A_review 

Blog Post #8: Natural Sciences and Personal Knowledge

1. What impact have the natural sciences had on the way you understand yourself? 
2. How has technology affected the form and content of your personal knowledge? 
3. How has your study of your group 4 subject affected the knowledge you employ in your day-to- day dealings with the world?

The natural sciences have helped me build an understanding of myself and my life in many different ways. Over the years learning biology has aided in my comprehension of my physical self which has allowed me to adapt certain forms of my lifestyle to fit the human biology and more specifically my body. This basis of knowledge has to lead to certain actions that might take place in response to some things due to the knowledge that I hold. My education in biology allows me to understand the fundamentals of what my body needs to grow and be well so I have shaped my life around that so I can be physically well which helps in being mentally well and fit to undergo tasks. A mixture of biology, chemistry and physics has extended my assessment of dangerous situation caused by external factors which heighten my fight or flight reflexes in certain fields. Constant developments within these fields change my way of life in either small ways or big ones as the more you understand then the more you can change or manipulate something. 

Technology, in my opinion, has had the biggest impact on our personal knowledge within our lives. It is such a massive platform which can easily mould or influence your personal knowledge based on the things you are exposed to or the things you use. Social media or internet platforms have the ability to completely form your personal knowledge due to the websites you join, the articles you read or the opinions you are exposed to. With its connective behaviour, it allows people to grow perspectives and become extremely open-minded but due to its variety, there is the possibility of the opposite to occur. It is versatile allowing the user to observe what they want while publishing what they want, this publishing can be a record of your growth of personal knowledge while shape this knowledge as well. Your publishing is your personal knowledge and getting it our there may cause it to change or for it to be reformed by the public response. 

Studying group 4 has made me assess thing differently, it has extended the importance that correlation does not equal causations. The Paradigm reading was the most important to me as it showed me how our societal or scientific paradigms allow us the question or dismiss ideas that are false but also have the ability to restrict our knowledge. If something goes against the paradigm of our society we tend to immediately think it is wrong or criticise which could be dangerous or ignorant when developing. 

Blog Post #7:The Language of Science

20/2/2017

What are the arguments that each side makes?
Philip Ball's article "A metaphor too far" discusses how the use of metaphors in the scientific field may distort the values and contextual aspects of science. Their open-ended nature will only cause more confusion when studying the big complex topics which will make it harder to further develop scientific ideas. He uses Thibodeau's and Boroditsky's Stanford study as an example, with participants changing their answers of how crime should be dealt with in correlation to the metaphor used. Crime being described as a wild beast produced more cynical answers associated with the caging and killing of it, however, when it was described as a virus, participants leant towards more open-ended understanding and problem-solving tactics. He used this to build his own point that metaphors may create confusion leading people down the wrong path and give them the wrong ideas which will lead to misconclusions.

Caleb A.Scharf discussed the opposite side of this case in " In Defense of Metaphors In Science Writing". He discussed how metaphors may be used to make concepts more understandable with the simplifying and personalisation of the ideas at hand. These personalizations would allow people to be more incised by the subject as well as being able to work through it due to the personalizations made. It is also mentioned how the disputes of metaphors in science could just be caused by scientists wanting to stay to the facts since that is what they are more comfortable with and accustomed to.

What factors influence the language choices of writers of science?
From reading these two articles, I think the author's personal ideas, opinions and targeted audience greatly impact the form of writing they produce. Some scientific writers may write with metaphors to give the audience a better understanding or personal linkage in order to help them gain the concepts or expand on the concepts. This form of writing allows for scientists and normal people to read it and form opinions and perspectives about the topic at hand. Writing with no metaphors expects the readers to understand what they are discussing purely from facts presented, they expect the audience the form opinions based on fact which could be more a scientific base. This is supported by Scharf discussing how fellow scientists thought it was unnecessary or informal to put these concepts in metaphorical form, urging him to go back the  factual presentations they are used to. 

Blog Post #6: Ethical Limitations of Science

To what extent should scientific knowledge be open to the public? 

This is a very difficult question to answer as there tend to be two sides to each leaf with this have the many reasons scientists should reveal information and other reasons which dictate why it should be kept a secret. Science is a field dedicated to exploration and investigating the unknown which can lead to a variety of new information and possible benefits. Scientists are constantly learning from old research or current research to hypothesise new ideas or develop old ones. With this mindset, it seems logical to share as much information as you can with the hope of further evolving our society in order for us to become the superior race. 

Many scientists agree with the notion as a study published in the international journal PLOS expressed how modern scientists use social media as a form of communication with fellow peers. "Led by Kimberley Collins, Dr Jenny Rock of New Zealand’s University of Otago and David Shiffman of the University of Miami, it surveyed 587 scientists from a range of academic disciplines."(http://www.otago.ac.nz/news/news/releases/otago624116.html). A majority of the science population believed that social media has a lot of advantages which could the scientific field. They even appreciate forms of social media like twitter as it allows them to share their findings, results or information with fellow scientists and the population. This openness allows a for a dialect to easily be created and with multiple minds working together or even discussing results there is room for growth. All these compelling points make it seem like an easy choice but there are a lot of implications that may take place if all scientific knowledge is open to the public. 

Humans are driven in science by curiosity which can be driven by logic, reason, imagination and emotion. Scientists do a lot of procedures to acquire their data which may conflict with the public's own morals. Animal testing has a lot of mixed signals from the public with some supporting it and some being against it, scientists use animal testing to avoid risking human lives but they do affect the creatures life. We only know some of the tests going on and there has been a lot of laws and regulations set into place to avoid the harm of animals as much as we can. These precautions were due to the public's morals criticising scientist's experimentation methods but what if these extreme measures lead to the cure for cancer? If 1,000 rats could die to save thousands and thousands of humans then would it be morally correct for scientists to test on them? Well, the real questions are if the public knew of this choice would they even be able to decide as we are very torn as human beings due to our emotion and logic based on our mental differences.

Let's take another point, humans naturally can panic and if governments were working on dangerous materials for radioactive warfare would the public have ethe right to know? Well, if they did then there is a possibility they would get support as it may defend their nation in the future or even get help from public scientists. However, this shared information may lead to the public's panic leading to revolutions or other political battles. This act of defence may even lead to other countries to panic in fear of what this product could lead to when the original country simply wants protection. The public knowledge would cause too much controversy that may stop they research of this radioactive warfare or aid it. 

Humans are extremely unpredictable with their responses caused by emotion which may cloud their judgement so you might think it would be better to not release information thepublic. However, this emotion and logic are what dictates fear and morality which prevents the scientists from going too far with their technology. It mainly just depends on what is being released and what kind of research is being conducted.