upworthy

computers

Education

You may not know Gladys West, but her calculations revolutionized navigation.

She couldn't have imagined how much her calculations would affect the world.

US Air Force/Wikimedia Commons.

Dr. Gladys West is inducted into the Air Force Space and Missile Pioneers Hall of Fame, 2018.

This article originally appeared on 02.08.18


If you've never driven your car into a lake, thank Gladys West.

She is one of the mathematicians responsible for developing the global positioning system, better known as GPS.

Like many of the black women responsible for American achievements in math and science, West isn't exactly a household name. But after she mentioned her contribution in a biography she wrote for a sorority function, her community turned their attention to this local "hidden figure."

West was one of only four black employees at the Naval Proving Ground in 1956.

She accepted a position at the Dahlgren, Virginia, facility doing calculations, with her early work focusing on satellites. West also programmed early computers and examined the information that determined the precise location and elevation of satellites in space. Her data collection and calculations would ultimately aid in the development of GPS.

Employe testing the circuits on a super computer 1950s.

U.S. Census Bureau employees/Wikimedia Commons.

West and her colleagues back then probably could not have speculated just how much their calculations would affect the world.

Pretty much every "smart" device — from cellphones to fridges to dog collars — has GPS capabilities these days. The technology has changed the way we play, work, navigate, and explore our communities.

"When you're working every day, you're not thinking, 'What impact is this going to have on the world?' You're thinking, 'I've got to get this right,'" West once said in an interview with The Associated Press.

GPS, technology, community, inventors

GPS has intrigated into many of the devices we use today.

Photo by Psk Slayer on Unsplash

West would continue her work until her retirement in 1998.

After more than 40 years of calculations and complex data analysis, West retired. And following a well-earned vacation with her husband, she suffered a major stroke. But during her recovery, she worked toward returning to school and earned a doctorate. Her go-forward determination led to her regain most of her mobility, and she even survived heart surgery and cancer years later.

While she may not be as well known as other women in STEM fields, West's contribution is undeniable.

At 87, West is working on her memoir and spending time with her husband, children, and grandchildren. And according to her oldest daughter, West — despite the advent of GPS — still likes to have a paper map on hand.

Who are we to argue with greatness?

From Your Site Articles
Wellness

Screen time and social media may not be as bad for mental health as people think

Photo by Luke Porter on Unsplash

Even a casual follower of the news over the last few years is likely to have encountered stories about research showing that digital technologies like social media and smartphones are harming young people's mental health. Rates of depression and suicide among young people have risen steadily since the mid-2000s, around the time that the first smartphones and social media platforms were being released. These technologies have become ubiquitous, and young people's distress has continued to increase since then.

Many articles in the popular and academic press assert that digital technology is to blame. Some experts, including those recently featured in stories by major news outlets, state that excessive use of digital technology is clearly linked to psychological distress in young people. To deny this connection, according to a prominent proponent of the link, is akin to denying the link between human activity and climate change.

In an effort to protect young people from the harms of digital tech, some politicians have introduced legislation that would, among other things, automatically limit users' time spent on a social media platform to 30 minutes a day. If the evidence is so definitive that digital technology is harming America's youth in such substantial ways, then reducing young people's use of these devices could be one of the most important public health interventions in American history.

There's just one problem: The evidence for a link between time spent using technology and mental health is fatally flawed.

Know thyself – easier said than done

Absent from the discussion about the putative harms of digital tech is the fact that practically all academic studies in this area have used highly flawed self-report measures. These measures typically ask people to give their best guesses about how often they used digital technologies over the past week or month or even year. The problem is that people are terrible at estimating their digital technology use, and there's evidence that people who are psychologically distressed are even worse at it. This is understandable because it's very hard to pay attention to and accurately recall something that you do frequently and habitually.

Researchers have recently begun to expose the discrepancy between self-reported and actual technology use, including for Facebook, smartphones and the internet. My colleagues and I carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis of discrepancies between actual and self-reported digital media use and found that self-reported use is rarely an accurate reflection of actual use.

This has enormous implications. Although measurement isn't a sexy topic, it forms the foundation of scientific research. Simply put, to make conclusions – and subsequent recommendations – about something you're studying, you must ensure you're measuring the thing you're intending to measure. If your measures are defective, then your data is untrustworthy. And if the measures are more inaccurate for certain people – like young people or those with depression – then the data is even more untrustworthy. This is the case for the majority of research into the effects of technology use over the past 15 years.

Imagine that everything known about the COVID-19 pandemic was based on people giving their best guesses about whether they have the virus, instead of highly reliable medical tests. Now imagine that people who actually have the virus are more likely to misdiagnose themselves. The consequences of relying on this unreliable measure would be far-reaching. The health effects of the virus, how it's spreading, how to combat it – practically every bit of information gathered about the virus would be tainted. And the resources expended based on this flawed information would be largely wasted.

The uncomfortable truth is that shoddy measurement, as well as other methodological issues including inconsistent ways of conceiving of different types of digital tech use and research design that falls short of establishing a causal connection, is widespread. This means that the putative link between digital technology and psychological distress remains inconclusive.

Social media has a lot to answer for, but in terms of time spent on them, the mental health of young people might not belong on the list.images.theconversation.com

In my own research as a doctoral student in social work, I found that the link between digital technology use and mental health was stronger when self-report measures were used than when objective measures were used. An example of an objective measure is Apple's "Screen Time" application, which automatically tracks device use. And when I used these objective measures to track digital technology use among young adults over time, I found that increased use was not associated with increased depression, anxiety or suicidal thoughts. In fact, those who used their smartphones more frequently reported lower levels of depression and anxiety.

From believer to skeptic

That the link between digital tech use and psychological distress is inconclusive would have come as a big surprise to me five years ago. I was shocked by the levels of depression and thoughts of suicide among the students I treated when I worked as a mental health therapist at a college counseling center. I, like most people, accepted the conventional narrative that all these smartphones and social media were harming young people.

Wanting to investigate this further, I left clinical practice for a Ph.D. program so I could research why these technologies were harmful and what could be done to prevent these harms. As I dove into the scientific literature and conducted studies of my own, I came to realize that the link between digital technology and well-being was much more convoluted than the typical narrative portrayed by popular media. The scientific literature was a mess of contradiction: Some studies found harmful effects, others found beneficial effects and still others found no effects. The reasons for this inconsistency are many, but flawed measurement is at the top of the list.

This is unfortunate, not just because it represents a huge waste of time and resources, or because the narrative that these technologies are harmful to young people has been widely popularized and it's hard to get the cat back in the bag, but also because it forces me to agree with Mark Zuckerberg.

Getting at the truth

Now, this doesn't mean that any amount or kind of digital technology use is fine. It's fairly clear that certain aspects, such as cyber-victimization and exposure to harmful online content, can be damaging to young people. But simply taking tech away from them may not fix the problem, and some researchers suggest it may actually do more harm than good.

Whether, how and for whom digital tech use is harmful is likely much more complicated than the picture often presented in popular media. However, the reality is likely to remain unclear until more reliable evidence comes in.

Craig J.R. Sewall is a Postdoctoral Scholar of Child and Adolescent Mental Health at the University of Pittsburgh.

This article first appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.



From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
mental health
Popular

Woman's epic conversation with her printer proves they are designed to drive us all mad

Stevie Martin/Twitter

Anyone who has owned an inkjet printer knows the invention is rife with complications and frustrations. We managed to put a man on the moon five decades ago, but we still can't create a printer that works like it's supposed to? Really, humanity?

All we want is to be able to push a button and print the thing. That's it. So simple. We've been carrying complex supercomputers around in our pockets for years. I can send a video to my friend on the other side of the planet in a matter of seconds. I can tell you right now exactly what the weather is like in a tiny town in the Arctic. Printing a damn form in the room I'm sitting in really shouldn't be this hard.

And how about making it so we don't have to sell an organ to afford printer ink, please and thank you. Did you know that the cheapest printer ink costs twice as much per ounce as the world's most expensive champagne? And pricier inks cost upwards of seven times that? It's literally one of the most expensive liquids on the planet, and it's not like we're injecting it into people to save lives. It's freaking ink. And unless you're printing things constantly, that liquid gold tends to dry out before you can use it all anyway, making it functionally even more expensive.

Get it together, people. We shouldn't have to live like this.

You may wonder if printer woes are a distinctly American phenomenon, like some kind of annoying marker of late-stage capitalist dystopia. The pain almost feels purposeful at this point, doesn't it? Like printers are some sort of sociological experiment designed to test our mettle and weed out the winners from the whiners. Is it the printer, or is it me? Maybe I'm just an idiot.

Or maybe I'm an idealist who thinks putting ink on a page in my own home shouldn't cause me this much mental angst.

I know I'm not alone in these thoughts because pretty much everyone I've talked to about this topic has expressed the same sentiments. And judging by this hilarious viral video from the U.K., our friends across the pond deal with the same kinds of printer woes we do. The only difference is they hemorrhage money in pounds instead of dollars.

Check out this hilarious conversation between writer and comedian Stevie Martin and her printer and see if you can't relate:

In defense of multi-function printers, I will say that having the photocopy/scan option does come in handy. But do people fax things anymore? I feel like it's been 20 years since I faxed something, but maybe that's just me.

The "I can't print in black and white without blue ink" thing is legit. As are the connectivity and wifi issues. As is finding the model number for the printer. (Whyyyyyy is that so hard?)

But the best part is when the printer says it's out of paper, Martin says she's looking at the paper, and the printer says, "Well, I can't feel it."

Why are you like this, printers? Why?

I actually solved 95% of my printer woes after years of wasted frustration and money by doing two things:

1) I bought a basic, black-and-white only laser printer. It copies and prints and so far has been far less of a pain than every inkjet printer I've ever owned. Laser toner is massively less expensive than inkjet ink, and though laser printers themselves used to be a lot more expensive than inkjet, that's no longer the case.

2) I use a local print shop for printing things in color. I used to assume this was more expensive than printing at home, but as infrequently as I print things in color, and as frequently as my color cartridges would dry out, I figured out the cost of color printing at home was far higher than paying someone else to print things for me.

But for those who absolutely need an inkjet printer at home, for whatever reason, the struggle is real. You're not imagining it, you're not an idiot, and you're definitely not alone.

(You can find Stevie Martin on Twitter, and if you'd like to buy her a cup of coffee to thank her for the laugh, you can do that here.)

From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
comedy
Most Shared

What is the 'digital divide'? Zendaya grew up in it. And she wants it closed.

For Amanda Acevedo, getting on the honor roll meant fighting through a lot of physical pain.

The 10-year-old from East Harlem, New York, didn't have a reliable computer at home or school to complete her assignments in the evening. In order to keep up in class, she was often left with no choice but to write out entire essays using her thumbs on her mother's cell phone.

Can you imagine?

[rebelmouse-image 19531949 dam="1" original_size="500x256" caption="GIF via "Without a Net: The Digital Divide In America."" expand=1]GIF via "Without a Net: The Digital Divide In America."

Rory Kennedy couldn't — until she witnessed it herself.

“[Acevedo] would sit there and you would hear her thumbs crack and she would talk about it being painful," explains a dumbfounded Kennedy, director of the film, "Without a Net: The Digital Divide in America," which features Acevedo's story.

I'm speaking with Kennedy at the documentary's New York Film Festival premiere on Oct. 3, where a number of the film's supporters — most notably, "Spider-Man: Homecoming" star Zendaya — rallied behind its cause. "I thought, my God," Kennedy continues, as we chat a few minutes before her film debuts to a full house. "We are making it physically painful for poor kids to learn in this country.”

"Without a Net" shines a light on the discrepancies between the haves and have-nots when it comes to technology in our public schools.

The film paints a startling picture.

In wealthier districts, students tend to have far more tech resources at their disposal than students in poorer ones. A Pennsylvania high school in "Without a Net," for instance, boasts a popular, well-funded robotics course, but just a few miles away, another school struggles to integrate even a few basic computers into its curriculum. The money's just not there.

It's a "digital divide" that'll cost us in more ways than one if we don't act. By 2020, the U.S. Department of Labor estimates 77% of all jobs will require computer skills — a figure that will only increase throughout the following decades. This issue isn't just about equality, it's about long-term economic security too. If future generations don't have the necessary skills for 21st-century jobs, we'll all be left behind.  

For Zendaya, the "digital divide" hits particularly close to home.

[rebelmouse-image 19531950 dam="1" original_size="750x533" caption="Zendaya at the screening of "Without A Net: The Digital Divide in America." Photo by Craig Barritt/Getty Images for Verizon Foundation." expand=1]Zendaya at the screening of "Without A Net: The Digital Divide in America." Photo by Craig Barritt/Getty Images for Verizon Foundation.

The Hollywood star, who eagerly threw her support behind Kennedy's documentary, is an ambassador to the #WeNeedMore campaign by Verizon — an effort to make tech more accessible in underfunded schools. The telecom giant co-produced the film.

Stories like Acevedo's, Zendaya says, hit close to home.

"I grew up in [the digital divide]," she explains, dressed in a glittery gown on the red carpet — worlds away from the working class Oakland, California, community where she was raised. "It’s something that I’ve lived firsthand." As a child, Zendaya attended a well-resourced private school where her dad worked and had the privilege of benefiting from financial aid. But her mom taught at a struggling school in the area's public school system; the stark contrast left a lasting impression on the actor.

"How do you have a school where kids are able to experiment with coding and build robots and then you have schools that don’t even have Wi-Fi?" Zendaya continued. "What are you telling those children?"

As Zendaya notes, pointing to her learnings from the film, the solution isn't to go out and buy a bunch of iPads either. It's more complicated than that.

"Without a Net" dove into the three major barriers keeping tech inaccessible for millions of students:

  1. There's a lack of tech products in schools. Thousands of schools simply don't have the funds to buy every student a laptop or create classes like coding and robotics.
  2. There's a lack of internet connection in schools. Particularly in poorer, rural areas of the country, connecting to high-speed internet is surprisingly difficult and astonishingly expensive. Despite progress in recent years, 23% of school districts still don't have sufficient bandwidth to meet the needs for digital learning, according to the Education SuperHighway.
  3. There's a lack of tech-trained teachers in schools. Even if products are available and the internet's up and running, training teachers on how to use the products in their classrooms is quite costly. In fact, 60% of teachers feel they haven't been adequately trained on using technology in the classroom, a 2015 survey by Samsung found.

"The things my mom had to do just to get computers in the classroom or just to get Wi-Fi or just get arts education," Zendaya said, shaking her head in frustration. She may have blossomed into a Hollywood movie star, but she's clearly still agitated by the injustice undermining her hometown. "[My mom] worked too hard to do something that should just be there."

One thing those three major barriers have in common? Yep, you spotted it: They all cost money. Lots of it. And inner-city schools, like Acevedo's in New York City, as well as a good number of rural districts simply do not have that funding.

School funding is largely contingent — and arguably overlydependent — on local property taxes.

In affluent communities, where businesses are flourishing and property values are high, public schools reap the benefits in their bank accounts. In districts where business is scarce and property values are lower, the local tax pool schools dependent on is significantly reduced. As the film noted, this massive inequality — seen in metropolitan areas like Detroit, Philadelphia, and Chicago — means some schools have the funds for more and better qualified teachers, nutritious lunches, innovative art programs, and classroom technologies, while others barely make ends meet.

A Chicago student protests cuts to public school funding in 2013. Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images.

We desperately need change. And you can be part of it.

Kennedy is encouraging viewers to hold public screenings of her film — which is free to view on YouTube, as seen below — to raise public awareness of the issues at play and push for change at the grassroots level.

But students can play a role in making a difference too. Zendaya hopes underserved kids who see the film feel inspired to speak out in their own communities and challenge the status quo. Their futures are worth it, after all.

"Your voice is powerful, your voice is strong," she says. "It’s OK to go ahead and ask for what you think you deserve."

Watch "Without a Net: The Digital Divide in America," below and learn more at DigitalDivide.com.

Trending Stories