Reports have been surfacing recently in several British newspapers claiming Facebook usage enables the spread of syphilis. This is based on the observation that syphilis cases have increased in three areas of Britain where Facebook usage has also increased by Dr. Peter Kelly, a director of public health in Britain.
The only reported quote given by Dr. Kelly is this: “Social networking sites are making it easier for people to meet up for casual sex. There is a rise in syphilis because people are having more sexual partners than 20 years ago and often do not use condoms.”
Aside from the ridiculous implication from the news outlets that Facebook is somehow more syphilis inducing than any other online social network, no expert has ever said that social networks caused an increase in syphilis. It was only provided as one possible explanation for an observed relationship.
This incident has, at the least, given us an excellent chance to observe how misinformation spreads in the news. Eye-grabbing headlines like “Sex diseases soaring due to Facebook romps” reflect either exaggeration and misrepresentation of the facts or a simple lack of understanding on the nature of statistics. Jeremy Anglim’s Blog provides an excellent description of the statistical reasons for which the news outlets’ claims don’t make any sense, including the classic: correlation does not imply causation.
At least one piece of the puzzle has also been ignored by nearly every outlet I’ve seen though: the raw numbers. In Teesside, one of the three areas in Britain where this link reportedly was shown, how many new syphilis cases were actually observed? Thirty. Since that’s the only number I’ve found reported, I suspect that the number of cases in the other two areas of Britain were even lower. For the news media to make claims that “social media increases syphilis” with this small a sample is not only misleading – it’s irresponsible.
Facebook’s staff seems to agree.
I said I’d hold off posting for a week or two – and that was certainly my intention – but some stories are just too interesting to pass up.
Consider the case of Lee Shedon, an instructor at Indiana University who has replaced the traditional A-F grading system in the courses he is teaching with a XP system.
XP, which stands for “eXperience Points,” are the bread-and-butter of role-playing games. Players will complete in-game objectives (often called quests) to earn XP, enough of which allow them to increase in “Level.” The higher the Level of a player, the more skills their in-game persona will be able to access.
In the case of this game design class, students earn XP for completing assignments. They are grouped into student teams (which Sheldon called ‘guilds’). They then complete either solo quests or group quests to earn XP.
The reaction to this system has been quite positive, based on general student reactions. But the question remains as to whether implementing this sort of system with a group of students less familiar with XP, guilds, and related concepts than those enrolling in a game design class would experience the same positive reaction.
My concern is more psychological – that if implemented incorrectly, this sort of educational intervention would take the focus away from mastery of course material, and instead toward simple completion. If you earn XP for being part of a project team, and quality is not judged somehow, that might have negative outcomes for students.
Sheldon also suggests that these principles could be extended to the workforce, but a system where you gain experience points for doing your job may be unwise in the long run. After all, when I’m gaming and the effort required to earn XP no longer seems to be worth it – I just quit.
One of the problems with having an active research program is that sometimes that program tries to smother you with work. A project that I am working on (determining the best use of online social networks in college classrooms) is suddenly requiring about 16 hours per day of my time (I have 17 meetings next week alone!), so it will be quiet here for the next week or two as I rush headfirst into the heart of it.
But I promise it will be quite interesting when we return! A meta-analysis recently appeared claiming “conclusive” evidence that violent video games cause violence. That’s a pretty strong statement, but I’m only hearing it from secondary sources. So in the researchblogging.org tradition, I’ll be diving into that piece in a couple of weeks and blogging on what’s really there. Stay tuned to see what’s up!