Half of US social program recipients believe they “have not used a government social program”

The following table is from the results of the “Social and Governmental Issues and Participation Study of 2008”. It seems around 50% of Americans who participate in one or more government social programs report that “they have not used a government social program.” Given the public’s broad lack of support for social programs, I would speculate that many of these people are those who regard program beneficiaries as “parasites”, conveniently excluding themselves from the group.

It’s also interesting to see which program beneficiaries are most convinced that they are not using a government program. Beneficiaries of programs that assist people who are middle and upper class (529/Coverdell, Mortgage Interest Deduction, and subsidized student loans) are much more likely to believe they are self-sufficient individualists compared to the most vulnerable (Medicaid, Subsidized Housing, SSI, Head Start etc.) Even 43% of unemployment insurance beneficiaries don’t feel they are using a government social program. Nearly everyone I know has received unemployment at one point or another in their life.

Source:

After 11 years, social workers to shed stereotypes in The Sims

If you’ve played The Sims, you probably have seen this scene before. This is the social worker. The social worker’s job is to prevent the player from killing children. In later editions of The Sims, social workers would remove children who were left home alone, or who performed badly in school. In some versions of the game, the social worker would ignore children with poor hygiene, but take away socially isolated and hungry children.

Social workers eventually became involved in the adoption process, instead of having your adopted child “teleport” out of nowhere. Still, the main role of the social worker is to remove children. This is aligned with the stereotype social workers have as malicious child-snatchers. The game does not go into detail over the family preservation model of child protective services. Social workers do not practice caseworker in The Sims. They do not have any other role other than to step in to remove children from the game instead of allowing them to die.

So, finally, there is an opportunity to change. Electronic Arts has asked the National Association of Social Workers for help, saying “We can use you guys as a resource.” It’s about time! And what better time for them to ask than during Social Work Month? A caveat: I have not extensively played The Sims 2 or The Sims 3. My understanding is that the differences are somewhat minor.

So, what’s wrong with social workers In The Sims?

1. They don’t get involved until it’s too late.
Struggling parents do not have any emergency resources to draw upon in The Sims. Instead, social workers in The Sims pop out of nowhere and take away kids who are “at-risk”. This is not the way child protective services usually work. Immediate removal happens when kids are at imminent risk. Physical abuse of children would qualify, but it’s not even possible in the game. Admittedly, it is possible to emotionally abuse or abandon children. Rather than split hairs, let’s get rid of the “immediate removal” mechanism, since it frustrates players and its implementation rarely matches the reality of child protective services. The game mechanics can be modified to prevent children from being abandoned. If the player chooses to go to work without someone to look after the children, they can automatically call a babysitter or a neighbor. Mis-clicks should not result in breaking up families.

2. They have only one tool in their toolbox - removal.
In most cases, rather than remove children, it is more likely that the social worker would put services into effect, such as family training, case management, or even emergency assistance. Why not implement an investigation and family assessment? It need not be particularly detailed (this is a video game), but it changes the tenor of the social workers involvement. The player will have to demonstrate an improved level of care and follow-up with the social worker.

3. They shame, rather than support parents.
If I recall correctly, in the original The Sims, a dialog box scolds you with a message along the lines of, “Your baby is crying! You ought to be ashamed of yourself!” If NPCs (non-player characters) will be using that language, they should not be associated with social workers. The involvement of child protective services need not be seen as a positive event, but the relationship with the social worker should be positive.

4. The social worker is always a woman.
Maybe I’m over-sensitive to this as a male social worker, but it seems that at least occasionally you should see a male social worker.

5. The only role social workers play are in child protective services, or adoption.
If Electronic Arts is serious about improving the way social workers are portrayed in The Sims, they need not force the player to become exposed to a greater variety of social workers. Instead, allow players to pursue social work/social services as a career path, and learn more about the diversity of social work in that way.

I’m watching the Jeopardy episode with IBM Watson.

I’m not sure this is fair - the human contestants need to convert the sound of Alex Trebek’s voice, or the image of the words on the screen into semantic units (words/phrases/sentences) before they can parse the meaning. Watson gets its questions given as a text file, so it can begin parsing right away. To be fair, Watson should have to rely on an image of the question (which shouldn’t be too hard for it to parse), or the sound of Alex’s voice (which it could probably not parse accurately). That being said, it’s still pretty impressive that it can do what it does.

I am interested in ergonomics and trying to make my living and working spaces more comfortable, but it is difficult. Many of the products labeled “ergonomic” have little or no evidence to support their claim, and the advice is conflicting.

I’ve spent a few minutes adjusting my cheap Staples chair and tilting my monitor. I read a few sites that said the top of the screen should be 3 inches above my eye level. I looked at diagrams of faceless people sitting at a 90 degree angle with their monitors perpendicular to their gaze. Then, I found an article that seems to turn all of that advice on its head.

The recommendation that computer monitors be placed at or slightly below eye-level is based in part on the belief that the “normal line of sight,” considered to be the resting point of the eyes, is 15° below the horizontal when the head is upright.

A statement to that effect appears first in an engineering handbook published in 1963 (Morgan et al., 1963). No references were provided and a conversation with one of the authors of the chapter (Orlansky, 1994) could not determine a basis for the statement. It was confirmed that it did not result from laboratory or field studies. Eye-level monitor placement has developed as a guideline despite little or no evidence to support it, and despite the discomfort that persists with this placement.

Interesting that most people probably sit at their laptops with a similar position that they are recommending. Starting today, my chair is raised, and the top of my monitor is tilted away from me. I haven’t noticed a difference yet, but it’s possible that I really need a new chair before I’ll notice any benefits.