Jump to content

Robert Epstein: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Criticism of Google: Add information about his recent Senate testimony
→‎Criticism of Google: make this a bit more chronological
Line 16: Line 16:
In 2012, Epstein publicly disputed with [[Google Search]] over a security warning placed on links to his website.<ref name="bits1">Perlroth, Nicole. [http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/one-mans-fight-with-google-over-a-security-warning/ One Man's Fight With Google Over a Security Warning] January 5, 2012.</ref> His website, which features mental health screening tests, was blocked for serving [[malware]] that could infect visitors to the site. Epstein emailed "[[Larry Page]], Google's chief executive; [[David Drummond (Google)|David Drummond]], Google's legal counsel; Epstein's congressman; and journalists from ''[[The New York Times]]'', ''[[The Washington Post]]'', ''[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]]'', and ''[[Newsweek]]''."<ref name="bits1" /> In it, Epstein threatened legal action if the warning concerning his website was not removed, and denied that any problems with his website existed.<ref name="bits1" /> Several weeks later, Epstein admitted his website had been hacked, but still criticized Google for tarnishing his name and not helping him find the infection.<ref>Epstein, Robert. [http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/06/readers-and-experts-weigh-in-on-a-site-owner-vs-google/?comments#permid=6 Comment on "Readers and Experts Weigh In on a Site Owner vs. Google"] January 6, 2012 for article; January 24, 2012 for Epstein's comment.</ref> Epstein has since continued anti-Google advocacy, writing in TIME magazine that Google had "a fundamentally deceptive business model".<ref>Epstein, Robert. [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-robert-epstein/googles-hypocrisy_b_8253332.html Google's Hypocrisy]</ref><ref>Epstein, Robert. [http://techland.time.com/2013/03/27/googles-dance/ Google's Dance]</ref> Epstein also has said that Google could rig the [[2016 US presidential election]] and that search engine manipulation was "a serious threat to the democratic system of government".<ref name="politico">Epstein, Robert. [http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/how-google-could-rig-the-2016-election-121548 How Google Could Rig the 2016 Election]</ref> According to Epstein, "Perhaps the most effective way to wield political influence in today's high-tech world is to donate money to a candidate and then to use technology to make sure he or she wins. The technology guarantees the win, and the donation guarantees allegiance, which Google has certainly tapped in recent years with the Obama administration."<ref name="politico" />
In 2012, Epstein publicly disputed with [[Google Search]] over a security warning placed on links to his website.<ref name="bits1">Perlroth, Nicole. [http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/one-mans-fight-with-google-over-a-security-warning/ One Man's Fight With Google Over a Security Warning] January 5, 2012.</ref> His website, which features mental health screening tests, was blocked for serving [[malware]] that could infect visitors to the site. Epstein emailed "[[Larry Page]], Google's chief executive; [[David Drummond (Google)|David Drummond]], Google's legal counsel; Epstein's congressman; and journalists from ''[[The New York Times]]'', ''[[The Washington Post]]'', ''[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]]'', and ''[[Newsweek]]''."<ref name="bits1" /> In it, Epstein threatened legal action if the warning concerning his website was not removed, and denied that any problems with his website existed.<ref name="bits1" /> Several weeks later, Epstein admitted his website had been hacked, but still criticized Google for tarnishing his name and not helping him find the infection.<ref>Epstein, Robert. [http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/06/readers-and-experts-weigh-in-on-a-site-owner-vs-google/?comments#permid=6 Comment on "Readers and Experts Weigh In on a Site Owner vs. Google"] January 6, 2012 for article; January 24, 2012 for Epstein's comment.</ref> Epstein has since continued anti-Google advocacy, writing in TIME magazine that Google had "a fundamentally deceptive business model".<ref>Epstein, Robert. [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-robert-epstein/googles-hypocrisy_b_8253332.html Google's Hypocrisy]</ref><ref>Epstein, Robert. [http://techland.time.com/2013/03/27/googles-dance/ Google's Dance]</ref> Epstein also has said that Google could rig the [[2016 US presidential election]] and that search engine manipulation was "a serious threat to the democratic system of government".<ref name="politico">Epstein, Robert. [http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/how-google-could-rig-the-2016-election-121548 How Google Could Rig the 2016 Election]</ref> According to Epstein, "Perhaps the most effective way to wield political influence in today's high-tech world is to donate money to a candidate and then to use technology to make sure he or she wins. The technology guarantees the win, and the donation guarantees allegiance, which Google has certainly tapped in recent years with the Obama administration."<ref name="politico" />


Throughout 2016, Epstein had discussed the possibility of Google [[Algorithm#Computer algorithms|search algorithm]] manipulation in favor of [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic]] presidential candidate [[Hillary Clinton]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/14/google-is-burying-negative-search-suggestions-for-hillary-clinton-new-study-shows/ |title=Google Is Burying Negative Search Suggestions For Hillary Clinton, New Study Shows |last=Lieberman |first=Eric |publisher=''The Daily Caller'' |date=September 14, 2016 |accessdate=September 15, 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.rt.com/usa/359079-google-search-manipulation-clinton/ |title=Google dodges Clinton health problems in search autocomplete – expert |publisher=RT |date=September 12, 2016 |accessdate=September 15, 2016}}</ref> He estimated in a September article that as many as three million votes in the upcoming election could be shifted as a result.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://sputniknews.com/us/20160912/1045214398/google-clinton-manipulation-election.html |title=Research Proves Google Manipulates Millions to Favor Clinton |last=Epstein |first=Dr. Robert |publisher=Sputnik |date=September 12, 2016 |accessdate=September 15, 2016}}</ref> In 2017, former head of Google Search Amit Singhal directly disputed this claim, explaining that "Google has never ever re-ranked search results on any topic (including elections) to manipulate user sentiment."<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/google-2016-election-121766|title=A Flawed Elections Conspiracy Theory|work=POLITICO Magazine|access-date=2017-03-03}}</ref> In July 2019, Epstein presented his research to the [[Senate Judiciary Committee]], claiming that Google could manipulate "upwards of 15 million votes" in 2020 and recommending that Google's search index be made public.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/techwatch/corinne-weaver/2019/07/17/google-expert-senator-cruz-15-million-2020-votes-risk|title=Google Expert to Senator Cruz: 15 Million 2020 Votes At Risk|work=NewsBusters}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4807816/congressionalhearing-16july2019-testimonybydrrobertepstein|title=Senate Judiciary Testimony by Dr. Robert Epstein|website=CSPAN}}</ref>
Throughout 2016, Epstein had discussed the possibility of Google [[Algorithm#Computer algorithms|search algorithm]] manipulation in favor of [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic]] presidential candidate [[Hillary Clinton]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/14/google-is-burying-negative-search-suggestions-for-hillary-clinton-new-study-shows/ |title=Google Is Burying Negative Search Suggestions For Hillary Clinton, New Study Shows |last=Lieberman |first=Eric |publisher=''The Daily Caller'' |date=September 14, 2016 |accessdate=September 15, 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.rt.com/usa/359079-google-search-manipulation-clinton/ |title=Google dodges Clinton health problems in search autocomplete – expert |publisher=RT |date=September 12, 2016 |accessdate=September 15, 2016}}</ref> He estimated in a September article that as many as three million votes in the upcoming election could be shifted as a result.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://sputniknews.com/us/20160912/1045214398/google-clinton-manipulation-election.html |title=Research Proves Google Manipulates Millions to Favor Clinton |last=Epstein |first=Dr. Robert |publisher=Sputnik |date=September 12, 2016 |accessdate=September 15, 2016}}</ref> In 2017, former head of Google Search Amit Singhal directly disputed this claim, explaining that "Google has never ever re-ranked search results on any topic (including elections) to manipulate user sentiment."<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/google-2016-election-121766|title=A Flawed Elections Conspiracy Theory|work=POLITICO Magazine|access-date=2017-03-03}}</ref>


In a 2017 article, Epstein criticized efforts by companies such as Google and Facebook to suppress [[fake news]] through algorithms, noting "the dangers in allowing big technology companies to decide which news stories are legitimate".<ref>{{cite web|url=https://medium.com/@re_53711/fake-news-is-a-fake-problem-914d7ffc7a91|title=Fake News Is a Fake Problem|last=Epstein|first=Robert|website=Medium.com|date=April 10, 2017|accessdate=April 19, 2017}}</ref>
In a 2017 article, Epstein criticized efforts by companies such as Google and Facebook to suppress [[fake news]] through algorithms, noting "the dangers in allowing big technology companies to decide which news stories are legitimate".<ref>{{cite web|url=https://medium.com/@re_53711/fake-news-is-a-fake-problem-914d7ffc7a91|title=Fake News Is a Fake Problem|last=Epstein|first=Robert|website=Medium.com|date=April 10, 2017|accessdate=April 19, 2017}}</ref>

In July 2019, Epstein presented his research to the [[Senate Judiciary Committee]], claiming that Google could manipulate "upwards of 15 million votes" in 2020 and recommending that Google's search index be made public.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/techwatch/corinne-weaver/2019/07/17/google-expert-senator-cruz-15-million-2020-votes-risk|title=Google Expert to Senator Cruz: 15 Million 2020 Votes At Risk|work=NewsBusters}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4807816/congressionalhearing-16july2019-testimonybydrrobertepstein|title=Senate Judiciary Testimony by Dr. Robert Epstein|website=CSPAN}}</ref>


Other journalists and researchers have expressed concerns similar to Epstein's. [[Safiya Noble]] cited Epstein's research about search engine bias in her 2018 book ''[[Algorithms of Oppression]]'',<ref>{{cite book |last=Noble |first=Safiya Umoja |authorlink=Safiya Noble |date=2018 |title=Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism |location=New York |publisher=[[New York University Press]] |pages=52–53 |isbn=9781479849949 |oclc=987591529 |url=https://nyupress.org/books/9781479837243/}}</ref> although she has expressed doubt that search engines ought to counter-balance the content of large, well-resourced and highly trained newsrooms with what she called "disinformation sites" and "propaganda outlets".<ref name="HALPER"/> [[Ramesh Srinivasan]], a professor of information studies at [[UCLA]] focusing on "the relationships between technology and politics", agreed with Epstein that "the larger issue" of how search engines can shape users' views is "extremely important", but questioned how many undecided voters are using Google to them help decide who to vote for.<ref name="HALPER"/>
Other journalists and researchers have expressed concerns similar to Epstein's. [[Safiya Noble]] cited Epstein's research about search engine bias in her 2018 book ''[[Algorithms of Oppression]]'',<ref>{{cite book |last=Noble |first=Safiya Umoja |authorlink=Safiya Noble |date=2018 |title=Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism |location=New York |publisher=[[New York University Press]] |pages=52–53 |isbn=9781479849949 |oclc=987591529 |url=https://nyupress.org/books/9781479837243/}}</ref> although she has expressed doubt that search engines ought to counter-balance the content of large, well-resourced and highly trained newsrooms with what she called "disinformation sites" and "propaganda outlets".<ref name="HALPER"/> [[Ramesh Srinivasan]], a professor of information studies at [[UCLA]] focusing on "the relationships between technology and politics", agreed with Epstein that "the larger issue" of how search engines can shape users' views is "extremely important", but questioned how many undecided voters are using Google to them help decide who to vote for.<ref name="HALPER"/>

Revision as of 06:32, 21 July 2019

For other uses, see Rob Epstein.

Robert Epstein (born June 19, 1953) is an American psychologist, professor, author, and journalist. He earned his Ph.D. in psychology at Harvard University in 1981, was editor in chief of Psychology Today, a visiting scholar at the University of California, San Diego, and the founder and director emeritus of the Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies in Concord, MA.[1]

Epstein has been a commentator for National Public Radio's Marketplace, the Voice of America, and Disney Online. His popular writings have appeared in Reader's Digest, The Washington Post, The Sunday Times (London), Good Housekeeping, Parenting, and other magazines and newspapers. An autobiographical essay documenting his long involvement with the media was published in 2006 in the academic journal Perspectives on Psychological Science.[2]

Work in psychology

In various writings, Epstein has been a strong advocate of the view that people can deliberately learn to love each other. He studied arranged marriages and found that in many of them the partners developed greater feelings of affection for each other than did couples who had married for love.[3] In 2002 he published a study in which he said that many couples marry for other reasons than love, and develop love in their relationships over time.[4] He gave students in one of his classes at University of California, San Diego extra credit for taking part in affection building exercises.[5] At one time he used himself as an experimental subject to investigate this.[6]

Epstein collected data from over 18,000 people via the Internet for a study on sexual orientation published in 2007. He found a continuum between heterosexuality and homosexuality that is skewed by societal influences.[7] He also found that some people changed their orientation during their lives.[1]

Epstein is also a scholar in the field of psychological maturity, and once published an online maturity test. He is critical of what he sees as the "artificial extension of childhood" over the past century, arguing that what society views as the "teen brain" is often the result of Western cultural factors and infantilization, rather than a set of brain characteristics that are inherent in all humans throughout their teen years. In certain essays, he has cited studies which found that some teenagers are in some ways more developmentally mature than most adults, and advocates giving young people more adult responsibility, as well as placing them in environments in which they will not be prone to socializing simply with other teenagers.[8][9]

Criticism of Google

See also: Criticism of Google and Web search engine § Search engine bias

In 2012, Epstein publicly disputed with Google Search over a security warning placed on links to his website.[10] His website, which features mental health screening tests, was blocked for serving malware that could infect visitors to the site. Epstein emailed "Larry Page, Google's chief executive; David Drummond, Google's legal counsel; Epstein's congressman; and journalists from The New York Times, The Washington Post, Wired, and Newsweek."[10] In it, Epstein threatened legal action if the warning concerning his website was not removed, and denied that any problems with his website existed.[10] Several weeks later, Epstein admitted his website had been hacked, but still criticized Google for tarnishing his name and not helping him find the infection.[11] Epstein has since continued anti-Google advocacy, writing in TIME magazine that Google had "a fundamentally deceptive business model".[12][13] Epstein also has said that Google could rig the 2016 US presidential election and that search engine manipulation was "a serious threat to the democratic system of government".[14] According to Epstein, "Perhaps the most effective way to wield political influence in today's high-tech world is to donate money to a candidate and then to use technology to make sure he or she wins. The technology guarantees the win, and the donation guarantees allegiance, which Google has certainly tapped in recent years with the Obama administration."[14]

Throughout 2016, Epstein had discussed the possibility of Google search algorithm manipulation in favor of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.[15][16] He estimated in a September article that as many as three million votes in the upcoming election could be shifted as a result.[17] In 2017, former head of Google Search Amit Singhal directly disputed this claim, explaining that "Google has never ever re-ranked search results on any topic (including elections) to manipulate user sentiment."[18]

In a 2017 article, Epstein criticized efforts by companies such as Google and Facebook to suppress fake news through algorithms, noting "the dangers in allowing big technology companies to decide which news stories are legitimate".[19]

In July 2019, Epstein presented his research to the Senate Judiciary Committee, claiming that Google could manipulate "upwards of 15 million votes" in 2020 and recommending that Google's search index be made public.[20][21]

Other journalists and researchers have expressed concerns similar to Epstein's. Safiya Noble cited Epstein's research about search engine bias in her 2018 book Algorithms of Oppression,[22] although she has expressed doubt that search engines ought to counter-balance the content of large, well-resourced and highly trained newsrooms with what she called "disinformation sites" and "propaganda outlets".[23] Ramesh Srinivasan, a professor of information studies at UCLA focusing on "the relationships between technology and politics", agreed with Epstein that "the larger issue" of how search engines can shape users' views is "extremely important", but questioned how many undecided voters are using Google to them help decide who to vote for.[23]

The Los Angeles Times reported in March 2019 that Epstein's criticism of Google had been "warmly embraced" by conservative sources, a phenomenon that Epstein said "is driving me crazy".[23]

Books

  • Notebooks: B. F. Skinner (editor) (1980) ISBN 0-13-624106-9
  • Skinner for the Classroom: Selected Papers (editor) (1982) ISBN 0-87822-261-8
  • Cognition, Creativity, and Behavior: Selected Essays (1996) ISBN 0-275-94452-2
  • Creativity Games for Trainers (1996) ISBN 0-07-021363-1
  • Pure Fitness: Body Meets Mind (with Lori Fetrick) (1996) ISBN 1-57028-087-8
  • Self-Help Without the Hype (1996) ISBN 0-937100-00-5
  • Irrelativity (1997) ISBN 1-884470-13-0
  • The New Psychology Today Reader (1999) ISBN 0-7872-5617-X
  • Stress-Management and Relaxation Activities for Trainers (1999) ISBN 0-07-021762-9
  • The Big Book of Creativity Games (2000) ISBN 0-07-136176-6
  • The Big Book of Stress-Relief Games (2000) ISBN 0-07-021866-8
  • The Big Book of Motivation Games (with Jessica Rogers) (2001) ISBN 0-07-137234-2
  • The Case Against Adolescence: Rediscovering the Adult in Every Teen (2007) ISBN 0-7879-8737-9
  • Parsing the Turing Test: Philosophical and Methodological Issues in the Quest for the Thinking Computer (co-editor) (2008) ISBN 978-1-4020-6708-2
  • Teen 2.0: Saving Our Children and Families from the Torment of Adolescence (2010) ISBN 1-884995-59-4

Notes

  1. ^ a b "Do Gays Have a Choice?", Scientific American, March 2006
  2. ^ "Giving psychology away: A personal journey". Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2006, 1(4), 389-400
  3. ^ A psychologist's guide to love — planning on it, The China Post, 2009-12-31
  4. ^ Psychology A2: the complete companion, Mike Cardwell, Cara Flanagan, Nelson Thornes, 2003, page 21
  5. ^ You can make yourself fall in love, theory says, Washington Post, 2010-1-3
  6. ^ "Editor as guinea pig: Putting love to a real test". Psychology Today, May/June 2002, p5
  7. ^ Wayne Weiten, 2010, Psychology: Themes and Variations, Cengage Learning, p312
  8. ^ Colour Me Adult, Trinidad Express, 2011-11-25
  9. ^ Psychologist says teens won't grow up unless treated as adults, The Wisconsin Jewish Chronicle, 2007-6-15
  10. ^ a b c Perlroth, Nicole. One Man's Fight With Google Over a Security Warning January 5, 2012.
  11. ^ Epstein, Robert. Comment on "Readers and Experts Weigh In on a Site Owner vs. Google" January 6, 2012 for article; January 24, 2012 for Epstein's comment.
  12. ^ Epstein, Robert. Google's Hypocrisy
  13. ^ Epstein, Robert. Google's Dance
  14. ^ a b Epstein, Robert. How Google Could Rig the 2016 Election
  15. ^ Lieberman, Eric (September 14, 2016). "Google Is Burying Negative Search Suggestions For Hillary Clinton, New Study Shows". The Daily Caller. Retrieved September 15, 2016. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  16. ^ "Google dodges Clinton health problems in search autocomplete – expert". RT. September 12, 2016. Retrieved September 15, 2016.
  17. ^ Epstein, Dr. Robert (September 12, 2016). "Research Proves Google Manipulates Millions to Favor Clinton". Sputnik. Retrieved September 15, 2016.
  18. ^ "A Flawed Elections Conspiracy Theory". POLITICO Magazine. Retrieved 2017-03-03.
  19. ^ Epstein, Robert (April 10, 2017). "Fake News Is a Fake Problem". Medium.com. Retrieved April 19, 2017.
  20. ^ "Google Expert to Senator Cruz: 15 Million 2020 Votes At Risk". NewsBusters.
  21. ^ "Senate Judiciary Testimony by Dr. Robert Epstein". CSPAN.
  22. ^ Noble, Safiya Umoja (2018). Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism. New York: New York University Press. pp. 52–53. ISBN 9781479849949. OCLC 987591529.
  23. ^ a b c Halper, Evan (24 March 2019). "This psychologist claims Google search results unfairly steer voters to the left. Conservatives love him". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 25 March 2019.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Epstein&oldid=907198014"