Human physiology: Roboticists need a deep appreciation of the limits and vulnerabilities of the human body to ensure human safety when designing the kinematics, navigation, and feedback systems of robots. These emerging social contexts add new requirements to the knowledge that successful roboticists need. However, robots increasingly operate among people, and they now work alongside us in factories and warehouses, share our streets and sidewalks, clean our homes, and care for the most vulnerable among us. This list is adequate for many applications of robotic autonomous systems (“robots”).Įmerging social contexts add new requirements to the knowledge that successful roboticists need. Industry voices confirm that roboticists need skills in systems thinking, a programming mindset, active learning, mathematics, science or other applied mathematics, judgment and decision making, good cross-disciplinary communication, technology design, complex problem solving, and persistence. Thinking (“investigative”) and doing (“realistic”) are personality traits that, when strongly correlated, predict success in computer science, engineering, and, by interpolation, robotics. Successful roboticists have been generalists with a specialty whose careers involve both thinking and doing. This focus has been entirely appropriate, until recently. It is yet another reminder that we must look beyond conventional wisdom when attempting to diagnose (and, consequently, treat) social problems, as other root causes may be hiding in plain sight.Educational programs in robotics have focused mostly on developing science, technology, engineering, and math skills, with recent extensions into the arts. Mittleman’s study provides population-based support and surprises for existing social scientific insights: bullies do not simply police sexuality as a means to enacting homophobia, they also punish counter-normative forms of doing gender. Bullies do not simply police sexuality as a means to enacting homophobia, they also punish counter-normative forms of doing gender.Įxploring patterns within the murky boundaries between sex, sexuality, and gender has become essential to developing better policies to discourage bullying and offer appropriate help to victims. Rather, sexual minority girls faced a double-bind in a culture that values modesty: they were policed not only for expressing same-sex desires but also for expressing agentic sexual desire in the first place. 
For girls, however, dressing, walking, and talking in gender-nonconforming ways were not the main explanation for their experiences of bullying.
Boys who reported being seen as “very feminine” were 3.5 times more likely to be picked on than boys who reported they were “very masculine.” Among sexual minority boys, being more “manly” was relatively protective against bullying. For boys, higher rates of “feminine” behavior appeared to account for most of the bullying they experienced, regardless of whether they were, as stipulated in the article, LGBQ or straight. public high schools with a nearly 150,000-student sample size, Joel Mittleman further finds that the relationships between gender expression and bullying victimization are dramatically different for boys and girls.
0 kommentar(er)
