Slashdot Mirror


Tech Credited With Reducing Nigerian Election Death Toll

jfruh writes: Dozens died in the runup to Nigeria's most recent election — a shocking statistic to many Westerners, but a relief in comparison to the much more serious violence that plagued earlier elections. Observers are crediting technology with making the election safer: the use of biometric IDs gave voters more confidence in the results, and social media gave people a chance to blow of anger that might've otherwise results in street brawls.

58 comments

  1. You do not discharge anger from engaging in it by quietwalker · · Score: 2

    This is a common misconception. You cannot "get your anger out" by indulging in it. Hitting a pillow or screaming until you're hoarse, or verbally thrashing someone on the internet does not make you act like a gentle person the rest of the day.

    If that was the case, you'd see most of our professional athletes; especially hockey players, football players, and boxers, as some of the most gentle, even-keeled people that ever existed.

    If anything, this makes us more used to binge angry, as we acclimate to it physiologically and psychologically. Perhaps this is why it seems those above atheletes are prone to excessive and often illegal violence on and off the field.

    1. Re:You do not discharge anger from engaging in it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You don't prove your point by mentioning people who have steroid rage. Normal people can absolutely get their anger out by spending some time with a punching bag.

    2. Re:You do not discharge anger from engaging in it by naasking · · Score: 3, Informative

      You don't prove your point by mentioning people who have steroid rage. Normal people can absolutely get their anger out by spending some time with a punching bag.

      Wrong.

    3. Re:You do not discharge anger from engaging in it by UncleGizmo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Perhaps more accurately, the article could hypothesize that using social media to vent removes the people from venting in the streets - not reducing the anger, per se, but rather creating distance which could reduce actual violence.

      --
      Who put this thing together? Me, that's who.
    4. Re:You do not discharge anger from engaging in it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right for me.

    5. Re:You do not discharge anger from engaging in it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're misunderstanding what "venting ager" actually is.

      It's less that you "use up your finite amount of anger" and more that "when you get angry go somewhere that you can't break anything/anyone important so that the negative consequences of expressing your anger are minimized".

      No amount of punching a bag will make you unable to feel angry. But if instead of punching people when you do get angry you punch a bag you'll find you get arrested for assault less often.

    6. Re:You do not discharge anger from engaging in it by alvinrod · · Score: 1
      I have some issues with the experiment design.

      Although they don't explicitly state this, it seems that all of this happens over a relatively short period of time. I suspect that when people normally resort to physical release to blow off steam, they isolate themselves from the person or source of their stress. This may not even be measuring how people typically use this type of behavior to manage their anger.

      More importantly, the following comes from the description of the study procedure:

      If the participant did not rank the punching bag activity first, the experimenter asked if the participant would be willing to hit the punching bag, explaining that ratings were needed for each activity on the list and that more ratings were needed for the punching bag activity.

      Participants were told that they should think about their partner while hitting the bag.

      Next, participants completed a mood form that measured anger and positive affect. The anger measure consisted of 15 adjectives (e.g., angry, annoyed, furious) from the hostility subscale of the revised Multiple Affect Adjective Checklist (Zuckerman & Lubin, 1985).

      So first of all they had researchers ask people to engage in the activity even if they hadn't originally wanted to, which biases the results. The Milgram experiment suggests that people will go along with what a research asks of them even if it's objectively horrible.

      Next, they told people to specifically focus on the individual that had angered them while doing this. I have no idea if it is standard for people using physical activity or even what could be considered violent activity to focus and maintain focus on what has antagonized them while engaging in this activity, but they've introduced another potential source of bias.

      Finally, they showed them a list of words that are all associated with anger. This is invariably going to result in priming issues (i.e., would the results be different if they showed some group a list with words like "calm", "patience", etc.?) or possibly influence the mood of the subjects by keeping them focused on how mad they are.

      This sounds like far less of a test on catharsis and more likely proof that if you get a person riled up and keep reminding them of their anger that they're going to react more angrily. It doesn't sound at all like they measured catharsis but rather the effects of making someone angry and then keeping them focused on that anger.

    7. Re:You do not discharge anger from engaging in it by Etherwalk · · Score: 1

      You don't prove your point by mentioning people who have steroid rage. Normal people can absolutely get their anger out by spending some time with a punching bag.

      As I recall from one of my psych classes a few years back, the evidence is that catharsis does not, in fact, help people. However, Wikipedia says there's some debate. Personally I suspect this is BS and that social media intensifies stratification and group formation while discouraging meaningful intergroup norm exchange.

    8. Re: You do not discharge anger from engaging in it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It sounds like Nigeria might have a bit more free speech than we do here in the US. Here if you vent your anger on social media the gestapou, er I mean police come knocking on your door.

    9. Re:You do not discharge anger from engaging in it by naasking · · Score: 1

      The experiment excluded a certain class of catharsis theories. Fortunately, it's hardly the only such experiment. Catharsis theory has basically no evidence supporting it at this point, and enough evidence against it that it's pretty safe to say that indulging your anger does not "expend it" in any meaningful sense.

    10. Re:You do not discharge anger from engaging in it by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      I wasn't saying that catharsis theory is valid (I honestly have no clue and have never read any research on it outside of what's been linked here) but merely that the study that was presented has some serious flaws in the way it was implemented. It seems like they proved that if you piss someone off, have them focus on their anger, and keep them thinking about it that they will react more violently than people who were not subject to the same.

      If there are other studies that also support the same claim there's obviously more strength for the hypothesis that catharsis is either ineffective or actually more harmful than not, but that study alone would only be sufficient to make that claim in a very narrow sense.

      I guess I've always thought of something being cathartic in the sense that it was a way of releasing anger and didn't associate it with a necessary violent component. If meditation helps a person reduce their anger, I would call that cathartic. So perhaps some of my hesitance comes from my own misunderstanding of the term in the scientific sense.

  2. Uhuh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No identity checking whatsoever at UK elections. You declare who you are and put your cross in a box. British parliamentary democracy has many problems, but voter corruption has never been identified as one of them.

    And the alleged benefit of social media is just wild speculation.

    This is Westerners just doing the whole, "Africa is so backward and the only reason they succeeded FOR ONCE is thanks to the tech we kindly bestowed upon their primitive little minds."

    How about... they're finally shaking off the shackles of dependency from a legacy of colonialism and learning that self-determination, rule of law and free trade actually make for a better society? I.e. as ever freedom comes from educated choice, not from imposition.

    1. Re:Uhuh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An ordinary citizen cannot be relied on to vote correctly. It only makes sense to assist them.

    2. Re:Uhuh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How about... they're finally shaking off the shackles of dependency from a legacy of colonialism and learning that self-determination, rule of law and free trade actually make for a better society?

      Nigeria stopped being a British colony 55 years ago, in 1960. The majority of present-day Nigerians were not yet born when Nigeria was last under British rule. They've had many, many changes of government since then.

      I'm not trying to start a flame war, I'm genuinely curious. What makes you feel that Nigeria's problems are a result of British colonization? What are the specific ways in which the "legacy of colonialism" has affected their recent history?

    3. Re:Uhuh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because brits are white cis gendered trash that oppress the poor minorities. Didn't you know that we would have a perfect world without white people?

    4. Re:Uhuh. by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      Well to be fair, they were probably too busy running away from those (slave) traders, to really pick up anything other than "Holy fuck, these people are not friendlies."

    5. Re:Uhuh. by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      What makes you feel that Nigeria's problems are a result of British colonization? What are the specific ways in which the "legacy of colonialism" has affected their recent history?

      Good questions. I can sum up the answer in two words: Shell Oil.

      You see, Nigeria left the commonwealth in 1960, but Big Oil didn't leave Nigeria. Oil is where the money is, and anyone who wanted to rise to power in Nigeria has had to deal with the oil companies. Those who have chosen not to, and have attempted to survive on traditional land-use have had their land polluted or taken by government and the oil industry. Since the 1960's, pretty much all exports from Nigeria other than oil (which is owned by foreign corporations) has dried up. As a result, most people choosing not to side with the government and the oil industry have turned to illegal means for survival, and are either part of or support the rebel groups in Nigeria. As an aside, this is where, until recently, the majority of the world's "419" or Nigerian Scam emails are from: they fund weapons purchases for Nigerian rebels. Now various Asian organized crime rings have found that's also lucrative. But that digresses from the point.

      British Colonization was both a good and bad thing for Nigeria. Unfortunately, its legacy has been the same: if you are one of the privileged, the legacy has been good. If you are one of the powerless, the legacy has been bad. Nigeria is just starting to learn some of the lessons about how environmental protection is key to long-term sustainability.

    6. Re:Uhuh. by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      Here's a fun fact: before colonization, despite over a thousand years of contact with Arab traders, blacks neither adopted (made use of) the wheel nor of written languages.

      Generalize much?

      Egypt, an African nation, had chariots thousands of years ago. So did Sudan. Sudan, like Egypt, also had a written language based on heiroglyphics. They also had pyramids.

      Now your fun facts do happen to be true for Nigeria, which despite being a trade hub of the world for thousands of years, never bothered with the wheel or written language. This suggests to me that a) wheels aren't too useful in a large river delta where sledges and barges make more sense, and b) they must have used some other method to keep track of trade; I have no idea what it was, but I'm now curious to find out.

    7. Re:Uhuh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Despite what Afro-centrists assert, Egyptians weren't black. Some pharoahs had red hair, ffs. I'm obviously talking about subsaharan Africa, fuckwit.

    8. Re:Uhuh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey Anonymous Coward, for your next trick you're going to provide a link that shows blacks have low IQ, aren't you?

    9. Re:Uhuh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Three more words: Divide and Rule.

      As in India and in many other colonies, policies which hindered cohesion among the local ethnic groups were promoted and vigorously pursued. This made liberation movements very unlikely to achieve critical mass. Preferential treatment to certain ethnic groups ensured inter-ethnic tensions. Administrative zones with little regard for existing boundaries, etc...Such tensions don't dissipate in a couple of decades, you know, particularly in the case of a poor and uneducated majority.

    10. Re:Uhuh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      blacks neither adopted (made use of) the wheel nor of written languages.

      Egypt, an African nation

      Reading comprehension fail. Or you're an out and out SJW liar.

    11. Re:Uhuh. by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      blacks neither adopted (made use of) the wheel nor of written languages.

      Egypt, an African nation

      Reading comprehension fail. Or you're an out and out SJW liar.

      Ah; I see... you have some magical point at which skin pigmentation affects people's ability to write and use wheels. Might this be why I not only mentioned Egypt, whose inhabitants some might not consider "black enough" but also Sudan? Is this skin pigmentation dark enough for you to call "black"?

      The entire point of calling out Egypt was to draw parallels with Sudan (the cultures lined up quite well, off by time more than by anything else) as everyone knows about Egypt.

      So if you're not actually talking about skin pigmentation, and you're not talking genetics, what, pray tell, do you mean by "blacks?" If you're being racist, it's useful to actually define what you mean by race.

      Oh yes, and what I didn't add to my other points: Many of the native peoples of North America and the Pacific islands also failed to create a written language or use the wheel. Some of them built quite advanced civilizations.

  3. Blow OFF anger, not blow of anger. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Resulted, not results.

    Come on guys.

  4. over there tech helps reduce violence... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    but here in the u.s. a well-connected, socially-networked public just riots, instead.

  5. Voter IDs gave them confidence in the results? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "...the use of biometric IDs gave voters more confidence in the results..."

    American Democrats need to tell the Nigerians that voter IDs are racist.

    1. Re:Voter IDs gave them confidence in the results? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      American Democrats need to tell the Nigerians that voter IDs are racist.

      The difference is that American voting is highly skewed by race and class. Democrats are far more likely to have no valid ID, and also tend to be less motivated to vote, and thus easier to discourage from doing so. Almost any test that involves being a dysfunctional person (illiterate, ex-felon, no mailing address, no valid ID) is going disproportionately disenfranchise Democrats.

      Nigeria is different. Their politics are skewed by religion and tribe. There is no inherent reason that requiring an ID would be unfair in Nigeria.

    2. Re:Voter IDs gave them confidence in the results? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Democrats are far more likely to have no valid ID

      What, Democrats don't drive?? And can't be bothered to get the DL-equivalents that every State offers for non-drivers to use as ID?

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    3. Re:Voter IDs gave them confidence in the results? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Democrats are far more likely to have no valid ID

      You need valid ID to comply with Obamacare. Surely Democrats want to comply with Obamacare, don't they?

    4. Re:Voter IDs gave them confidence in the results? by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      every State offers for non-drivers to use as ID?

      It also costs money. So, if the primary purpose is voter id and that id costs money then it is equivalent to a voting tax.

      This message is brought to you by Boss Tweed.

    5. Re:Voter IDs gave them confidence in the results? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      What, Democrats don't drive??

      Correct. Democrats are less likely to drive, and less likely to own a car.

      And can't be bothered to get the DL-equivalents that every State offers for non-drivers to use as ID?

      Correct again. Democrats are less likely to get a state issued ID card if they don't drive. Partly this is a lack of motivation, since Democrats rely more on cash and less on credit or banking that require an ID, but part is also because they don't have access to their birth certificate or other proof of eligibility.

      You can argue that this is their own fault and they "deserve" to be disenfranchised (and many people will accept that argument), but you can't argue that voter-ID laws don't skew elections away from Democrats and toward Republicans.

    6. Re:Voter IDs gave them confidence in the results? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Feel free to source any of your ridiculous claims...

    7. Re:Voter IDs gave them confidence in the results? by DaHat · · Score: 2

      but you can't argue that voter-ID laws don't skew elections away from Democrats and toward Republicans

      That tends to be what happens when you make it harder to commit voter fraud.

    8. Re:Voter IDs gave them confidence in the results? by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Except that every study seems to show that actual voter fraud is minimal. Voter ID laws are (taken at face value) an attempt to reduce a small number of people from voting illegitimately while keeping a larger number of people from voting legitimately. It's trying to swat a fly by swinging around a sledgehammer. Sure, you might kill that pesky fly, but your walls and furniture won't look really nice afterwards.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    9. Re:Voter IDs gave them confidence in the results? by DaHat · · Score: 1

      Except that every study seems to show that actual voter fraud is minimal

      I always hear that claim made, yet every so called 'study' I examine has gaping holes in it's methods as more often then not there is simply not enough data to make an accurate measure as to what level of fraud exists because of the lack of ID requirements.

      If I show up to your polling place and claim to be a recently deceased person, someone I know to be on vacation, or not likely to vote... unless the election worker actually knows the person I am pretending to be... I'm almost certainly going to be able to cast a vote illegally and the chances of being caught are slim, ditto for me ever showing up on the radar of someone investigating fraud.

      Let me fix that for you:

      Voter ID laws are (taken at face value) an attempt to reduce a unknown number of people from voting illegitimately while keeping a larger number of people from voting legitimately.

      Somehow one needs a photo ID to fly on a plane, buy a six-pack of beer or open a bank account in most places... but only with regards to voting is it suddenly a horrible thing, even when free IDs are usually available.

      To go back to my earlier example, a person doing so would only be casting a single extra vote which on it's own isn't much, however it's not too hard to imagine an individual or group being a little more dedicated and spending the morning of election day doing this over and over again.

      How many fraudulent votes would they need? Lets look at some recent close races which come to mind:

      in Florida in 2000 George Bush beat Al Gore with a margin of 537 votes out of 5,962,657 cast (0.00901%).
      In South Dakota in 2002 Tim Johnson beat John Thune by a margin of 524 votes out of 33,4438 cast (.001567%).
      In Washington in 2004 Christine Gregoire beat Dino Rossi by a margin of 133 votes out of 2,810,058 cast (0.00473%).
      In Minnesota in 2008 Al Franken beat Norm Colman by a margin of 312 votes out of 2,887,646 cast (0.0108%).

      We are talking margins not only within the range of error (accidental over votes, identifying marks, etc), but very possibly within the margin of fraud, something the current system makes very difficult to detect.

      Most of us don't wait to put locks on or home doors until after we are burgled, we do so because we recognize a potential threat and prefer to take some actions to reduce the risk, why not here as well?

  6. Biometric IDs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Biometric voter IDs? The liberals would freak if we had fair elections. Democrat success electoral hinges on illegible voters, and Presidential candidates as well.

    1. Re:Biometric IDs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like Republicans depend on gerrymandering?

  7. who needs "election day"? by antiperimetaparalogo · · Score: 1
    Maybe it is just because in Nigeria they have continuous violence (mostly from Muslims against Christians - with a couple of hundred victims some days), so no need the "election day" for the violence to spread?

    I understand that technology can help in many cases, but i think this is not one of them (at least not in that way).

    --
    Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
    1. Re:who needs "election day"? by axlash · · Score: 1

      Where do you get this completely idea information from?

      Nigeria isn't just about media-reported Boko Haram, you know.

      --
      Deal with reality - the world as it is - rather than ideality - the world as you would like it to be.
    2. Re:who needs "election day"? by antiperimetaparalogo · · Score: 1

      Where do you get this completely idea information from?

      Nigeria isn't just about media-reported Boko Haram, you know.

      Well, even from Nigerians themselves... as a Greek a have the privilege to be their first and often permanent host when uninvited introduce their presence to Europe! How many Nigerians (not just Africans, but Nigerians) do you have in your neighborhood?

      --
      Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
  8. Re:Black Countries never get fixed by marsu_k · · Score: 1

    So, you are saying Apartheid should have continued as it is?

  9. Never Use Biometrics for Security or Identity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Use of Biometrics enables identity thieves to automate their crimes on an industrial scale. How many times must this be said before it begins to sink in?

    Every system of security is eventually compromised. If someone harasses you by calling your phone all the time, you can change your phone number. If someone steals your credit card, you can challenge the charges and your bank can issue you a new card with a different number.

    If someone gets hold of your fingerprints, an image of your iris, your facial measurements, or whatever else they can charge up a storm, ruin your credit rating, take all your savings, have you thrown in jail for violating your security clearance, destroy your life, and you won't be able to do a damn thing about any of it. You can't call God and plead that your fingerprints were stolen and you need a new set.

    DO NOT USE BIOMETRICS FOR SECURITY OR IDENTITY AUTHENTICATION. EVER. PERIOD.

    How many deaths and dismemberments do people have to suffer before the governments finally catch on and realize what a horrible idea this is? It's already happening in movies and TV shows. How long until it starts happening in real life?

    These are your body parts, people! Don't turn them into valuable commodities that criminals will want to steal. How difficult is that to understand?

    1. Re:Never Use Biometrics for Security or Identity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But... but... terr'ists!

  10. Re:Black Countries never get fixed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here is more fun fact for you. Most blacks in South Africa aren't natives, but came down for the jobs... created by the country that the whites their built.

    But in the end I don't care. Today, SA is what it is. A rape and murder capital of the world.

  11. Gee... could it be GENETIC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't tell me - if you moved all of the Nigerians in Nigeria to a state in the USA, and called it 'Nigeria 2', they would all suddenly become just like WHITE people, and NOT kill each other during an election - because it's the LAND MASS that white people happen to be living on that makes their countries better than all the shitty countries in Africa, right?

    It's the LAND MASS in each country in Africa that magically makes that country a third world shithole, nothing to do with the GENES of the people who live there...

    1. Re:Gee... could it be GENETIC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How much, just how much, does it give you personally to declare an entire class of people "less" than you? Less smart, less capable, less deserving...I would like to hear just once, in all the decades of my life I've heard and read this declaration in so many forms: what do you get from proclaiming this "fact"?

      Another more interesting question: what if Nigerians, as a whole, are indeed less intelligent, and prone to violence — what then? and what if they aren't actually genetically inferior to you, white American(I presume) — what then? and what if they are actually genetically superior to you, by some objective measure — what then?

      What ethical considerations regarding your treatment of these others who are recognizably human would follow from confirming any of the facts above?

  12. Why bother? by slick7 · · Score: 1

    In Amerika, we just manipulate the count the bring the "perfect" candidate to office. That's, what technology can do.

    --
    The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
  13. Nigerian prince by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    So that Nigerian prince lives? I hope so, he owes me 10 grand.

  14. How long before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How long before biometrics will be touted again as the solve-all for "identity" with this as the shining example when it's clear it's only a dumbo's feather in this context? I'm quite sure that if the actual performance data of these cards becomes known we're right back on the violence threat situation.

  15. No Need To ... by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

    There is little reason to intimidate, threaten, maim, and kill to get people to vote for you when you can just hack the voting machines.

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
  16. Modded flamebait? by tomhath · · Score: 1

    Vote fraud happens. They threw out that particular election but I don't think any of the people who committed fraud were ever charged. And dozens of precincts in Philadelphia haven't had a single vote for a Republican presidential candidate in decades.

    Stinson's absentee ballot campaign led to hundreds of improper votes, mostly in the district's Latino and African American neighborhoods. Those improper votes included forgeries and instances in which workers either marked ballots for voters, told them how to vote, or never showed them the ballot that was cast in their names.

    But Democrats will tell you there has never been any significant voter fraud (although you might want to look up a guy named Landslide Lyndon) and that there is no need for voters to present an id card.

    1. Re:Modded flamebait? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably because you made unsubstantiated accusations without specific details. What did you expect? A gold star for posting years old bait-mail?

      I could claim that 1 million Obama voters were obliterated by space lasers with the same quality as your post above.

      You've still not substantiated your absentee ballot claim, so I might say that person was actually a liar. Or maybe somebody else has the same name and a careless election worker made a mistake. It happens.

      As for Philadelphia?

      http://www.factcheck.org/2013/01/voting-conspiracies/
      http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/2012fraud.asp
      http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2012/nov/21/chain-email/emails-blog-posts-claim-mitt-romney-got-zero-votes/
      http://hatthief.blogspot.com/2012/11/other-precincts-where-romney-got-0-votes.html
      http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/11/philadelphia_voter_fraud_is_it_possible_that_barack_obama_won_100_percent.html

      And no, what Democrats will tell you that the the in-person fraud which VOTER ID is supposed to prevent (and it does nothing about other forms of fraud), is nearly non-existent. If you want to defraud a system, you don't have individuals casting individual ballots. For example the fraud alleged in the Lyndon Johnson election was misconduct by electoral staff, nothing that would be resolved with the VOTER ID systems being promulgated. Or do you think the elections clerk willing to commit fraud is going to be worried about checking for ID?

  17. Re:Black Countries never get fixed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As one Jaapie said to me: "The 'ole bleddy country's gone ter pot since the kaffirs 'ave bin renning it".

  18. great editing there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    chance to blow of anger that might've otherwise results

    They actually pay you for this?