tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73737556017831697132024-03-18T05:00:32.065-04:00Ethics and PsychologyWhere ethics is more than a codeEthics and Psychologyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03835409872525412234noreply@blogger.comBlogger6995125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7373755601783169713.post-82641434910966558082024-03-18T05:00:00.020-04:002024-03-18T05:00:00.552-04:00Mega Malpractice Verdicts Against Physicians on the Rise<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwlbSmbYZKgZqaJAfAfNUeYVkNMZ8qGJ9Ly5SLRrF1C_O1hl-ZjLF2_Tts0a7DsmIEj5lDTi0qNjLiNp-szPOj36DVSYo3Pu_g08_Rd24ec1412AX5XWnXsG9D2_Dsg6hBxlUT2FEGL6esO19DFy08ouBQ0YYwDawTWvprhyf11MqUiPYcICv8s0sUWoUg/s474/Laws.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="196" data-original-width="474" height="132" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwlbSmbYZKgZqaJAfAfNUeYVkNMZ8qGJ9Ly5SLRrF1C_O1hl-ZjLF2_Tts0a7DsmIEj5lDTi0qNjLiNp-szPOj36DVSYo3Pu_g08_Rd24ec1412AX5XWnXsG9D2_Dsg6hBxlUT2FEGL6esO19DFy08ouBQ0YYwDawTWvprhyf11MqUiPYcICv8s0sUWoUg/s320/Laws.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div>Alicia Gallegos</div><div>MedScape.com</div><div>Originally posted 2 Feb 24</div><div><br /></div><div>Here is an excerpt:</div><div><br /></div><div><div><b>Why Are Juries Awarding Higher Verdicts?</b></div><div><br /></div><div>There's no single reason for the rise in nuclear verdicts, Henderson said.</div><div><br /></div><div>One theory is that plaintiffs' attorneys held back on resolving high-dollar cases during the COVID pandemic and let loose with high-demand claims when courts returned to normal, he said.</div><div><br /></div><div>Another theory is that people emerged from the pandemic angrier.</div><div><br /></div><div>"Whether it was political dynamics, masking [mandates], or differences in opinions, people came out of it angry, and generally speaking, you don't want an angry jury," Henderson said. "For a while, there was the halo effect, where health professionals were seen as heroes. That went away, and all of a sudden [they] became 'the bad guys'."</div><div><br /></div><div>"People are angry at the healthcare system, and this anger manifests itself in [liability] suits," added Bill Burns, vice president of research for the Medical Professional Liability Association, an industry group for medical liability insurers.</div><div><br /></div><div>Hospital and medical group consolidation also reduces the personal connection juries may have with healthcare providers, Burns said.</div><div><br /></div><div>"Healthcare has become a big business, and the corporatization of medicine now puts companies on the stand and not your local community hospital or your family doctor that you have known since birth," he said.</div></div><div><br /></div><div><div>Plaintiffs' attorneys also deploy tactics that can prompt higher verdicts, White said. They may tell a jury that the provider or hospital is a threat to the community and that awarding a large verdict will deter others in the healthcare community from repeating the same actions.</div><div><br /></div><div>Juries may then want to punish the defendant in addition to assessing damages for economic harm or pain and suffering, White said.</div></div><div><br /></div><div><a href="https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/mega-malpractice-verdicts-against-physicians-rise-2024a10002bz?form=fpf" target="_blank">The article is here.</a></div>Ethics and Psychologyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03835409872525412234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7373755601783169713.post-24045088633633850052024-03-17T07:30:00.000-04:002024-03-17T07:30:04.787-04:00The Argument Over a Long-Standing Autism Intervention<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgRJJtWIDZNDd5XQJbBfZR03td63DR863ZL61FPZcGgQz86bJ3tuqoiAkQf0PgWoOfl4xSFP_CR2qHtLg0r_-6iLnSsr9ZSo5tVXNU043n395I7LHZZOOlh1E0mXqNt5tKnE8COhSajpzow_jLCNbfwMtmjMHXjx7kZ5x-VmC3tXkGW-mYMfLalJzw4-a61/s302/ethics%20signs.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="167" data-original-width="302" height="167" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgRJJtWIDZNDd5XQJbBfZR03td63DR863ZL61FPZcGgQz86bJ3tuqoiAkQf0PgWoOfl4xSFP_CR2qHtLg0r_-6iLnSsr9ZSo5tVXNU043n395I7LHZZOOlh1E0mXqNt5tKnE8COhSajpzow_jLCNbfwMtmjMHXjx7kZ5x-VmC3tXkGW-mYMfLalJzw4-a61/s1600/ethics%20signs.jpg" width="302" /></a></div><div>Jessica Winter</div><div><i>The New Yorker</i></div><div>Originally posted 12 Feb 24</div><div><br /></div><div>Here are excerpts:</div><div><br /></div><div>A.B.A. is the only autism intervention that is approved by insurers and Medicaid in all fifty states. The practice is widely recommended for autistic kids who exhibit dangerous behaviors, such as self-injury or aggression toward others, or who need to acquire basic skills, such as dressing themselves or going to the bathroom. The mother of a boy with severe autism in New York City told me that her son’s current goals in A.B.A. include tolerating the shower for incrementally longer intervals, redirecting the urge to pull on other people’s hair, and using a speech tablet to say no. Another kid might be working on more complex language skills by drilling with flash cards or honing his ability to focus on academic work. Often, A.B.A. targets autistic traits that may be socially stigmatizing but are harmless unto themselves, such as fidgeting, avoiding eye contact, or stereotypic behaviors commonly known as stimming—rocking, hand-flapping, and so forth.</div><div><br /></div><div>(cut)</div><div><br /></div><div>In recent years, A.B.A. has come under increasingly vehement criticism from members of the neurodiversity movement, who believe that it cruelly pathologizes autistic behavior. They say that its rewards for compliance are dehumanizing; some compare A.B.A. to conversion therapy. Social-media posts condemning the practice often carry the hashtag #ABAIsAbuse. The message that A.B.A. sends is that “your instinctual way of being is incorrect,” Zoe Gross, the director of advocacy at the nonprofit Autistic Self Advocacy Network, told me. “The goals of A.B.A. therapy—from its inception, but still through today—tend to focus on teaching autistic people to behave like non-autistic people.” But others say this criticism obscures the good work that A.B.A. can do. Alicia Allgood, a board-certified behavior analyst who co-runs an A.B.A. agency in New York City, and who is herself autistic, told me, “The autistic community is up in arms. There is a very vocal part of the autistic population that is saying that A.B.A. is harmful or aversive or has potentially caused trauma.”</div><div><br /></div><div>(cut)</div><div><br /></div><div>In recent years, private equity has taken a voracious interest in A.B.A. services, partly because they are perceived as inexpensive. Private-equity firms have consolidated many small clinics into larger chains, where providers are often saddled with unrealistic billing quotas and cut-and-paste treatment plans. Last year, the Center for Economic and Policy Research published a startling report on the subject, which included an account of how Blackstone effectively bankrupted a successful A.B.A. provider and shut down more than a hundred of its treatment sites. Private-equity-owned A.B.A. chains have been accused of fraudulent billing and wage theft; message boards for A.B.A. providers overflow with horror stories about low pay, churn, and burnout. High rates of turnover are acutely damaging to a specialty that relies on familiarity between provider and client. “The idea that we could just franchise A.B.A. providers and anyone could do the work—that was misinformed,” Singer, of the Autism Science Foundation, said.</div><div><br /></div><div><a href="https://www.newyorker.com/science/annals-of-medicine/the-argument-over-a-long-standing-autism-intervention" target="_blank">The info is here.</a></div>Ethics and Psychologyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03835409872525412234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7373755601783169713.post-63402820602604599312024-03-16T05:00:00.020-04:002024-03-16T05:00:00.645-04:00A New Equilibrium for Telemedicine: Prevalence of In-Person, Video-Based, and Telephone-Based Care in the Veterans Health Administration, 2019–2023<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYXzLg76qPfpeqOPiLI0_FxHa2I7q96ywMgAp8FRXJ-9Vu6rloniEmw4-jCGYxSsk0gdUrXWWG6RLdNaeTjYqSsDmnvG2C6L3QbtNM_6EWPEbw3t_q45sgQ5QfDZI83c2y7fdWmWsCcv_pnNWAqkpUiKCD2coZuVzPi2F9aSuzvrzro2Ys0GRh5md6eEm9/s474/telehealth.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="265" data-original-width="474" height="179" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYXzLg76qPfpeqOPiLI0_FxHa2I7q96ywMgAp8FRXJ-9Vu6rloniEmw4-jCGYxSsk0gdUrXWWG6RLdNaeTjYqSsDmnvG2C6L3QbtNM_6EWPEbw3t_q45sgQ5QfDZI83c2y7fdWmWsCcv_pnNWAqkpUiKCD2coZuVzPi2F9aSuzvrzro2Ys0GRh5md6eEm9/s320/telehealth.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div>Ferguson, J. M., Wray, C. M., et al. (2024).</div><div><i>Annals of internal medicine, 10.7326/M23-2644.</i></div><div>Advance online publication.</div><div><a href="https://doi.org/10.7326/M23-2644">https://doi.org/10.7326/M23-2644</a><br /><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Here is part of a synopsis from <i>The Washington Post</i>.</div><div><br /></div><div><div>More than half of mental health appointments — 55 percent — are being conducted remotely, mainly via videoconferencing rather than in-person visits, according to a brief research report in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine.</div><div><br /></div><div>Telemedicine, also known as telehealth, enables patients to obtain care via technology, most often a cellphone, video chat, computer or tablet.</div><div><br /></div><div>The study’s findings stem from analysis of patient information from Jan. 1, 2019, through Aug. 31, 2023, from the Department of Veterans Affairs; it included data on more than 277 million outpatient visits made by 9 million veterans.</div><div><br /></div><div>The research confirmed that the volume of telemedicine visits overall increased dramatically once the coronavirus pandemic began, becoming far more common than in-person visits.</div><div><br /></div><div>For primary care and mental health care, for instance, the researchers found that in-person appointments dropped from 81 percent to 23 percent in the first few months of the pandemic. By spring 2023, however, phone-based care largely had returned to its pre-pandemic level, but video-based care had stayed close to its pandemic peak, representing a 2,300 percent increase from its pre-pandemic level.</div></div><div><br /></div><div><a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/wellness/2024/02/12/mental-health-online-telemedicine-therapy/" target="_blank">That info is here.</a></div><div><br /></div></div>Ethics and Psychologyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03835409872525412234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7373755601783169713.post-11994185073573849922024-03-15T05:00:00.000-04:002024-03-15T05:00:00.549-04:00The consciousness wars: can scientists ever agree on how the mind works?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjboe_mWtM_QAU4lapppJZvvP5CXB6eKu55iGEx2aEynODuTe7gArlPgsc1uBOkYDY4dYr6PUF2UT9IjjpM1jN3SvEBPKmBsytHE8n8F8W48nH_YQ8jOxzFqiePcUc8eni5P4inVob71v4wBo_bSbM2rsG8ok9JsPZOL_AftpD5P19UGi7d8pl7W2IrAZM2/s320/consciousness.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="171" data-original-width="320" height="171" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjboe_mWtM_QAU4lapppJZvvP5CXB6eKu55iGEx2aEynODuTe7gArlPgsc1uBOkYDY4dYr6PUF2UT9IjjpM1jN3SvEBPKmBsytHE8n8F8W48nH_YQ8jOxzFqiePcUc8eni5P4inVob71v4wBo_bSbM2rsG8ok9JsPZOL_AftpD5P19UGi7d8pl7W2IrAZM2/s1600/consciousness.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div>Mariana Lenharo</div><div><div><i>Nature 625,</i> 438-440 (2024)</div><div><a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00107-7" target="_blank">doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00107-7</a></div></div><div><br /></div><div><div><div>Neuroscientist Lucia Melloni didn’t expect to be reminded of her parents’ divorce when she attended a meeting about consciousness research in 2018. But, much like her parents, the assembled academics couldn’t agree on anything.</div><div><br /></div><div>The group of neuroscientists and philosophers had convened at the Allen Institute for Brain Science in Seattle, Washington, to devise a way to empirically test competing theories of consciousness against each other: a process called adversarial collaboration.</div><div><br /></div><div>Devising a killer experiment was fraught. “Of course, each of them was proposing experiments for which they already knew the expected results,” says Melloni, who led the collaboration and is based at the Max Planck Institute for Empirical Aesthetics in Frankfurt, Germany. Melloni, falling back on her childhood role, became the go-between.</div><div><br /></div><div>The collaboration Melloni is leading is one of five launched by the Templeton World Charity Foundation, a philanthropic organization based in Nassau, the Bahamas. The charity funds research into topics such as spirituality, polarization and religion; in 2019, it committed US$20 million to the five projects.</div></div></div><div><br /></div><div>The aim of each collaboration is to move consciousness research forward by getting scientists to produce evidence that supports one theory and falsifies the predictions of another. Melloni’s group is testing two prominent ideas: integrated information theory (IIT), which claims that consciousness amounts to the degree of ‘integrated information’ generated by a system such as the human brain; and global neuronal workspace theory (GNWT), which claims that mental content, such as perceptions and thoughts, becomes conscious when the information is broadcast across the brain through a specialized network, or workspace. She and her co-leaders had to mediate between the main theorists, and seldom invited them into the same room.</div><div>---------------</div><div><div>Here's what the article highlights:</div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><b>Divisions abound: </b>Researchers disagree on the very definition of consciousness, making comparisons between theories difficult. Some focus on subjective experience, while others look at the brain's functions.</li><li><b>Testing head-to-head: </b>New research projects are directly comparing competing theories to see which one explains experimental data better. This could be a step towards finding a unifying explanation.</li><li><b>Heated debate:</b> The recent critique of one prominent theory, Integrated Information Theory (IIT), shows the depth of the disagreements. Some question its scientific validity, while others defend it as a viable framework.</li><li><b>Hope for progress:</b> Despite the disagreements, there's optimism. New research methods and a younger generation of researchers focused on collaboration could lead to breakthroughs in understanding this elusive phenomenon.</li></ul></div></div>Ethics and Psychologyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03835409872525412234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7373755601783169713.post-87781540756225608262024-03-14T05:00:00.043-04:002024-03-14T05:00:00.151-04:00A way forward for responsibility in the age of AI<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjf7Z17BkkF9_GJqiCUb4R-7WrWRwha2jv2UJekh2CqMNiKPRNMN61HXE4ujIzsNJcwPwk-w6TOJeh86bMC4AfeK_A57kOpHJQL_awWMKtPREDNrum0OfMhgsavMJkMAzbEQJ4alkOc2NGSsmJ2n25s-EpSWPE2hwpAuNEajhOUfv2ss7VTxh2oYN_8N0TG/s1024/ethics-artificial-intelligence-1024x440.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="440" data-original-width="1024" height="138" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjf7Z17BkkF9_GJqiCUb4R-7WrWRwha2jv2UJekh2CqMNiKPRNMN61HXE4ujIzsNJcwPwk-w6TOJeh86bMC4AfeK_A57kOpHJQL_awWMKtPREDNrum0OfMhgsavMJkMAzbEQJ4alkOc2NGSsmJ2n25s-EpSWPE2hwpAuNEajhOUfv2ss7VTxh2oYN_8N0TG/s320/ethics-artificial-intelligence-1024x440.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div>Gogoshin, D.L.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><i>Inquiry </i>(2024)</div><div style="text-align: left;"><a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0020174X.2024.2312455" target="_blank">DOI: 10.1080/0020174X.2024.2312455</a></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Abstract</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div>Whatever one makes of the relationship between free will and moral responsibility – e.g. whether it’s the case that we can have the latter without the former and, if so, what conditions must be met; whatever one thinks about whether artificially intelligent agents might ever meet such conditions, one still faces the following questions. What is the value of moral responsibility? If we take moral responsibility to be a matter of being a fitting target of moral blame or praise, what are the goods attached to them? The debate concerning ‘machine morality’ is often hinged on whether artificial agents are or could ever be morally responsible, and it is generally taken for granted (following Matthias 2004) that if they cannot, they pose a threat to the moral responsibility system and associated goods. In this paper, I challenge this assumption by asking what the goods of this system, if any, are, and what happens to them in the face of artificially intelligent agents. I will argue that they neither introduce new problems for the moral responsibility system nor do they threaten what we really (ought to) care about. I conclude the paper with a proposal for how to secure this objective.</div><div><br /></div><div><a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0020174X.2024.2312455" target="_blank">The info is here.</a></div><div><br /></div><div>Here is my summary:</div><div><br /></div><div><div>While AI may not possess true moral agency, it's crucial to consider how the development and use of AI can be made more responsible. The author challenges the assumption that AI's lack of moral responsibility inherently creates problems for our current system of ethics. Instead, they focus on the "goods" this system provides, such as deserving blame or praise, and how these can be upheld even with AI's presence. To achieve this, the author proposes several steps, including:</div><div><ol style="text-align: left;"><li>Shifting the focus from AI's moral agency to the agency of those who design, build, and use it. This means holding these individuals accountable for the societal impacts of AI.</li><li>Developing clear ethical guidelines for AI development and use. These guidelines should be comprehensive, addressing issues like fairness, transparency, and accountability.</li><li>Creating robust oversight mechanisms. This could involve independent bodies that monitor AI development and use, and have the power to intervene when necessary.</li><li>Promoting public understanding of AI. This will help people make informed decisions about how AI is used in their lives and hold developers and users accountable.</li></ol></div></div></div>Ethics and Psychologyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03835409872525412234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7373755601783169713.post-4827020503541172612024-03-13T05:00:00.019-04:002024-03-13T05:00:00.142-04:00None of these people exist, but you can buy their books on Amazon anyway<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBXeenWx5Jn7IFpaXHj6G8RyuO_cUSmCU4i8cEoHSsNhA0q8gBw29-19Jb5afx9EmEp8jIf888dpKsek5ccuXSsHGxtZosfCN7u_rMIqQFsBxYp1ZkqO5dl5Htb7w8_iQkRXk44HiuY3BSuWG9zecXGM5mUZ3A9JEXccxegWL4c-wQTu1edbNfptrE229D/s489/AI%20mosiac.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="275" data-original-width="489" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBXeenWx5Jn7IFpaXHj6G8RyuO_cUSmCU4i8cEoHSsNhA0q8gBw29-19Jb5afx9EmEp8jIf888dpKsek5ccuXSsHGxtZosfCN7u_rMIqQFsBxYp1ZkqO5dl5Htb7w8_iQkRXk44HiuY3BSuWG9zecXGM5mUZ3A9JEXccxegWL4c-wQTu1edbNfptrE229D/s320/AI%20mosiac.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div style="text-align: left;">Conspirador Norteno</div><div style="text-align: left;">Substack.com</div><div style="text-align: left;">Originally published 12 Jan 24</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Meet Jason N. Martin N. Martin, the author of the exciting and dynamic Amazon bestseller “How to Talk to Anyone: Master Small Talks, Elevate Your Social Skills, Build Genuine Connections (Make Real Friends; Boost Confidence & Charisma)”, which is the 857,233rd most popular book on the Kindle Store as of January 12th, 2024. There are, however, a few obvious problems. In addition to the unnecessary repetition of the middle initial and last name, Mr. N. Martin N. Martin’s official portrait is a GAN-generated face, and (as we’ll see shortly), his sole published work is strangely similar to several books by another Amazon author with a GAN-generated face.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">In an interesting twist, Amazon’s recommendation system suggests another author with a GAN-generated face in the “Customers also bought items by” section of Jason N. Martin N. Martin’s author page. Further exploration of the recommendations attached to both of these authors and their published works reveals a set of a dozen Amazon authors with GAN-generated faces and at least one published book. Amazon’s recommendation algorithms reliably link these authors together; whether this is a sign that the twelve author accounts are actually run by the same entity or merely an artifact of similarities in the content of their books is unclear at this point in time. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><a href="https://conspirator0.substack.com/p/none-of-these-people-exist-but-you" target="_blank">The info is here.</a></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Here's my take:</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div>Forget literary pen names - AI is creating a new trend on Amazon: ghostwritten books. These novels, poetry collections, and even children's stories boast intriguing titles and blurbs, yet none of the authors on the cover are real people. Instead, their creations spring from the algorithms of powerful language models.</div><div><br /></div><div>Here's the gist:</div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><u>AI churns out content:</u> Fueled by vast datasets of text and code, AI can generate chapters, characters, and storylines at an astonishing pace.</li><li><u>Ethical concerns:</u> Questions swirl around copyright, originality, and the very nature of authorship. Is an AI-generated book truly a book, or just a clever algorithm mimicking creativity?</li><li><u>Quality varies: </u>While some AI-written books garner praise, others are criticized for factual errors, nonsensical plots, and robotic dialogue.</li><li><u>Transparency is key:</u> Many readers feel deceived by the lack of transparency about AI authorship. Should books disclose their digital ghostwriters?</li></ul></div><div>This evolving technology challenges our understanding of literature and raises questions about the future of authorship. While AI holds potential to assist and inspire, the human touch in storytelling remains irreplaceable. So, the next time you browse Amazon, remember: the author on the cover might not be who they seem.</div></div>Ethics and Psychologyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03835409872525412234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7373755601783169713.post-31631600090262017152024-03-12T05:00:00.005-04:002024-03-12T05:00:00.131-04:00Discerning Saints: Moralization of Intrinsic Motivation and Selective Prosociality at Work<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEijet4mNJhjW6r-Er6eHNLUwdk97AO_o0lIqJJIJ8fot_iZkt2xUt6AranwLCZd009QCkeG9S8uBMr3yhMiKpV-rZoJKvS3vgaxHAo1d3TqKkPnH1wLbe_1jsC9U3erF5mAj7BhGn130qoNTqyK3423KAE-NL0214M-mYp60lUeAKEo5Z2WNTVZ8EXoXn8A/s227/Moral%20extreme.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="227" data-original-width="222" height="227" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEijet4mNJhjW6r-Er6eHNLUwdk97AO_o0lIqJJIJ8fot_iZkt2xUt6AranwLCZd009QCkeG9S8uBMr3yhMiKpV-rZoJKvS3vgaxHAo1d3TqKkPnH1wLbe_1jsC9U3erF5mAj7BhGn130qoNTqyK3423KAE-NL0214M-mYp60lUeAKEo5Z2WNTVZ8EXoXn8A/s1600/Moral%20extreme.jpg" width="222" /></a></div><div>Kwon, M., Cunningham, J. L., & </div><div>Jachimowicz, J. M. (2023).</div><div><i>Academy of Management Journal, 66(6),</i></div><div>1625–1650.</div><div><a href="https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2020.1761">https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2020.1761</a></div><div><br /></div><div><div>Abstract</div><div><br /></div><div>Intrinsic motivation has received widespread attention as a predictor of positive work outcomes, including employees’ prosocial behavior. We offer a more nuanced view by proposing that intrinsic motivation does not uniformly increase prosocial behavior toward all others. Specifically, we argue that employees with higher intrinsic motivation are more likely to value intrinsic motivation and associate it with having higher morality (i.e., they moralize it). When employees moralize intrinsic motivation, they perceive others with higher intrinsic motivation as being more moral and thus engage in more prosocial behavior toward those others, and judge others who are less intrinsically motivated as less moral and thereby engage in less prosocial behaviors toward them. We provide empirical support for our theoretical model across a large-scale, team-level field study in a Latin American financial institution (n = 784, k = 185) and a set of three online studies, including a preregistered experiment (n = 245, 243, and 1,245), where we develop a measure of the moralization of intrinsic motivation and provide both causal and mediating evidence. This research complicates our understanding of intrinsic motivation by revealing how its moralization may at times dim the positive light of intrinsic motivation itself.</div></div><div><br /></div><div>The article is paywalled. Here are some thoughts:</div><div><br /></div><div><div>This study focuses on how intrinsically motivated employees (those who enjoy their work) might act differently towards other employees depending on their own level of intrinsic motivation. The key points are:</div><div><br /></div><div><u>Main finding:</u> Employees with high intrinsic motivation tend to associate higher morality with others who also have high intrinsic motivation. This leads them to offer more help and support to those similar colleagues, while judging and helping less to those with lower intrinsic motivation.</div><div><br /></div><div><u>Theoretical framework:</u> The concept of "moralization of intrinsic motivation" (MOIM) explains this behavior. Essentially, intrinsic motivation becomes linked to moral judgment, influencing who is seen as "good" and deserving of help.</div><div><br /></div><div>Implications:</div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>For theory: This research adds a new dimension to understanding intrinsic motivation, highlighting the potential for judgment and selective behavior.</li><li>For practice: Managers and leaders should be aware of the unintended consequences of promoting intrinsic motivation, as it might create bias and division among employees.</li><li>For employees: Those lacking intrinsic motivation might face disadvantages due to judgment from colleagues. They could try job crafting or seeking alternative support strategies.</li></ul></div><div>Overall, the study reveals a nuanced perspective on intrinsic motivation, acknowledging its positive aspects while recognizing its potential to create inequality and ethical concerns.</div></div>Ethics and Psychologyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03835409872525412234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7373755601783169713.post-90591317654425240512024-03-11T05:00:00.021-04:002024-03-11T05:00:00.129-04:00Why People Fail to Notice Horrors Around Them<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhN87m_mandBsUXDsSXj4bIZXWnHsLSSpb9cDM5FOX-8MnVLaEwt5XPUsA2LNhnLPYk2geiWscire5vRwVaWjohAtghrI9RcCCsuluTdWBa9VkXl5k4IUTpOqZ9XJI2cCtwMLMlbxViIejuMXNCufwIlCMKiG3S0u4v3JtFA3a1ptVL4pENqm0wWtPeVmKu/s306/don't%20know.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="203" data-original-width="306" height="203" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhN87m_mandBsUXDsSXj4bIZXWnHsLSSpb9cDM5FOX-8MnVLaEwt5XPUsA2LNhnLPYk2geiWscire5vRwVaWjohAtghrI9RcCCsuluTdWBa9VkXl5k4IUTpOqZ9XJI2cCtwMLMlbxViIejuMXNCufwIlCMKiG3S0u4v3JtFA3a1ptVL4pENqm0wWtPeVmKu/s1600/don't%20know.png" width="306" /></a></div><div>Tali Sharot and Cass R. Sunstein</div><div><i>The New York Times</i></div><div>Originally posted 25 Feb 24</div><div><br /></div><div><div>The miraculous history of our species is peppered with dark stories of oppression, tyranny, bloody wars, savagery, murder and genocide. When looking back, we are often baffled and ask: Why weren't the horrors halted earlier? How could people have lived with them?</div><div><br /></div><div>The full picture is immensely complicated. But a significant part of it points to the rules that govern the operations of the human brain.</div><div><br /></div><div>Extreme political movements, as well as deadly conflicts, often escalate slowly. When threats start small and increase gradually, they end up eliciting a weaker emotional reaction, less resistance and more acceptance than they would otherwise. The slow increase allows larger and larger horrors to play out in broad daylight- taken for granted, seen as ordinary.</div><div><br /></div><div>One of us is a neuroscientist; the other is a law professor. From our different fields, we have come to believe that it is not possible to understand the current period - and the shifts in what counts as normal - without appreciating why and how people do not notice so much of what we live with.</div><div><br /></div><div>The underlying reason is a pivotal biological feature of our brain: habituation, or our tendency to respond less and less to things that are constant or that change slowly. You enter a cafe filled with the smell of coffee and at first the smell is overwhelming, but no more than 20 minutes go by and you cannot smell it any longer. This is because your olfactory neurons stop firing in response to a now-familiar odor.</div><div><br /></div><div>Similarly, you stop hearing the persistent buzz of an air-conditioner because your brain filters out background noise. Your brain cares about what recently changed, not about what remained the same.</div><div>Habituation is one of our most basic biological characteristics - something that we two-legged, bigheaded creatures share with other animals on earth, including apes, elephants, dogs, birds, frogs, fish and rats. Human beings also habituate to complex social circumstances such as war, corruption, discrimination, oppression, widespread misinformation and extremism. Habituation does not only result in a reduced tendency to notice and react to grossly immoral deeds around us; it also increases the likelihood that we will engage in them ourselves.</div><div><br /></div><div><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/25/opinion/brain-habituation-horrors.html" target="_blank">The info is here.</a></div><div><br /></div><div>Here is my summary:</div><div><br /></div><div>From a psychological perspective, the failure to notice horrors around us can be attributed to cognitive biases and the human tendency to see reality in predictable yet flawed ways. This phenomenon is linked to how individuals perceive and value certain aspects of their environment. Personal values play a crucial role in shaping our perceptions and emotional responses. When there is a discrepancy between our self-perception and reality, it can lead to various troubles as our values define us and influence how we react to events. Additionally, the concept of safety needs is highlighted as a mediating factor in mental disorders induced by stressful events. The unexpected nature of events can trigger fear and anger, while the anticipation of events can induce calmness. This interplay between safety needs, emotions, and pathological conditions underscores how individuals react to perceived threats and unexpected situations, impacting their mental well-being</div><div><br /></div></div>Ethics and Psychologyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03835409872525412234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7373755601783169713.post-10004761334728293832024-03-10T05:00:00.014-04:002024-03-10T05:00:00.133-04:00MAGA’s Violent Threats Are Warping Life in America<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKjOX3HXcFF9YVX559MsRqBRjL7C-jnpdNZYp2FXkwXwCFOW6NwygUk_r5vyUv0lg2NGCT4H_uyQU2syhfAtIRBhPLYcA_LgtZzp8wIdRP4MKKEPx5QzMj8ZzBhofpK5aezK4B51z4uhu5iWHBJpO7DGLlYP6tMp35IEDuNI3AB5AzLxh9V9XVpB17sdbC/s600/democracy.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="600" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKjOX3HXcFF9YVX559MsRqBRjL7C-jnpdNZYp2FXkwXwCFOW6NwygUk_r5vyUv0lg2NGCT4H_uyQU2syhfAtIRBhPLYcA_LgtZzp8wIdRP4MKKEPx5QzMj8ZzBhofpK5aezK4B51z4uhu5iWHBJpO7DGLlYP6tMp35IEDuNI3AB5AzLxh9V9XVpB17sdbC/s320/democracy.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div>David French</div><div><i>New York Times - Opinion</i></div><div>Originally published 18 Feb 24</div><div><br /></div><div><div>Amid the constant drumbeat of sensational news stories — the scandals, the legal rulings, the wild political gambits — it’s sometimes easy to overlook the deeper trends that are shaping American life. For example, are you aware how much the constant threat of violence, principally from MAGA sources, is now warping American politics? If you wonder why so few people in red America seem to stand up directly against the MAGA movement, are you aware of the price they might pay if they did?</div><div><br /></div><div>Late last month, I listened to a fascinating NPR interview with the journalists Michael Isikoff and Daniel Klaidman regarding their new book, “Find Me the Votes,” about Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election. They report that Georgia prosecutor Fani Willis had trouble finding lawyers willing to help prosecute her case against Trump. Even a former Georgia governor turned her down, saying, “Hypothetically speaking, do you want to have a bodyguard follow you around for the rest of your life?”</div></div><div><br /></div><div>He wasn’t exaggerating. Willis received an assassination threat so specific that one evening she had to leave her office incognito while a body double wearing a bulletproof vest courageously pretended to be her and offered a target for any possible incoming fire.</div><div><br /></div><div><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/18/opinion/magas-violent-threats-are-warping-life-in-america.html" target="_blank">The opinion piece is here.</a></div><div><br /></div><div>Here is my summary of the article:</div><div><br /></div><div>David French discusses the pervasive threat of violence, particularly from MAGA sources, and its impact on American politics. The author highlights instances where individuals faced intimidation and threats for opposing the MAGA movement, such as a Georgia prosecutor receiving an assassination threat and judges being swatted. The article also mentions the significant increase in threats against members of Congress since Trump took office, with Capitol Police opening over 8,000 threat assessments in a year. The piece sheds light on the chilling effect these threats have on individuals like Mitt Romney, who spends $5,000 per day on security, and lawmakers who fear for their families' safety. The overall narrative underscores how these violent threats are shaping American life and politics</div>Ethics and Psychologyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03835409872525412234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7373755601783169713.post-47602382225622593282024-03-09T05:00:00.011-05:002024-03-09T05:00:00.337-05:00New Evidence Suggests Long COVID Could Be a Brain Injury<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJB1xVXdmzxhlCMMJsuHBJHl4GbR10NPMehDKj00-IntaqnAXGRx4lAnbgy5Lr09kz-0ERC8Ecoa6VBgpaAuXV3jiuOjwUeMLGaGxfAMsXmKtsL5CUwSIrr7XTuymTgxg_MTF1pL3nUoVsyKelaiVCjeGV2iOEkP4nqQCtWlxl9LgTsA-VEIRWWSz8pXqd/s2600/brain%20mri.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1462" data-original-width="2600" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJB1xVXdmzxhlCMMJsuHBJHl4GbR10NPMehDKj00-IntaqnAXGRx4lAnbgy5Lr09kz-0ERC8Ecoa6VBgpaAuXV3jiuOjwUeMLGaGxfAMsXmKtsL5CUwSIrr7XTuymTgxg_MTF1pL3nUoVsyKelaiVCjeGV2iOEkP4nqQCtWlxl9LgTsA-VEIRWWSz8pXqd/s320/brain%20mri.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div>Sara Novak</div><div>MedScape.com</div><div>Originally posted 8 Feb 24</div><div><br /></div><div><div>Brain fog is one of the most common, persistent complaints in patients with long COVID. It affects as many as 46% of patients who also deal with other cognitive concerns like memory loss and difficulty concentrating. </div><div><br /></div><div>Now, researchers believe they know why. A new study has found that these symptoms may be the result of a viral-borne brain injury that may cause cognitive and mental health issues that persist for years.</div><div><br /></div><div>Researchers found that 351 patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 had evidence of a long-term brain injury a year after contracting the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The findings were based on a series of cognitive tests, self-reported symptoms, brain scans, and biomarkers. </div><div><br /></div><div><b>Brain Deficits Equal to 20 Years of Brain Aging</b></div><div><br /></div><div>As part of the preprint study, participants took a cognition test with their scores age-matched to those who had not suffered a serious bout of COVID-19. Then a blood sample was taken to look for specific biomarkers, showing that elevated levels of certain biomarkers were consistent with a brain injury. Using brain scans, researchers also found that certain regions of the brain associated with attention were reduced in volume.</div></div><div><br /></div><div><div>Patients who participated in the study were "less accurate and slower" in their cognition, and suffered from at least one mental health condition, such as depression, anxiety, or posttraumatic stress disorder, according to researchers.</div><div><br /></div><div>The brain deficits found in COVID-19 patients were equivalent to 20 years of brain aging and provided proof of what doctors have feared: that this virus can damage the brain and result in ongoing mental health issues. </div></div><div><a href="https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/new-evidence-suggests-long-covid-could-be-brain-injury-2024a10002v0?form=fpf" target="_blank"><br /></a></div><div><a href="https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/new-evidence-suggests-long-covid-could-be-brain-injury-2024a10002v0?form=fpf" target="_blank">The info is here.</a></div>Ethics and Psychologyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03835409872525412234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7373755601783169713.post-39614261143825774042024-03-08T05:00:00.030-05:002024-03-08T05:00:00.142-05:00What Does Being Sober Mean Today? For Many, Not Full Abstinence<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhyCb3hd67dStN1H4ZhY03tMHb1V5PY3YKoHZlO26tSrylWKoDdREVDhFEuWxk1UEebq95mBbQgU-StSiGcbtPDb4so8UMkLS6igw7EO3yJO3MzBAx1dLfjl8_M_Yr3bnHyEBkOybpqAlc1XRUAcMoqe5pLqXQE07CoEFE0EKM0jV7KxMN4soKDwtGxv_hx/s508/pills.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="394" data-original-width="508" height="248" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhyCb3hd67dStN1H4ZhY03tMHb1V5PY3YKoHZlO26tSrylWKoDdREVDhFEuWxk1UEebq95mBbQgU-StSiGcbtPDb4so8UMkLS6igw7EO3yJO3MzBAx1dLfjl8_M_Yr3bnHyEBkOybpqAlc1XRUAcMoqe5pLqXQE07CoEFE0EKM0jV7KxMN4soKDwtGxv_hx/s320/pills.png" width="320" /></a></div><div>Ernesto Londono</div><div><i>The New York Times</i></div><div>Originally posted 4 Feb 24</div><div><br /></div><div>Here are two excerpts:</div><div><br /></div><div>Notions of what constitutes sobriety and problematic substance use have grown more flexible in recent years as younger Americans have shunned alcohol in increasing numbers while embracing cannabis and psychedelics - a phenomenon that alarms some addiction experts.</div><div><br /></div><div>Not long ago, sobriety was broadly understood to mean abstaining from all intoxicating substances, and the term was often associated with people who had overcome severe forms of addiction. These days, it is used more expansively, including by people who have quit drinking alcohol but consume what they deem moderate amounts of other substances, including marijuana and mushrooms.</div><div><br /></div><div>(cut)</div><div><br /></div><div>As some drugs come to be viewed as wellness boosters by those who use them, adherence to the full abstinence model favored by organizations like Alcoholics Anonymous is shifting. Some people call themselves "California sober," a term popularized in a 2021 song by the pop star Demi Lovato, who later disavowed the idea, saying on social media that "sober sober is the only way to be."</div><div><br /></div><div>Approaches that might have once seemed ludicrous-like treating opioid addiction with psychedelics - have gained broader enthusiasm among doctors as drug overdoses kill tens of thousands of Americans each year.</div><div><br /></div><div>"The abstinence-only model is very restrictive," said Dr. Peter Grinspoon, a primary care physician at Massachusetts General Hospital who specializes in medical cannabis and is a recovering opioid addict. "We really have to meet people where they are and have a broader recovery tent."</div><div><br /></div><div>It is impossible to know how many Americans consider themselves part of an increasingly malleable concept of sobriety, but there are indications of shifting views of acceptable substance use. Since 2000, alcohol use among younger Americans has declined significantly, according to a Gallup poll.</div><div><br /></div><div>At the same time, the use of cannabis and psychedelics has risen as state laws and attitudes grow more permissive, even as both remain illegal under federal law.</div><div><br /></div><div>A survey found that 44 percent of adults aged 19 to 30 said in 2022 that they had used cannabis in the past year, a record high. That year, 8 percent of adults in the same age range said they had used psychedelics, an increase from the 3 percent a decade earlier.</div><div><br /></div><div><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/04/us/addiction-california-sober.html" target="_blank">The info is paywalled here.</a></div>Ethics and Psychologyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03835409872525412234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7373755601783169713.post-57225788884540671042024-03-07T05:00:00.025-05:002024-03-07T05:00:00.155-05:00Canada Postpones Plan to Allow Euthanasia for Mentally Ill<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-rRqhUe6ak3aaa6hdfKjY6dOOpjYAAkjOfJmjHpEknqHKZDYXoLMkNVCdmiKSiDYkcKBfOpUYRRpqaSKIk1_WKRcaKbhovaUqACcSF4UtoVvNziWJhLG6-vmgdyUXFVnzBXXVBbk3hFSr5O7G2dCK-bVBGuEbv58K62GZDIKCKVav_jbaiR2YOTMRHZc1/s302/ethics%20signs.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="167" data-original-width="302" height="167" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-rRqhUe6ak3aaa6hdfKjY6dOOpjYAAkjOfJmjHpEknqHKZDYXoLMkNVCdmiKSiDYkcKBfOpUYRRpqaSKIk1_WKRcaKbhovaUqACcSF4UtoVvNziWJhLG6-vmgdyUXFVnzBXXVBbk3hFSr5O7G2dCK-bVBGuEbv58K62GZDIKCKVav_jbaiR2YOTMRHZc1/s1600/ethics%20signs.jpg" width="302" /></a></div><div>Craig McCulloh</div><div><i>Voice of America News</i></div><div>Originally posted 8 Feb 24</div><div><br /></div><div><div>The Canadian government is delaying access to medically assisted death for people with mental illness.</div><div><br /></div><div>Those suffering from mental illness were supposed to be able to access Medical Assistance in Dying — also known as MAID — starting March 17. The recent announcement by the government of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was the second delay after original legislation authorizing the practice passed in 2021.</div><div><br /></div><div>The delay came in response to a recommendation by a majority of the members of a committee made up of senators and members of Parliament.</div></div><div><br /></div><div><div>One of the most high-profile proponents of MAID is British Columbia-based lawyer Chris Considine. In the mid-1990s, he represented Sue Rodriguez, who was dying from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, commonly known as ALS.</div><div><br /></div><div>Their bid for approval of a medically assisted death was rejected at the time by the Supreme Court of Canada. But a law passed in 2016 legalized euthanasia for individuals with terminal conditions. From then until 2022, more than 45,000 people chose to die.</div><div><br /></div></div><div><a href="https://www.voanews.com/a/canada-postpones-plan-to-allow-euthanasia-for-mentally-ill-/7480548.html" target="_blank">The info is here.</a></div><div><br /></div><div><div>Summary:</div><div><br /></div><div>Canada originally planned to expand its Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) program to include individuals with mental illnesses in March 2024.</div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>This plan has been postponed until 2027 due to concerns about the healthcare system's readiness and potential ethical issues.</li><li>The original legislation passed in 2021, but concerns about safeguards and mental health support led to delays.</li><li>This issue is complex and ethically charged, with advocates arguing for individual autonomy and opponents raising concerns about coercion and vulnerability.</li></ul><div>I would be concerned about the following issues:</div></div></div><div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><u>Vulnerability:</u> Mental illness can impair judgement, raising concerns about informed consent and potential coercion.</li><li><u>Safeguards:</u> Concerns exist about insufficient safeguards to prevent abuse or exploitation.</li><li><u>Mental health access:</u> Limited access to adequate mental health treatment could contribute to undue pressure towards MAiD.</li><li><u>Social inequalities:</u> Concerns exist about disproportionate access to MAiD based on socioeconomic background.</li></ul></div></div>Ethics and Psychologyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03835409872525412234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7373755601783169713.post-18079271851514164722024-03-06T05:00:00.037-05:002024-03-06T05:00:00.241-05:00We're good people: Moral conviction as social identity<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOk37tJw4U7hBZyDvtewYHHvAkr8xUKRC1KhE8JoNr_dEgRbBZG3_98jZ9QbrOGSggAi6TAoAJDO-9fZMpFqp2CIg0obaPdapMS01g8R7PAFgh9QqxNaVVyxiW587jguI8HmygpTqqpSfLB7IlqqUxaskB2RDPiAR6QwlR1JaF_bs4h3jVGpr79282YsBV/s227/Moral%20extreme.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="227" data-original-width="222" height="227" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOk37tJw4U7hBZyDvtewYHHvAkr8xUKRC1KhE8JoNr_dEgRbBZG3_98jZ9QbrOGSggAi6TAoAJDO-9fZMpFqp2CIg0obaPdapMS01g8R7PAFgh9QqxNaVVyxiW587jguI8HmygpTqqpSfLB7IlqqUxaskB2RDPiAR6QwlR1JaF_bs4h3jVGpr79282YsBV/s1600/Moral%20extreme.jpg" width="222" /></a></div><div>Ekstrom, P. D. (2022, April 27).</div><div><a href="https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/dcunb">https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/dcunb</a></div><div><br /></div><div><div>Abstract</div><div><br /></div><div>Moral convictions—attitudes that people construe as matters of right and wrong—have unique effects on behavior, from activism to intolerance. Less is known, though, about the psychological underpinnings of moral convictions themselves. I propose that moral convictions are social identities. Consistent with the idea that moral convictions are identities, I find in two studies that attitude-level moral conviction predicts (1) attitudes’ self-reported identity centrality and (2) reaction time to attitude-related stimuli in a me/not me task. Consistent with the idea that moral convictions are social identities, I find evidence that participants used their moral convictions to perceive, categorize, and remember information about other individuals’ positions on political issues, and that they did so more strongly when their convictions were more identity-central. In short, the identities that participants’ moral convictions defined were also meaningful social categories, providing a basis to distinguish “us” from “them.” However, I also find that non-moral attitudes can serve as meaningful social categories. Although moral convictions were more identity-central than non-moral attitudes, moral and non-moral attitudes may both define social identities that are more or less salient in certain situations. Regardless, social identity may help explain intolerance for moral disagreement, and identity-based interventions may help reduce that intolerance.</div></div><div><br /></div><div><u>Here is my summary:</u></div><div><br /></div><div><div>Main Hypothesis:</div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Moral convictions (beliefs about right and wrong) are seen as fundamental and universally true, distinct from other attitudes.</li><li>The research proposes that they shape how people view themselves and others, acting as social identities.</li></ul></div><div>Key Points:</div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Moral convictions define group belonging: People use them to categorize themselves and others as "good" or "bad," similar to how we might use group affiliations like race or religion.</li><li>They influence our relationships: We tend to be more accepting and trusting of those who share our moral convictions.</li><li>They can lead to conflict: When morals clash, it can create animosity and division between groups with different convictions.</li></ul></div><div>Evidence:</div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>The research cites studies showing how people judge others based on their moral stances, similar to how they judge based on group membership.</li><li>It also shows how moral convictions predict behavior like activism and intolerance towards opposing views.</li></ul></div><div>Implications:</div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Understanding how moral convictions function as social identities can help explain conflict, prejudice, and social movements.</li><li>It may also offer insights into promoting understanding and cooperation between groups with differing moral beliefs.</li></ul></div><div>Overall:</div><div><br /></div><div>This research suggests that moral convictions are more than just strong opinions; they act as powerful social identities shaping how we see ourselves and interact with others. Understanding this dynamic can offer valuable insights into social behavior and potential avenues for promoting tolerance and cooperation.</div></div>Ethics and Psychologyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03835409872525412234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7373755601783169713.post-90580740926986526542024-03-05T05:00:00.021-05:002024-03-05T05:00:00.128-05:00You could lie to a health chatbot – but it might change how you perceive yourself<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_7XTKQigy4droXgDFZr4QqZCFlwGcBTU3-Nn5W0KwWdTpolVDiOhlyO8O5RhVliIaT2GM-GtLYysAVnPs_ObFlUasBf_odnbQxUn7gVop-I5tthB1MGgSY8cZzw5ME5QlFVat_1NE6tf-QyYt21r4GBD_pV9qRzobfBVi00D8UOER0gtLEvOIajK3W_Iw/s854/AI%20healthcare.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="610" data-original-width="854" height="229" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_7XTKQigy4droXgDFZr4QqZCFlwGcBTU3-Nn5W0KwWdTpolVDiOhlyO8O5RhVliIaT2GM-GtLYysAVnPs_ObFlUasBf_odnbQxUn7gVop-I5tthB1MGgSY8cZzw5ME5QlFVat_1NE6tf-QyYt21r4GBD_pV9qRzobfBVi00D8UOER0gtLEvOIajK3W_Iw/s320/AI%20healthcare.png" width="320" /></a></div><div>Dominic Wilkinson</div><div><i>The Conversation</i></div><div>Originally posted 8 FEB 24</div><div><br /></div><div>Here is an excerpt:</div><div><br /></div><div><div><b>The ethics of lying</b></div><div><br /></div><div>There are different ways that we can think about the ethics of lying.</div><div><br /></div><div>Lying can be bad because it causes harm to other people. Lies can be deeply hurtful to another person. They can cause someone to act on false information, or to be falsely reassured.</div><div><br /></div><div>Sometimes, lies can harm because they undermine someone else’s trust in people more generally. But those reasons will often not apply to the chatbot.</div><div><br /></div><div>Lies can wrong another person, even if they do not cause harm. If we willingly deceive another person, we potentially fail to respect their rational agency, or use them as a means to an end. But it is not clear that we can deceive or wrong a chatbot, since they don’t have a mind or ability to reason.</div><div><br /></div><div>Lying can be bad for us because it undermines our credibility. Communication with other people is important. But when we knowingly make false utterances, we diminish the value, in other people’s eyes, of our testimony.</div><div><br /></div><div>For the person who repeatedly expresses falsehoods, everything that they say then falls into question. This is part of the reason we care about lying and our social image. But unless our interactions with the chatbot are recorded and communicated (for example, to humans), our chatbot lies aren’t going to have that effect.</div><div><br /></div><div>Lying is also bad for us because it can lead to others being untruthful to us in turn. (Why should people be honest with us if we won’t be honest with them?)</div><div><br /></div><div>But again, that is unlikely to be a consequence of lying to a chatbot. On the contrary, this type of effect could be partly an incentive to lie to a chatbot, since people may be conscious of the reported tendency of ChatGPT and similar agents to confabulate.</div></div><div><br /></div><div><a href="https://theconversation.com/you-could-lie-to-a-health-chatbot-but-it-might-change-how-you-perceive-yourself-222930" target="_blank">The info is here.</a></div><div><br /></div><div>Here is my summary:</div><div><br /></div><div><div>The article discusses the potential consequences of lying to a health chatbot, even though it might seem tempting. It highlights a situation where someone frustrated with a wait for surgery considers exaggerating their symptoms to a chatbot screening them.</div><div><br /></div><div>While lying might offer short-term benefits like quicker attention, the author argues it could have unintended consequences:</div><div><br /></div><div>Impact on healthcare:</div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Inaccurate information can hinder proper diagnosis and treatment.</li><li>It contributes to an already strained healthcare system.</li></ul></div><div>Self-perception:</div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Repeatedly lying, even to a machine, can erode honesty and integrity.</li><li>It reinforces unhealthy avoidance of seeking professional help.</li></ul></div><div>The article encourages readers to be truthful with chatbots for better healthcare outcomes and self-awareness. It acknowledges the frustration with healthcare systems but emphasizes the importance of transparency for both individual and collective well-being.</div></div>Ethics and Psychologyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03835409872525412234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7373755601783169713.post-60621529819779725952024-03-04T05:00:00.001-05:002024-03-04T05:00:00.142-05:00How to Deal with Counter-Examples to Common Morality Theory: A Surprising Result<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi26st6qIVMVnZFxS4Dd-4JQPt20QtiX6PEnvgxJt7FnnkvGXMTblV5_Pvt8u80Gry8a-JaGya1ZDz8byPi93hLmptPBFmeZk4JEA9NgPTW47slykKHsJ7uMwbkM_I0Pf24nplChXrBsgl4wkj0Zorz_MDp70e8wsWphS3Bi6znqr63Yjm1neMqpQCFAGhg/s302/ethics%20signs.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="167" data-original-width="302" height="167" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi26st6qIVMVnZFxS4Dd-4JQPt20QtiX6PEnvgxJt7FnnkvGXMTblV5_Pvt8u80Gry8a-JaGya1ZDz8byPi93hLmptPBFmeZk4JEA9NgPTW47slykKHsJ7uMwbkM_I0Pf24nplChXrBsgl4wkj0Zorz_MDp70e8wsWphS3Bi6znqr63Yjm1neMqpQCFAGhg/s1600/ethics%20signs.jpg" width="302" /></a></div><div>Herissone-Kelly P.</div><div><i>Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics.</i></div><div>2022;31(2):185-191.</div><div>doi:10.1017/S096318012100058X</div><div><br /></div><div><div>Abstract</div><div><br /></div><div>Tom Beauchamp and James Childress are confident that their four principles—respect for autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice—are globally applicable to the sorts of issues that arise in biomedical ethics, in part because those principles form part of the common morality (a set of general norms to which all morally committed persons subscribe). Inevitably, however, the question arises of how the principlist ought to respond when presented with apparent counter-examples to this thesis. I examine a number of strategies the principlist might adopt in order to retain common morality theory in the face of supposed counter-examples. I conclude that only a strategy that takes a non-realist view of the common morality’s principles is viable. Unfortunately, such a view is likely not to appeal to the principlist.</div></div><div><br /></div><div><a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/cambridge-quarterly-of-healthcare-ethics/article/how-to-deal-with-counterexamples-to-common-morality-theory-a-surprising-result/541776D131CBD95DCD5F8F79AEAC3EA7" target="_blank">The info is here.</a></div><div><br /></div><div><div>Herissone-Kelly examines various strategies principlism could employ to address counter-examples:</div><div><br /></div><div>Refine the principles: This involves clarifying or reinterpreting the principles to better handle specific cases.</div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><u>Prioritize principles:</u> Establish a hierarchy among the principles to resolve conflicts.</li><li><u>Supplement the principles:</u> Introduce additional considerations or context-specific factors.</li><li><u>Limit the scope:</u> Acknowledge that the principles may not apply universally to all cultures or situations.</li></ul>Herissone-Kelly argues that none of these strategies are fully satisfactory. Refining or prioritizing principles risks distorting their original meaning or introducing arbitrariness. Supplementing them can lead to an unwieldy and complex framework. Limiting their scope undermines the theory's claim to universality.</div><div><br /></div><div>He concludes that the most viable approach is to adopt a non-realist view of the common morality's principles. This means understanding them not as objective moral facts but as flexible tools for ethical reflection and deliberation, open to interpretation and adaptation in different contexts. While this may seem to weaken the theory's authority, Herissone-Kelly argues that it allows for a more nuanced and practical application of ethical principles in a diverse world.</div></div>Ethics and Psychologyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03835409872525412234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7373755601783169713.post-67580525713710114552024-03-03T05:00:00.006-05:002024-03-03T05:00:00.142-05:00Is Dan Ariely Telling the Truth?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiIAGLfyd50c6vwTzl7Vaxkcq_F6k0xicILbXzxUwSMnwAbAtapn8LkV0KOaPfH5fw4_ECNL1Dz0rxBHSxT1RTFTKvDN-P673IO6dbL5wNvyY-XWFVAvoUE2keb1VElKwtkQUTc2AS-VnLiUqxRpi5Hz9hI40MsTmOVrEHVhxKjdSkQV1PdCtxEmwa-S8Mf/s264/ethics%20multi%201.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="191" data-original-width="264" height="191" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiIAGLfyd50c6vwTzl7Vaxkcq_F6k0xicILbXzxUwSMnwAbAtapn8LkV0KOaPfH5fw4_ECNL1Dz0rxBHSxT1RTFTKvDN-P673IO6dbL5wNvyY-XWFVAvoUE2keb1VElKwtkQUTc2AS-VnLiUqxRpi5Hz9hI40MsTmOVrEHVhxKjdSkQV1PdCtxEmwa-S8Mf/s1600/ethics%20multi%201.jpg" width="264" /></a></div>Tom Bartlett<div><i>The Chronicle of Higher Ed</i></div><div>Originally posted 18 Feb 24</div><div><br /></div><div>Here is an excerpt:</div><div><br /></div><div>In August 2021, the blog Data Colada published a post titled “Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Field Experiment About Dishonesty.” Data Colada is run by three researchers — Uri Simonsohn, Leif Nelson, and Joe Simmons — and it serves as a freelance watchdog for the field of behavioral science, which has historically done a poor job of policing itself. The influential field experiment in question was described in a 2012 paper, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, by Ariely and four co-authors. In the study, customers of an insurance company were asked to report how many miles they had driven over a period of time, an answer that might affect their premiums. One set of customers signed an honesty pledge at the top of the form, and another signed at the bottom. The study found that those who signed at the top reported higher mileage totals, suggesting that they were more honest. The authors wrote that a “simple change of the signature location could lead to significant improvements in compliance.” The study was classic Ariely: a slight tweak to a system that yields real-world results.</div><div><br /></div><div><div>But did it actually work? In 2020, an attempted replication of the effect found that it did not. In fact, multiple attempts to replicate the 2012 finding all failed (though Ariely points to evidence in a recent, unpublished paper, on which he is a co-author, indicating that the effect might be real). The authors of the attempted replication posted the original data from the 2012 study, which was then scrutinized by a group of anonymous researchers who found that the data, or some of it anyway, had clearly been faked. They passed the data along to the Data Colada team. There were multiple red flags. For instance, the number of miles customers said they’d driven was unrealistically uniform. About the same number of people drove 40,000 miles as drove 500 miles. No actual sampling would look like that — but randomly generated data would. Two different fonts were used in the file, apparently because whoever fudged the numbers wasn’t being careful.</div><div><br /></div><div>In short, there is no doubt that the data were faked. The only question is, who did it?</div></div><div><br /></div><div><a href="https://www.chronicle.com/article/is-dan-ariely-telling-the-truth" target="_blank">The article is here.</a></div><div><br /></div><div><div>This article discusses an investigation into the research conduct of Dr. Dan Ariely, a well-known behavioral economist at Duke University. The investigation, prompted by concerns about potential data fabrication, concluded that while no evidence of fabricated data was found, Ariely did commit research misconduct by failing to adequately vet findings and maintain proper records.</div><div><br /></div><div>The article highlights several specific issues identified by the investigation, including inconsistencies in data and a lack of supporting documentation for key findings. It also mentions that Ariely made inaccurate statements about his personal history, such as misrepresenting his age at the time of a childhood accident.</div><div><br /></div><div>While Ariely maintains that he did not intentionally fabricate data and attributes the errors to negligence and a lack of awareness, the investigation's findings have damaged his reputation and raised questions about the integrity of his research. The article concludes by leaving the reader to ponder whether Ariely's transgressions can be forgiven or if they represent a deeper pattern of dishonesty.</div><div><br /></div><div>It's important to note that the article presents one perspective on a complex issue and doesn't offer definitive answers. Further research and analysis are necessary to form a complete understanding of the situation.</div></div>Ethics and Psychologyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03835409872525412234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7373755601783169713.post-65499782097049626392024-03-02T05:00:00.012-05:002024-03-02T05:00:00.246-05:00Unraveling the Mindset of Victimhood<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYR_hJOnuCKw83Rq7OsKrHC7B1JC0nyd3hsVyBaSKm_yoBqhS-7WkD2cWUVUEBSO4yJODumbqT2ppiU2sHlvw3roA3e3gec_hRbsq5ffnXFTttL-bcZ0qOgAJ3h0FkOIeubyPI0AcXDJ3fSWpAZXK9TwcmdwI8gqQKWZdmYaPZu8_sv591OaaH_FCxBfnl/s225/download-2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="225" data-original-width="224" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYR_hJOnuCKw83Rq7OsKrHC7B1JC0nyd3hsVyBaSKm_yoBqhS-7WkD2cWUVUEBSO4yJODumbqT2ppiU2sHlvw3roA3e3gec_hRbsq5ffnXFTttL-bcZ0qOgAJ3h0FkOIeubyPI0AcXDJ3fSWpAZXK9TwcmdwI8gqQKWZdmYaPZu8_sv591OaaH_FCxBfnl/s1600/download-2.jpg" width="224" /></a></div><div>Scott Barry Kaufman</div><div><i>Scientific American</i></div><div>Originally posted 29 June 2020</div><div><br /></div><div>Here is an excerpt:</div><div><br /></div><div><i>Constantly seeking recognition of one’s victimhood. </i>Those who score high on this dimension have a perpetual need to have their suffering acknowledged. In general, this is a normal psychological response to trauma. Experiencing trauma tends to “shatter our assumptions” about the world as a just and moral place. Recognition of one’s victimhood is a normal response to trauma and can help reestablish a person’s confidence in their perception of the world as a fair and just place to live.</div><div><br /></div><div><div>Also, it is normal for victims to want the perpetrators to take responsibility for their wrongdoing and to express feelings of guilt. Studies conducted on testimonies of patients and therapists have found that validation of the trauma is important for therapeutic recovery from trauma and victimization (see here and here).</div><div><br /></div><div><i>A sense of moral elitism. </i>Those who score high on this dimension perceive themselves as having an immaculate morality and view everyone else as being immoral. Moral elitism can be used to control others by accusing others of being immoral, unfair or selfish, while seeing oneself as supremely moral and ethical.</div><div><br /></div><div>Moral elitism often develops as a defense mechanism against deeply painful emotions and as a way to maintain a positive self-image. As a result, those under distress tend to deny their own aggressiveness and destructive impulses and project them onto others. The “other” is perceived as threatening whereas the self is perceived as persecuted, vulnerable and morally superior.</div></div><div><br /></div><div><a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/unraveling-the-mindset-of-victimhood/" target="_blank">The info is here.</a></div><div><br /></div><div>Here is a summary:</div><div><br /></div><div><div>Kaufman explores the concept of "interpersonal victimhood," a tendency to view oneself as the repeated target of unfair treatment by others. He identifies several key characteristics of this mindset, including:</div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><u>Belief in inherent unfairness:</u> The conviction that the world is fundamentally unjust and that one is disproportionately likely to experience harm.</li><li><u>Moral self-righteousness:</u> The perception of oneself as more ethical and deserving of good treatment compared to others.</li><li><u>Rumination on past injustices:</u> Dwelling on and replaying negative experiences, often with feelings of anger and resentment.</li><li><u>Difficulty taking responsibility:</u> Attributing negative outcomes to external factors rather than acknowledging one's own role.</li></ul></div><div>Kaufman argues that while acknowledging genuine injustices is important, clinging to a victimhood identity can be detrimental. It can hinder personal growth, strain relationships, and fuel negativity. He emphasizes the importance of developing a more balanced perspective, acknowledging both external challenges and personal agency. The article offers strategies for fostering resilience</div></div>Ethics and Psychologyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03835409872525412234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7373755601783169713.post-9174777130533691582024-03-01T05:00:00.028-05:002024-03-01T05:00:00.135-05:00AI needs the constraints of the human brain<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh4JD3eYogI-iXg55ebIaO4H_WnUOD0JvLcP0-VMTdAzoV3Ri3OBm5g5kev6W1K3On7HMQZX7CBx2xxSGfg-2CCCIik0WazvVdj8A1zgip7Z8S4oA8pvVKsTxQ3UagxbOg3CnLkm0CA8eyrj_bGgi1aOuzyBJEt390abfr85d6knsZ-HlU8Xos1qiTF5BiB/s1600/evolu%202.webp" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1008" data-original-width="1600" height="202" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh4JD3eYogI-iXg55ebIaO4H_WnUOD0JvLcP0-VMTdAzoV3Ri3OBm5g5kev6W1K3On7HMQZX7CBx2xxSGfg-2CCCIik0WazvVdj8A1zgip7Z8S4oA8pvVKsTxQ3UagxbOg3CnLkm0CA8eyrj_bGgi1aOuzyBJEt390abfr85d6knsZ-HlU8Xos1qiTF5BiB/s320/evolu%202.webp" width="320" /></a></div><div>Danyal Akarca</div><div>iai.tv</div><div>Originally posted 30 Jan 24</div><div><br /></div><div>Here is an excerpt:</div><div><br /></div><div><div>So, evolution shapes systems that are capable of solving competing problems that are both internal (e.g., how to expend energy) and external (e.g., how to act to survive), but in a way that can be highly efficient, in many cases elegant, and often surprising. But how does this evolutionary story of biological intelligence contrast with the current paradigm of AI?</div><div><br /></div><div>In some ways, quite directly. Since the 50s, neural networks were developed as models that were inspired directly from neurons in the brain and the strength of their connections, in addition to many successful architectures of the past being directly motivated by neuroscience experimentation and theory. Yet, AI research in the modern era has occurred with a significant absence of thought of intelligent systems in nature and their guiding principles. Why is this? There are many reasons. But one is that the exponential growth of computing capabilities, enabled by increases of transistors on integrated circuits (observed since the 1950s, known as Moore’s Law), has permitted AI researchers to leverage significant improvements in performance without necessarily requiring extraordinarily elegant solutions. This is not to say that modern AI algorithms are not widely impressive – they are. It is just that the majority of the heavy lifting has come from advances in computing power rather than their engineered design. Consequently, there has been relatively little recent need or interest from AI experts to look to the brain for inspiration.</div></div><div><br /></div><div>But the tide is turning. From a hardware perspective, Moore’s law will not continue ad infinitum (at 7 nanometers, transistor channel lengths are now nearing fundamental limits of atomic spacing). We will therefore not be able to leverage ever improving performance delivered by increasingly compact microprocessors. It is likely therefore that we will require entirely new computing paradigms, some of which may be inspired by the types of computations we observe in the brain (the most notable being neuromorphic computing). From a software and AI perspective, it is becoming increasingly clear that – in part due to the reliance on increases to computational power – the AI research field will need to refresh its conceptions as to what makes systems intelligent at all. For example, this will require much more sophisticated benchmarks of what it means to perform at human or super-human performance. In sum, the field will need to form a much richer view of the possible space of intelligent systems, and how artificial models can occupy different places in that space.</div><div><br /></div><div><a href="https://iai.tv/articles/ai-needs-the-constraints-of-the-human-brain-auid-2728" target="_blank">The info is here.</a></div><div><br /></div><div><div>Key Points:</div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><u>Evolutionary pressures:</u> Efficient, resource-saving brains are advantageous for survival, leading to optimized solutions for learning, memory, and decision-making.</li><li><u>AI's reliance on brute force:</u> Modern AI often achieves performance through raw computing power, neglecting principles like energy efficiency.</li><li><u>Shifting AI paradigm:</u> Moore's Law's end and limitations in conventional AI call for exploration of new paradigms, potentially inspired by the brain.</li><li><u>Neurobiology's potential:</u> Brain principles like network structure, local learning, and energy trade-offs can inform AI design for efficiency and novel functionality.</li><li><u>Embodied AI with constraints:</u> Recent research incorporates space and communication limitations into AI models, leading to features resembling real brains and potentially more efficient information processing.</li></ul></div></div>Ethics and Psychologyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03835409872525412234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7373755601783169713.post-36764277498653672052024-02-29T05:00:00.028-05:002024-02-29T05:00:00.139-05:00Empathy Trends in American Youth Between 1979 and 2018: An Update<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh42omAKs1z5nqUnHP1AsPyuHcprVs5sY0hGT4Xf0QzfJvkNXZ1ruExlMyO8s5WQDIoyr57EBWDMcXxdZtd9SqiFxCrbbhGFriQB5ZhOgORLuroPqcOdaw70PPaQyi0Z6JvCGPsW53RRQWtSxbKCkypXWMjbTDzJEqJ5pSgqogIgY_O6Pf8Be8Hac_xETQW/s306/empathy%201.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="165" data-original-width="306" height="165" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh42omAKs1z5nqUnHP1AsPyuHcprVs5sY0hGT4Xf0QzfJvkNXZ1ruExlMyO8s5WQDIoyr57EBWDMcXxdZtd9SqiFxCrbbhGFriQB5ZhOgORLuroPqcOdaw70PPaQyi0Z6JvCGPsW53RRQWtSxbKCkypXWMjbTDzJEqJ5pSgqogIgY_O6Pf8Be8Hac_xETQW/s1600/empathy%201.jpg" width="306" /></a></div><div>Konrath, S., et al. (2023).</div><div><i>Social Psychological and Personality Science, </i>0(0).</div><div><a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506231218360">https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506231218360</a></div><div><br /></div><div><div>Abstract</div><div><br /></div><div>Previous research has found declining dispositional empathy among American youth from 1979 to 2009. We update these trends until 2018, using three datasets. Study 1 presents a cross-temporal meta-analysis of undergraduates’ empathy (Interpersonal Reactivity Index), finding significant cubic trends over time: perspective taking (PT) and empathic concern (EC) both increased since 2009. Study 2 conceptually replicated these findings using nationally representative datasets, also showing increasing PT (Study 2a: American Freshman Survey) and EC (Study 2b: Monitoring the Future Survey) since 2009. We include economic, interpersonal, and worldview covariates to test for potential explanations, finding evidence that empathy trends may be related to recent changes in interpersonal dynamics.</div></div><div><br /></div><div><a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/19485506231218360?journalCode=sppa" target="_blank">The article is paywalled here.</a></div><div><br /></div><div>Summary:</div><div><br /></div><div><div><b>Shifting trend: </b>Contrary to earlier studies, researchers found that empathy among college students has increased since 2009 in two key dimensions: perspective taking (understanding another's viewpoint) and empathic concern (sharing another's feelings).</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Data sources:</b> The study used three datasets: a meta-analysis of college students' self-reported empathy, a nationally representative survey of freshmen (American Freshman Survey), and another national survey of high school students (Monitoring the Future Survey).</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Possible explanations:</b> The reasons for the shift are explored, with potential factors including changes in interpersonal dynamics, increased exposure to diverse perspectives through technology, and growing involvement in social movements emphasizing empathy and social justice.</div><div><br /></div><div>Overall, the research suggests that the story of empathy in American youth may be more nuanced than previously thought. While earlier studies documented a decline, recent data points towards a possible reversal. Understanding the factors influencing empathy trends is crucial for fostering a more compassionate and connected society.</div><div><br /></div><div>The study highlights the importance of using multiple data sources and different measurement methods to gain a comprehensive understanding of complex social phenomena. Further research is needed to confirm the trend and explore its causes in more detail.</div></div><div><br /></div>Ethics and Psychologyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03835409872525412234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7373755601783169713.post-86649227491152739792024-02-28T05:00:00.000-05:002024-02-28T05:00:00.138-05:00Scientists are on the verge of a male birth-control pill. Will men take it?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXOAAp6ZS7UraDom6qvGaZfa4UgFO68Lnu6HGykNycVo_HbbNeWp-_20JQLX3jNOQ92q0oSu4Xv_LUl8hQNjZaF6Vxel4K676i3qJUmHgV_8Bloh2kOpQDzxHSxljr6sgWX_FwEU4yW4wx90Y1fSsGEH1AKpQOujVwH13PHmzCCVhZOJeRUZ2px8VVyp6m/s916/Decision%201.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="611" data-original-width="916" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXOAAp6ZS7UraDom6qvGaZfa4UgFO68Lnu6HGykNycVo_HbbNeWp-_20JQLX3jNOQ92q0oSu4Xv_LUl8hQNjZaF6Vxel4K676i3qJUmHgV_8Bloh2kOpQDzxHSxljr6sgWX_FwEU4yW4wx90Y1fSsGEH1AKpQOujVwH13PHmzCCVhZOJeRUZ2px8VVyp6m/s320/Decision%201.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div>Jill Filipovic</div><div><i>The Guardian</i></div><div>Originally posted 18 Dec 23</div><div><br /></div><div>Here is an excerpt:</div><div><br /></div><div>The overwhelming share of responsibility for preventing pregnancy has always fallen on women. Throughout human history, women have gone to great lengths to prevent pregnancies they didn’t want, and end those they couldn’t prevent. Safe and reliable contraceptive methods are, in the context of how long women have sought to interrupt conception, still incredibly new. Measured by the lifespan of anyone reading this article, though, they are well established, and have for many decades been a normal part of life for millions of women around the world.</div><div><div><br /></div><div>To some degree, and if only for obvious biological reasons, it makes sense that pregnancy prevention has historically fallen on women. But it also, as they say, takes two to tango – and only one of the partners has been doing all the work. Luckily, things are changing: thanks to generations of women who have gained unprecedented freedoms and planned their families using highly effective contraception methods, and thanks to men who have shifted their own gender expectations and become more involved partners and fathers, women and men have moved closer to equality than ever.</div><div><br /></div><div>Among politically progressive couples especially, it’s now standard to expect that a male partner will do his fair share of the household management and childrearing (whether he actually does is a separate question, but the expectation is there). What men generally cannot do, though, is carry pregnancies and birth babies.</div></div><div><br /></div><div><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/dec/18/male-birth-control-will-men-take-it" target="_blank">The info is here.</a></div><div><br /></div><div>Here are some themes worthy of discussion:</div><div><br /></div><div><div><b>Shifting responsibility: </b>The potential availability of a reliable male contraceptive marks a significant departure from the historical norm where the burden of pregnancy prevention was primarily borne by women. This shift raises thought-provoking questions that delve into various aspects of societal dynamics.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Gender equality:</b> A crucial consideration is whether men will willingly share responsibility for contraception on an equal footing, or whether societal norms will continue to exert pressure on women to take the lead in this regard.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Reproductive autonomy:</b> The advent of accessible male contraception prompts contemplation on whether it will empower women to exert greater control over their reproductive choices, shaping the landscape of family planning.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Informed consent:</b> An important facet of this shift involves how men will be informed about potential side effects and risks associated with the male contraceptive, particularly in comparison to existing female contraceptives.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Accessibility and equity: </b>Concerns emerge regarding equitable access to the male contraceptive, particularly for marginalized communities. Questions arise about whether affordable and culturally appropriate access will be universally available, regardless of socioeconomic status or geographic location.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Coercion:</b> There is a potential concern that the availability of a male contraceptive might be exploited to coerce women into sexual activity without their full and informed consent.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Psychological and social impact:</b> The introduction of a male contraceptive brings with it potential psychological and social consequences that may not be immediately apparent.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Changes in sexual behavior:</b> The availability of a male contraceptive may influence sexual practices and attitudes towards sex, prompting a reevaluation of societal norms.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Impact on relationships:</b> The shift in responsibility for contraception could potentially cause tension or conflict in existing relationships as couples navigate the evolving dynamics.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Masculinity and stigma:</b> The use of a male contraceptive may challenge traditional notions of masculinity, possibly leading to social stigma that individuals using the contraceptive may face.</div></div>Ethics and Psychologyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03835409872525412234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7373755601783169713.post-12575197051279199972024-02-27T05:00:00.020-05:002024-02-27T05:00:00.136-05:00Robot, let us pray! Can and should robots have religious functions? An ethical exploration of religious robots<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicAfTa00kVge_pbH6iJGeslIDg6-TaG7FeZUkRhJveGrJ9gW9qWDcpVO1XkqokQuOsDx8m3S-noGq4fW08FSC9RHXh1sVkCDt-gQdGCznaXPsZCWAbMBF0H5dRzJClFiBaoMfch5TDiM0IpC25m6PgQfLI5I_GTFSKUioK7DgFsLLNq28QHiA63Je6Tr9T/s275/download-1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="183" data-original-width="275" height="183" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicAfTa00kVge_pbH6iJGeslIDg6-TaG7FeZUkRhJveGrJ9gW9qWDcpVO1XkqokQuOsDx8m3S-noGq4fW08FSC9RHXh1sVkCDt-gQdGCznaXPsZCWAbMBF0H5dRzJClFiBaoMfch5TDiM0IpC25m6PgQfLI5I_GTFSKUioK7DgFsLLNq28QHiA63Je6Tr9T/s1600/download-1.jpg" width="275" /></a></div><div>Puzio, A.</div><div>AI & Soc (2023).</div><div>https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-023-01812-z</div><div><br /></div><div><div>Abstract</div><div><br /></div><div>Considerable progress is being made in robotics, with robots being developed for many different areas of life: there are service robots, industrial robots, transport robots, medical robots, household robots, sex robots, exploration robots, military robots, and many more. As robot development advances, an intriguing question arises: should robots also encompass religious functions? Religious robots could be used in religious practices, education, discussions, and ceremonies within religious buildings. This article delves into two pivotal questions, combining perspectives from philosophy and religious studies: can and should robots have religious functions? Section 2 initiates the discourse by introducing and discussing the relationship between robots and religion. The core of the article (developed in Sects. 3 and 4) scrutinizes the fundamental questions: can robots possess religious functions, and should they? After an exhaustive discussion of the arguments, benefits, and potential objections regarding religious robots, Sect. 5 addresses the lingering ethical challenges that demand attention. Section 6 presents a discussion of the findings, outlines the limitations of this study, and ultimately responds to the dual research question. Based on the study’s results, brief criteria for the development and deployment of religious robots are proposed, serving as guidelines for future research. Section 7 concludes by offering insights into the future development of religious robots and potential avenues for further research.</div></div><div><br /></div><div><a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00146-023-01812-z" target="_blank">The article is here.</a></div><div><br /></div><div>Summary</div><div><br /></div><div><div>Can robots fulfill religious functions? The article explores the technical feasibility of designing robots that could engage in religious practices, education, and ceremonies. It acknowledges the current limitations of robots, particularly their lack of sentience and spiritual experience. However, it also suggests potential avenues for development, such as robots equipped with advanced emotional intelligence and the ability to learn and interpret religious texts.</div><div><br /></div><div>Should robots fulfill religious functions? This is where the ethical debate unfolds. The article presents arguments both for and against. On the one hand, robots could potentially offer various benefits, such as increasing accessibility to religious practices, providing companionship and spiritual guidance, and even facilitating interfaith dialogue. On the other hand, concerns include the potential for robotization of faith, the blurring of lines between human and machine in the context of religious experience, and the risk of reinforcing existing biases or creating new ones.</div><div><br /></div><div>Ultimately, the article concludes that there is no easy answer to the question of whether robots should have religious functions. It emphasizes the need for careful consideration of the ethical implications and ongoing dialogue between religious communities, technologists, and ethicists. This ethical exploration paves the way for further research and discussion as robots continue to evolve and their potential roles in society expand.</div></div>Ethics and Psychologyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03835409872525412234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7373755601783169713.post-3659573094506863112024-02-26T05:00:00.025-05:002024-02-26T05:00:00.154-05:00Hope for Suicide Prevention<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwvGWGu9voFGJz8rG-39eawgPWutRQHk9a-Z1DbUBYVqeU-wsBpOb3hz7oHXw9g8U_wSBTxL5DMoYhEZ8m6meJdD4rcMwY48H-KootVkHGLdSdH29r1gAnhoM9clR84ObOTBop2rGFPQSyD59CAqZNlp5DxlDe1n8lIymMAU0U1BP7nW9jhy6G5hRE6dOd/s247/download-3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="204" data-original-width="247" height="204" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwvGWGu9voFGJz8rG-39eawgPWutRQHk9a-Z1DbUBYVqeU-wsBpOb3hz7oHXw9g8U_wSBTxL5DMoYhEZ8m6meJdD4rcMwY48H-KootVkHGLdSdH29r1gAnhoM9clR84ObOTBop2rGFPQSyD59CAqZNlp5DxlDe1n8lIymMAU0U1BP7nW9jhy6G5hRE6dOd/s1600/download-3.jpg" width="247" /></a></div><div>Ellen Barry</div><div><i>The New York Times</i></div><div>Originally published 21 Feb 24</div><div><br /></div><div>Here is an excerpt:</div><div><br /></div><div><div>Research has demonstrated that suicide is most often an impulsive act, with a period of acute risk that passes in hours, or even minutes. Contrary to what many assume, people who survive suicide attempts often go on to do well: Nine out of 10 of them do not die by suicide.</div><div><br /></div><div>Policymakers, it seems, are paying attention. I have been reporting on mental health for The New York Times for two years, and in today’s newsletter I will look at promising, evidence-based efforts to prevent suicide.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>A single element</b></div><div><br /></div><div>For generations, psychiatrists believed that, in the words of the British researcher Norman Kreitman, “anyone bent on self-destruction must eventually succeed.”</div><div><br /></div><div>Then something strange and wonderful happened: Midway through the 1960s, the annual number of suicides in Britain began dropping — by 35 percent in the following years — even as tolls crept up in other parts of Europe.</div></div><div><br /></div><div><div>No one could say why. Had medicine improved, so that more people survived poisoning? Were antidepressant medications bringing down levels of despair? Had life in Britain just gotten better?</div><div><br /></div><div>The real explanation, Kreitman discovered, was none of these. The drop in suicides had come about almost by accident: As the United Kingdom phased out coal gas from its supply to household stoves, levels of carbon monoxide decreased. Suicide by gas accounted for almost half of the suicides in 1960.</div><div><br /></div><div>It turns out that blocking access to a single lethal means — if it is the right one — can make a huge difference.</div><div><br /></div><div>The strategy that arose from this realization is known as “means restriction” or “means safety,” and vast natural experiments have borne it out. When Sri Lanka restricted the import of toxic pesticides, which people had ingested in moments of crisis, its suicide rate dropped by half over the next decade.</div></div><div><br /></div><div><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/21/briefing/suicide-prevention-research.html" target="_blank">The info is here.</a></div><div><br /></div><div>Here is my summary</div><div><br /></div><div><div>The article discusses new suicide prevention measures in the U.S., where suicide rates have risen 35% in recent decades. This contrasts with global trends of declining suicide rates.</div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>It highlights how installing barriers on bridges, buildings, and other high structures can deter impulsive suicide attempts. Many communities are now considering such barriers.</li><li>Research shows most who survive a suicide attempt go on to live their lives and not die by suicide later. This suggests preventing access to lethal means in moments of crisis can save lives.</li><li>Restricting access to highly lethal means like guns and toxic pesticides has significantly reduced suicide rates when implemented in other countries.</li><li>In the U.S., red flag laws that temporarily remove guns from high-risk individuals have been associated with drops in firearm suicides.</li><li>Educating gun owners on safe storage habits is another promising approach, as is providing incentives for measures like locking devices or gun safes.</li><li>Even brief counseling for gun owners has proven effective in getting people to voluntarily store guns securely and prevent access during periods of risk.</li></ul></div><div>In summary, the text highlights several evidence-based strategies for reducing access to lethal means during periods of acute suicide risk, thereby giving people a chance to recover and survive their suicidal crises.</div></div>Ethics and Psychologyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03835409872525412234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7373755601783169713.post-23623680459925982752024-02-25T05:00:00.029-05:002024-02-25T05:00:00.133-05:00Characteristics of Mental Health Specialists Who Shifted Their Practice Entirely to Telemedicine<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjyNTJLMMPMHuFIvx96vOPHLvtEkV1YHAYgEs78T1daenjkBUs1nGOym4lN6SvRqFn1bxio3_J2A2zPzYjnbx6OPFNaFzDmf_G-ztvuHB_3CWRkPZg-Bv4YwxC1tkfUXwiMsWpmRvRHyM46taSh2T6vyxVmQVmM1iQZ4cY5W_ShsGD7Y42caWrptlizMjRF/s474/telehealth.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="265" data-original-width="474" height="179" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjyNTJLMMPMHuFIvx96vOPHLvtEkV1YHAYgEs78T1daenjkBUs1nGOym4lN6SvRqFn1bxio3_J2A2zPzYjnbx6OPFNaFzDmf_G-ztvuHB_3CWRkPZg-Bv4YwxC1tkfUXwiMsWpmRvRHyM46taSh2T6vyxVmQVmM1iQZ4cY5W_ShsGD7Y42caWrptlizMjRF/s320/telehealth.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div>Hailu, R., Huskamp, H. A., et al. (2024).</div><div><i>JAMA, 5(1), e234982. </i></div><div><a href="https://doi.org/10.1001/jamahealthforum.2023.4982">https://doi.org/10.1001/jamahealthforum.2023.4982</a></div><div><br /></div><div><div>Introduction</div><div><br /></div><div>The COVID-19 pandemic–related shift to telemedicine has been particularly prominent and sustained in mental health care. In 2021, more than one-third of mental health visits were conducted via telemedicine. While most mental health specialists have in-person and telemedicine visits, some have transitioned to fully virtual practice, perhaps for greater work-life flexibility (including avoiding commuting) and eliminating expenses of maintaining a physical clinic. The decision by some clinicians to practice only via telemedicine has gained importance due to Medicare’s upcoming requirement, effective in 2025, that patients have an annual in-person visit to receive telemedicine visits for mental illness and new requirements from some state Medicaid programs that clinicians offer in-person visits. We assessed the number and characteristics of mental health specialists who have shifted fully to telemedicine.</div></div><div><br /></div><div><div>Discussion</div><div><br /></div><div>In 2022, 13.0% of mental health specialists serving commercially insured or Medicare Advantage</div><div>enrollees had shifted to telemedicine only. Rates were higher among female clinicians and those</div><div>working in densely populated counties with higher real estate prices. A virtual-only practice allowing</div><div>clinicians to work from home may be more attractive to female clinicians, who report spending more</div><div>time on familial responsibilities, and those facing long commutes and higher office-space costs.</div><div>It is unclear how telemedicine-only clinicians will navigate new Medicare and Medicaid</div><div>requirements for in-person care. While clinicians and patients may prefer in-person care,</div><div>introducing in-person requirements for visits and prescribing could cause care interruptions,</div><div>particularly for conditions such as opioid use disorder.</div><div><br /></div><div>Our analysis is limited to clinicians treating patients with commercial insurance or Medicare</div><div>Advantage and therefore may lack generalizability. We were also unable to determine where</div><div>clinicians physically practiced, particularly if they had transitioned to virtual-health companies. Given the shortage of mental health clinicians, future research should explore whether a virtual-only model</div><div>affects clinician burnout or workforce retention.</div></div>Ethics and Psychologyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03835409872525412234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7373755601783169713.post-77787214369502876762024-02-24T05:00:00.026-05:002024-02-24T05:00:00.128-05:00Living in an abortion ban state is bad for mental health<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiRzdVodsw062FHssfyHYU1ChzIFaVmGEaRmli9bAlnDbw-EIxf-iTpvISqeLhnKGlVd7tDiOL1TNMkgF28DlAQf4-iXQBv0j5u-aRHFMICjrRRjkGhcjKdQQsy4WXhhabH4uSzcXNlKmZcv6nouH0zo1NUGwhf_HOb42pWefflYfau6q9we6Q9dLOfsfEZ/s474/Reproductive.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="315" data-original-width="474" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiRzdVodsw062FHssfyHYU1ChzIFaVmGEaRmli9bAlnDbw-EIxf-iTpvISqeLhnKGlVd7tDiOL1TNMkgF28DlAQf4-iXQBv0j5u-aRHFMICjrRRjkGhcjKdQQsy4WXhhabH4uSzcXNlKmZcv6nouH0zo1NUGwhf_HOb42pWefflYfau6q9we6Q9dLOfsfEZ/s320/Reproductive.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div>Keren Landman</div><div>vox.com</div><div>Originally posted 20 Feb 24</div><div><br /></div><div>Here is an excerpt:</div><div><br /></div><div><div>What they found was, frankly, predictable: Before the Court’s decision, anxiety and depression scores were already higher in trigger states — a population-wide average of 3.5 compared with 3.3 in non-trigger states. After the decision, that difference widened significantly, largely due to changes in the mental health of women 18 to 45, what the authors defined as childbearing age. Among this subgroup, anxiety and depression scores subtly ticked up in those living in trigger states (from 4.62 to 4.76) — and dropped in those living in non-trigger states (from 4.57 to 4.49). There was no similar effect in older women, nor in men.</div><div><br /></div><div>These differences were small but statistically meaningful, especially since they sampled the entire population, not just women considering an abortion. Moreover, they were consistent across trigger states, whether their policies and political battles around abortion had been high- or low-profile. Even when the researchers omitted data from states with particularly severe restrictions on women’s reproductive health (looking at you, Texas), the results held up.</div><div><br /></div><div>It’s notable that the different levels of mental distress across states after Roe was overturned weren’t just a consequence of worsened anxiety and depression in states with trigger bans. Also contributing: an improvement in these symptoms in states without these bans. We can’t tell from the study exactly why that is, but it seems plausible that women living in states that protect their right to access necessary health care simply feel some relief.</div></div><div><br /></div><div><a href="https://www.vox.com/24071802/abortion-roe-overturn-trigger-ban-states-mental-health" target="_blank">The research is here.</a></div><div><br /></div><div>Here is the citation to the study:</div><div><br /></div><div>Thornburg B, Kennedy-Hendricks A, Rosen JD, Eisenberg MD. Anxiety and Depression Symptoms After the <i>Dobbs</i> Abortion Decision. <i>JAMA. 2024;331(4)</i>:294–301. <a href="https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2814133" target="_blank">doi:10.1001/jama.2023.25599</a></div><div><br /></div><div><div><b>Conclusions and Relevance </b> In this study of US survey data from December 2021 to January 2023, residence in states with abortion trigger laws compared with residence in states without such laws was associated with a small but significantly greater increase in anxiety and depression symptoms after the <i>Dobbs</i> decision.</div></div>Ethics and Psychologyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03835409872525412234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7373755601783169713.post-46029670785754606732024-02-23T05:00:00.000-05:002024-02-23T05:00:00.130-05:00How Did Polyamory Become So Popular?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfb68Dsqyi73PPAhSQQ7vOS0BPBh8Cb2e6fVki_aDN3QQG7wrVYbS_i9fPKQTetPEc0XVxWGM1wDcjpemOWi88JsBbeEO8ReD5hYG8kS9oqxu5ujUNu-nH-MOPNKsPbTOMlbJE_meo9l3DTKZPZVJgP9DC9-egCF56R-amM4ORLTmuDCfKFNZ9OF2QiSDN/s275/images.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="183" data-original-width="275" height="183" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfb68Dsqyi73PPAhSQQ7vOS0BPBh8Cb2e6fVki_aDN3QQG7wrVYbS_i9fPKQTetPEc0XVxWGM1wDcjpemOWi88JsBbeEO8ReD5hYG8kS9oqxu5ujUNu-nH-MOPNKsPbTOMlbJE_meo9l3DTKZPZVJgP9DC9-egCF56R-amM4ORLTmuDCfKFNZ9OF2QiSDN/s1600/images.png" width="275" /></a></div><div>Jennifer Wilson</div><div><i>The New Yorker</i></div><div>Originally posted 25 Dec 23</div><div><br /></div><div>Here is an excerpt:</div><div><br /></div><div>What are all these open couples, throuples, and polycules suddenly doing in the culture, besides one another? To some extent, art is catching up with life. Fifty-one per cent of adults younger than thirty told Pew Research, in 2023, that open marriage was “acceptable,” and twenty per cent of all Americans report experimenting with some form of non-monogamy. The extramarital “entanglements” of Will and Jada Pinkett Smith have been tabloid fodder for the past two years. (Pinkett Smith once clarified that their marriage is not “open”; rather, it is a “relationship of transparency.”) In 2020, the reality show “House Hunters,” on HGTV, saw a throuple trying to find their dream home—one with a triple-sink vanity. The same year, the city of Somerville, Massachusetts, allowed domestic partnerships to be made up of “two or more” people.</div><div><br /></div><div>Some, like the sex therapist (and author of “Open Monogamy, A Guide to Co-Creating Your Ideal Relationship Agreement,” 2021), Tammy Nelson, have attributed the acceptance of a greater number of partners to pandemic-born domestic ennui; after being stuck with one person all day every day, the thinking goes, couples are ready to open up more than their pods. Nelson is part of a cohort of therapists, counsellors, and advice writers, including Esther Perel and the “Savage Love” columnist Dan Savage, who are encouraging married couples to think more flexibly about monogamy. Their advice has found an eager audience among the well-heeled attendees of the “ideas festival” circuit, featured in talks at Google, SXSW, and the Aspen Institute.</div><div><br /></div><div>The new monogamy skepticism of the moneyed gets some screen time in the pandemic-era breakout hit “The White Lotus.” The show mocks the leisure class as they mope around five-star resorts in Hawaii and Sicily, stewing over love, money, and the impossibility, for people in their tax bracket, of separating the two. In the latest season, Ethan (Will Sharpe) and Harper (Aubrey Plaza) are an attractive young couple stuck in a sexless marriage—until, that is, they go on vacation with the monogamish Cameron (Theo James) and Daphne (Meghann Fahy). After Cameron and Harper have some unaccounted-for time together in a hotel room, Ethan tracks down an unbothered Daphne, lounging on the beach, to share his suspicion that something has happened between their spouses. Some momentary concern on Daphne’s face quickly morphs—in a devastatingly subtle performance by Fahy—into a sly smile. “A little mystery? It’s kinda sexy,” she assures Ethan, before luring him into a seaside cove. That night Ethan and Harper have sex, the wounds of their marriage having been healed by a little something on the side.</div><div><br /></div><div><a href="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/01/01/american-poly-christopher-gleason-book-review-more-a-memoir-of-open-marriage-molly-roden-winter?utm_source=nl&utm_brand=tny&utm_mailing=TNY_Daily_123023&utm_campaign=aud-dev&utm_medium=email&utm_term=tny_daily_digest&bxid=60571f74554f9a71ee693ffc&cndid=64262368&hasha=f1513d63ec2329c05bf7a7a84641440d&hashb=37a8d7949b17db9b037d59df9e3fd3eb833492d8&hashc=dc8e39d2013367283b6abb39548598fb72d423eaac7bb7af9c186d6f01ed5350&esrc=lwg-register&mbid=CRMNYR012019" target="_blank">The info is here.</a></div><div><br /></div><div>Here is my summary:</div><div><br /></div><div><div>The article discusses the increasing portrayal and acceptance of non-monogamous relationships in contemporary culture, particularly in literature, cinema, and television. It notes that open relationships, throuples, and polyamorous arrangements are gaining prominence, reflecting changing societal attitudes. The author cites statistics and cultural examples, including a Gucci perfume ad and a plot twist in the TV series "Riverdale." The rise of non-monogamy is linked to a broader shift in societal norms, with some attributing it to pandemic-related ennui and a desire for more flexibility in relationships. The text also delves into the historical roots of polyamory, mentioning the Kerista movement and its adaptation to conservative times in the 1980s. The author concludes by expressing a desire for a more inclusive and equitable representation of polyamory, critiquing the limited perspective presented in a specific memoir discussed in the text.</div></div>Ethics and Psychologyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03835409872525412234noreply@blogger.com