Regina Nuzzo
Nature 526, 182–185 (08 October 2015)
doi:10.1038/526182a
Here is an excerpt:
This is the big problem in science that no one is talking about: even an honest person is a master of self-deception. Our brains evolved long ago on the African savannah, where jumping to plausible conclusions about the location of ripe fruit or the presence of a predator was a matter of survival. But a smart strategy for evading lions does not necessarily translate well to a modern laboratory, where tenure may be riding on the analysis of terabytes of multidimensional data. In today's environment, our talent for jumping to conclusions makes it all too easy to find false patterns in randomness, to ignore alternative explanations for a result or to accept 'reasonable' outcomes without question — that is, to ceaselessly lead ourselves astray without realizing it.
Failure to understand our own biases has helped to create a crisis of confidence about the reproducibility of published results, says statistician John Ioannidis, co-director of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California. The issue goes well beyond cases of fraud. Earlier this year, a large project that attempted to replicate 100 psychology studies managed to reproduce only slightly more than one-third. In 2012, researchers at biotechnology firm Amgen in Thousand Oaks, California, reported that they could replicate only 6 out of 53 landmark studies in oncology and haematology. And in 2009, Ioannidis and his colleagues described how they had been able to fully reproduce only 2 out of 18 microarray-based gene-expression studies.
The article is here.
Editor's note: These biases also apply to clinicians who use research or their own theories about how and why psychotherapy works.
Tuesday, July 5, 2016
Commentary: The dangerous growth of pseudophysics
Sadri Hassani
Physics Today
Originally posted May 2016, page 10
Here is an excerpt:
Among the factors contributing to the rapid growth of pseudoscience are various misrepresentations of modern physics and especially of QT. Some prominent physicists of the past century have presented philosophical outlooks that, as mystical and antiscientific as they may be, have become wrongfully associated with modern physics. And the public’s scant knowledge about the underlying principles of science, combined with the compelling power of science exhibited in smartphones, GPS, and confirmation of the Higgs boson and gravitational waves, turns those philosophical misrepresentations into a forceful engine for promoting such nonsense as quantum healing, quantum touch therapy, and other “quantum” commodities sold in the crowded information marketplace.
The article is here.
Physics Today
Originally posted May 2016, page 10
Among the factors contributing to the rapid growth of pseudoscience are various misrepresentations of modern physics and especially of QT. Some prominent physicists of the past century have presented philosophical outlooks that, as mystical and antiscientific as they may be, have become wrongfully associated with modern physics. And the public’s scant knowledge about the underlying principles of science, combined with the compelling power of science exhibited in smartphones, GPS, and confirmation of the Higgs boson and gravitational waves, turns those philosophical misrepresentations into a forceful engine for promoting such nonsense as quantum healing, quantum touch therapy, and other “quantum” commodities sold in the crowded information marketplace.
The article is here.
Monday, July 4, 2016
Experts worry high military suicide rates are 'new normal'
by Gregg Zoroya
USA Today
Originally published June 12, 2016
Seven years after the rate of suicides by soldiers more than doubled, the Army has failed to reduce the tragic pace of self-destruction, and experts worry the problem is a "new normal."
"It's very clear that nothing that the Army has done has resulted in the suicide rates coming down," said Carl Castro, a psychologist who retired from the Army in 2013, when he was a colonel overseeing behavioral health research programs.
The sharp rise in the Army's suicide rate from 2004 through 2009 coincided with unusually heavy demands on the nation's all-volunteer military, as hundreds of thousands of troops, most of them in the Army, deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. The vast majority have since come home, but suicide rates remain stubbornly high.
The Army's suicide rate for active-duty soldiers averaged nearly 11-per-100-000 from Sept. 11, 2001, until shortly after the Iraq invasion in 2004. It more than doubled over the next five years, and, with the exception of a spike in 2012, has remained largely constant at 24-to-25-per-100,000, roughly 20% to 25% higher than a civilian population of the same age and gender makeup as the military.
The article is here.
USA Today
Originally published June 12, 2016
Seven years after the rate of suicides by soldiers more than doubled, the Army has failed to reduce the tragic pace of self-destruction, and experts worry the problem is a "new normal."
"It's very clear that nothing that the Army has done has resulted in the suicide rates coming down," said Carl Castro, a psychologist who retired from the Army in 2013, when he was a colonel overseeing behavioral health research programs.
The sharp rise in the Army's suicide rate from 2004 through 2009 coincided with unusually heavy demands on the nation's all-volunteer military, as hundreds of thousands of troops, most of them in the Army, deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. The vast majority have since come home, but suicide rates remain stubbornly high.
The Army's suicide rate for active-duty soldiers averaged nearly 11-per-100-000 from Sept. 11, 2001, until shortly after the Iraq invasion in 2004. It more than doubled over the next five years, and, with the exception of a spike in 2012, has remained largely constant at 24-to-25-per-100,000, roughly 20% to 25% higher than a civilian population of the same age and gender makeup as the military.
The article is here.
Newly released CIA files expose grim details of agency interrogation program
by Greg Miller, Karen Deyoung And Julie Tate
The Washington Post
Originally posted June 14, 2016
The CIA released dozens of previously classified documents Tuesday that expose disturbing new details of the agency’s treatment of terrorism suspects after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, including one who died in Afghanistan in 2002 after being doused with water and chained to a concrete floor as temperatures plunged below freezing.
The files include granular descriptions of the inner workings of the CIA’s “black site” prisons, messages sent to CIA headquarters from field officers who expressed deep misgivings with how detainees were being treated and secret memos raising objections to the roles played by doctors and psychologists in the administration of treatment later condemned as torture.
But the collection also includes documents that were drafted by senior CIA officials to defend the interrogation program as it came under growing scrutiny, including a lengthy memo asserting that the use of often brutal methods had saved thousands of civilian lives.
The 50 documents included in the release were all drawn from records turned over to the Senate Intelligence Committee as part of its multi-year probe of the interrogation program.
The article is here.
The Washington Post
Originally posted June 14, 2016
The CIA released dozens of previously classified documents Tuesday that expose disturbing new details of the agency’s treatment of terrorism suspects after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, including one who died in Afghanistan in 2002 after being doused with water and chained to a concrete floor as temperatures plunged below freezing.
The files include granular descriptions of the inner workings of the CIA’s “black site” prisons, messages sent to CIA headquarters from field officers who expressed deep misgivings with how detainees were being treated and secret memos raising objections to the roles played by doctors and psychologists in the administration of treatment later condemned as torture.
But the collection also includes documents that were drafted by senior CIA officials to defend the interrogation program as it came under growing scrutiny, including a lengthy memo asserting that the use of often brutal methods had saved thousands of civilian lives.
The 50 documents included in the release were all drawn from records turned over to the Senate Intelligence Committee as part of its multi-year probe of the interrogation program.
The article is here.
Sunday, July 3, 2016
Disgust made us human
By Kathleen McAuliffe
Aeon
Originally posted June 6, 2016
Here are two excerpts:
If you’re skeptical that parasites have any bearing on your principles, consider this: our values actually change when there are infectious agents in our vicinity. In an experiment by Simone Schnall, a social psychologist at the University of Cambridge, students were asked to ponder morally questionable behaviour such as lying on a résumé, not returning a stolen wallet or, far more fraught, turning to cannibalism to survive a plane crash. Subjects seated at desks with food stains and chewed-up pens typically judged these transgressions as more egregious than students at spotless desks. Numerous other studies – using, unbeknown to the participants, imaginative disgust elicitors such as fart spray or the scent of vomit – have reported similar findings. Premarital sex, bribery, pornography, unethical journalism, marriage between first cousins: all become more reprehensible when subjects were disgusted.
(cut)
From this point in human social development, it took a bit more rejiggering of the same circuitry to bring our species to a momentous place: we became disgusted by people who behaved immorally. This development, Curtis argues, is central to understanding how we became an extraordinarily social and cooperative species, capable of putting our minds together to solve problems, create new inventions, exploit natural resources with unprecedented efficiency and, ultimately, lay the foundations for civilisation.
The article is here.
Editor's note: Please, if you can make it past the dog rape example in the beginning of the article, it is a thought provoking article. Go to the "comments" section to see what readers have to say about that example.
Aeon
Originally posted June 6, 2016
Here are two excerpts:
If you’re skeptical that parasites have any bearing on your principles, consider this: our values actually change when there are infectious agents in our vicinity. In an experiment by Simone Schnall, a social psychologist at the University of Cambridge, students were asked to ponder morally questionable behaviour such as lying on a résumé, not returning a stolen wallet or, far more fraught, turning to cannibalism to survive a plane crash. Subjects seated at desks with food stains and chewed-up pens typically judged these transgressions as more egregious than students at spotless desks. Numerous other studies – using, unbeknown to the participants, imaginative disgust elicitors such as fart spray or the scent of vomit – have reported similar findings. Premarital sex, bribery, pornography, unethical journalism, marriage between first cousins: all become more reprehensible when subjects were disgusted.
(cut)
From this point in human social development, it took a bit more rejiggering of the same circuitry to bring our species to a momentous place: we became disgusted by people who behaved immorally. This development, Curtis argues, is central to understanding how we became an extraordinarily social and cooperative species, capable of putting our minds together to solve problems, create new inventions, exploit natural resources with unprecedented efficiency and, ultimately, lay the foundations for civilisation.
The article is here.
Editor's note: Please, if you can make it past the dog rape example in the beginning of the article, it is a thought provoking article. Go to the "comments" section to see what readers have to say about that example.
Saturday, July 2, 2016
We need morality to beat this hurricane of anger
Jonathan Sacks
The Telegraph
Originally published July 1, 2016
Here is an excerpt:
Morality has been outsourced to the market. The market gives us choices, and morality has been reduced to a set of choices in which right or wrong have no meaning beyond the satisfaction or frustration of desire. We find it increasingly hard to understand why there might be things we want to do and can afford to do, that we should not do because they are dishonourable or disloyal or demeaning: in a word, unethical. Too many people in positions of public trust have come to the conclusion that if you can get away with it, you would be a fool not to do it. That is how elites betray the public they were supposed to serve. When that happens, trust collapses and a civilization begins to decay and die.
Meanwhile the liberal democratic state abolished national identity in favour of multiculturalism. The effect was to turn society from a home into a hotel. In a hotel you pay the price, get a room, and are free to do what you like so long as you do not disturb the other guests. But a hotel is not a home. It doesn’t generate identity, loyalty or a sense of belonging. Multiculturalism was supposed to make Europe more tolerant. Its effect has been precisely the opposite, leading to segregation, not integration.
Selfishness Is Learned
By Matthew Hutson
Nautilus
Originally posted June 9, 2016
Many people cheat on taxes—no mystery there. But many people don’t, even if they wouldn’t be caught—now, that’s weird. Or is it? Psychologists are deeply perplexed by human moral behavior, because it often doesn’t seem to make any logical sense. You might think that we should just be grateful for it. But if we could understand these seemingly irrational acts, perhaps we could encourage more of them.
It’s not as though people haven’t been trying to fathom our moral instincts; it is one of the oldest concerns of philosophy and theology. But what distinguishes the project today is the sheer variety of academic disciplines it brings together: not just moral philosophy and psychology, but also biology, economics, mathematics, and computer science. They do not merely contemplate the rationale for moral beliefs, but study how morality operates in the real world, or fails to. David Rand of Yale University epitomizes the breadth of this science, ranging from abstract equations to large-scale societal interventions. “I’m a weird person,” he says, “who has a foot in each world, of model-making and of actual experiments and psychological theory building.”
The article is here.
Editor's note: There is a nice review of relevant research in this article.
Nautilus
Originally posted June 9, 2016
Many people cheat on taxes—no mystery there. But many people don’t, even if they wouldn’t be caught—now, that’s weird. Or is it? Psychologists are deeply perplexed by human moral behavior, because it often doesn’t seem to make any logical sense. You might think that we should just be grateful for it. But if we could understand these seemingly irrational acts, perhaps we could encourage more of them.
It’s not as though people haven’t been trying to fathom our moral instincts; it is one of the oldest concerns of philosophy and theology. But what distinguishes the project today is the sheer variety of academic disciplines it brings together: not just moral philosophy and psychology, but also biology, economics, mathematics, and computer science. They do not merely contemplate the rationale for moral beliefs, but study how morality operates in the real world, or fails to. David Rand of Yale University epitomizes the breadth of this science, ranging from abstract equations to large-scale societal interventions. “I’m a weird person,” he says, “who has a foot in each world, of model-making and of actual experiments and psychological theory building.”
The article is here.
Editor's note: There is a nice review of relevant research in this article.
Friday, July 1, 2016
Predicting Suicide is not Reliable, according to recent study
Matthew Large , M. Kaneson, N. Myles, H. Myles, P. Gunaratne, C. Ryan
PLOS One
Published: June 10, 2016
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0156322
Discussion
The pooled estimate from a large and representative body of research conducted over 40 years suggests a statistically strong association between high-risk strata and completed suicide. However the meta-analysis of the sensitivity of suicide risk categorization found that about half of all suicides are likely to occur in lower-risk groups and the meta-analysis of PPV suggests that 95% of high-risk patients will not suicide. Importantly, the pooled odds ratio (and the estimates of the sensitivity and PPV) and any assessment of the overall strength of risk assessment should be interpreted very cautiously in the context of several limitations documented below.
With respect to our first hypothesis, the statistical estimates of between study heterogeneity and the distribution of the outlying, quartile and median effect sizes values suggests that the statistical strength of suicide risk assessment cannot be considered to be consistent between studies, potentially limiting the generalizability of the pooled estimate.
With respect to our second hypothesis we found no evidence that the statistical strength of suicide risk assessment has improved over time.
The research is here.
PLOS One
Published: June 10, 2016
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0156322
Discussion
The pooled estimate from a large and representative body of research conducted over 40 years suggests a statistically strong association between high-risk strata and completed suicide. However the meta-analysis of the sensitivity of suicide risk categorization found that about half of all suicides are likely to occur in lower-risk groups and the meta-analysis of PPV suggests that 95% of high-risk patients will not suicide. Importantly, the pooled odds ratio (and the estimates of the sensitivity and PPV) and any assessment of the overall strength of risk assessment should be interpreted very cautiously in the context of several limitations documented below.
With respect to our first hypothesis, the statistical estimates of between study heterogeneity and the distribution of the outlying, quartile and median effect sizes values suggests that the statistical strength of suicide risk assessment cannot be considered to be consistent between studies, potentially limiting the generalizability of the pooled estimate.
With respect to our second hypothesis we found no evidence that the statistical strength of suicide risk assessment has improved over time.
The research is here.
Predictive genetic testing for neurodegenerative conditions: how should conflicting interests within families be managed?
Zornitza Stark, Jane Wallace, Lynn Gillam, Matthew Burgess, Martin B Delatycki
J Med Ethics doi:10.1136/medethics-2016-103400
Abstract
Predictive genetic testing for a neurodegenerative condition in one individual in a family may have implications for other family members, in that it can reveal their genetic status. Herein a complex clinical case is explored where the testing wish of one family member was in direct conflict to that of another. The son of a person at 50% risk of an autosomal dominant neurodegenerative condition requested testing to reveal his genetic status. The main reason for the request was if he had the familial mutation, he and his partner planned to utilise preimplantation genetic diagnosis to prevent his offspring having the condition. His at-risk parent was clear that if they found out they had the mutation, they would commit suicide. We assess the potential benefits and harms from acceding to or denying such a request and present an approach to balancing competing rights of individuals within families at risk of late-onset genetic conditions, where family members have irreconcilable differences with respect to predictive testing. We argue that while it may not be possible to completely avoid harm in these situations, it is important to consider the magnitude of risks, and make every effort to limit the potential for adverse outcomes.
The article is here.
J Med Ethics doi:10.1136/medethics-2016-103400
Abstract
Predictive genetic testing for a neurodegenerative condition in one individual in a family may have implications for other family members, in that it can reveal their genetic status. Herein a complex clinical case is explored where the testing wish of one family member was in direct conflict to that of another. The son of a person at 50% risk of an autosomal dominant neurodegenerative condition requested testing to reveal his genetic status. The main reason for the request was if he had the familial mutation, he and his partner planned to utilise preimplantation genetic diagnosis to prevent his offspring having the condition. His at-risk parent was clear that if they found out they had the mutation, they would commit suicide. We assess the potential benefits and harms from acceding to or denying such a request and present an approach to balancing competing rights of individuals within families at risk of late-onset genetic conditions, where family members have irreconcilable differences with respect to predictive testing. We argue that while it may not be possible to completely avoid harm in these situations, it is important to consider the magnitude of risks, and make every effort to limit the potential for adverse outcomes.
The article is here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)