The moral blueprint is not necessary for STEM wisdom

Kachhiyapatel, N., & Grossmann, I. (2025, June 11).

PsyArXiv

https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/s85tc_v1

Abstract

How can one bring wisdom into STEM education? One popular position holds that wise judgment follows from teaching morals and ethics in STEM. However, wisdom scholars debate the causal role of morality and whether cultivating a moral blueprint is a necessary condition for wisdom. Some philosophers and education scientists champion this view, whereas social psychologists and cognitive scientists argue that moral features like prosocial behavior are reinforcing factors or outcomes of wise judgment rather than pre-requisites. This debate matters particularly for science and technology, where wisdom-demanding decisions typically involve incommensurable values and radical uncertainty. Here, we evaluate these competing positions through four lines of evidence. First, empirical research shows that heightened moralization aligns with foolish rejection of scientific claims, political polarization, and value extremism. Second, economic scholarship on folk theorems demonstrates that wisdom-related metacognition—perspective-integration, context-sensitivity, and balancing long- and short-term goals—can give rise to prosocial behavior without an apriori moral blueprint. Third, in real life moral values often compete, making metacognition indispensable to balance competing interests for the common good. Fourth, numerous scientific domains require wisdom yet operate beyond moral considerations. We address potential objections about immoral and Machiavellian applications of blueprint-free wisdom accounts. Finally, we explore implications for giftedness: what exceptional wisdom looks like in STEM context, and how to train it. Our analysis suggests that STEM wisdom emerges not from prescribed moral codes but from metacognitive skills that enable navigation of complexity and uncertainty.

Here are some thoughts:

This article challenges the idea that wisdom in STEM and other complex domains requires a fixed moral blueprint. Instead, it highlights perspectival metacognition—skills like perspective-taking, intellectual humility, and balancing short- and long-term outcomes—as the core of wise judgment.

For psychologists, this suggests that strong moral convictions alone can sometimes impair wisdom by fostering rigidity or polarization. The findings support a shift in ethics training, supervision, and professional development toward cultivating reflective, context-sensitive thinking. Rather than relying on standardized assessments or fixed values, fostering metacognitive skills may better prepare psychologists and their clients to navigate complex, high-stakes decisions with wisdom and flexibility.

Advancing Transgender Health amid Rising Policy Threats

Coelho, D. R., Chen, A. L., &

Keuroghlian, A. S. (2025).

New England Journal of Medicine.

https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmp2416382

Abstract

The current U.S. political landscape poses escalating challenges for transgender health. Clinicians, researchers, policymakers, and advocates can act to counteract regressive policies.

Here is my summary:

The evolving political landscape under the Trump-Vance administration presents significant challenges to transgender health in the United States. Executive orders redefining sex and restricting gender-affirming care, coupled with state-level legislative efforts, are systematically dismantling protections for transgender and nonbinary individuals. These policies, often based on misinformation and discriminatory intent, are resulting in clinic closures, increased geographic barriers to care, and the denial of essential, evidence-based medical interventions. The denial of gender-affirming care, widely recognized as lifesaving and crucial for mental health, is having devastating consequences, including heightened risks of depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation. Legal challenges, such as the United States v. Skrmetti case, highlight the constitutional implications of these restrictions, potentially setting precedents that could further limit access to care across numerous states. Moreover, broader policy initiatives, like Project 2025, aim to redefine sex at the federal level, threatening to institutionalize discrimination in healthcare, education, and employment. To counteract these regressive measures, a multi-faceted approach is necessary, encompassing strengthened federal nondiscrimination protections, robust legal advocacy, and the reinforcement of community-based healthcare networks. Professional medical associations need to reaffirm their commitment to transgender health, while integrating legal and medical expertise to combat disinformation. Ultimately, prioritizing the lived experiences of transgender and nonbinary individuals and advocating for equitable policies are critical to safeguarding their health and well-being.

AI language model rivals expert ethicist in perceived moral expertise

Dillion, D., Mondal, D., Tandon, N., & Gray, K. (2025). 

Scientific Reports, 15(1).

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-86510-0

Abstract

People view AI as possessing expertise across various fields, but the perceived quality of AI-generated moral expertise remains uncertain. Recent work suggests that large language models (LLMs) perform well on tasks designed to assess moral alignment, reflecting moral judgments with relatively high accuracy. As LLMs are increasingly employed in decision-making roles, there is a growing expectation for them to offer not just aligned judgments but also demonstrate sound moral reasoning. Here, we advance work on the Moral Turing Test and find that Americans rate ethical advice from GPT-4o as slightly more moral, trustworthy, thoughtful, and correct than that of the popular New York Times advice column, The Ethicist. Participants perceived GPT models as surpassing both a representative sample of Americans and a renowned ethicist in delivering moral justifications and advice, suggesting that people may increasingly view LLM outputs as viable sources of moral expertise. This work suggests that people might see LLMs as valuable complements to human expertise in moral guidance and decision-making. It also underscores the importance of carefully programming ethical guidelines in LLMs, considering their potential to influence users’ moral reasoning.

The research is here.

Here are some thoughts.

This research investigates how people perceive AI, particularly large language models (LLMs) like GPT-4o, as moral experts. The study compares the ethical advice and justifications provided by GPT models to those of "The Ethicist" from the New York Times and a representative sample of Americans. Findings reveal that participants rated GPT-4o's advice as slightly more moral, trustworthy, thoughtful, and correct than that of the renowned ethicist, and that GPT models outperformed average Americans in justifying their moral judgments. This suggests a potential shift in how people perceive moral authority, with LLMs increasingly seen as viable sources of moral expertise.

The study underscores the importance of carefully programming ethical guidelines into LLMs, given their potential to influence users' moral reasoning. It also raises questions about the psychology of trust in AI, how AI-generated moral advice interacts with existing moral intuitions and biases, and the impact of moral language on perceptions of credibility. This research highlights the need for interdisciplinary collaboration between ethicists, psychologists, and computer scientists to address the complex ethical and psychological implications of AI moral reasoning and ensure its responsible and beneficial use.

Conjuring the End: Techno-eschatology and the Power of Prophecy

Elke Schwarz

OpinoJuris

Originally posted 30 Jan 25

Here is an except:

In theology, eschatology is the study of the last things. In Judeo-Christian eschatology, the last things are usually four: death, judgement, heaven and hell. Throughout the centuries and across different cultures, ideas about how the four last things play out, who holds the knowledge about these aspects and what the “after” constitutes are diverse and have changed over time. Traditionally, knowledge about the end was revealed knowledge – an idea that is intrinsic to Christian conceptions of apocalypse. In modernity, this knowledge was produced, no longer revealed. For this, modern probability theory was crucial and with this, techno-eschatology can be situated more clearly. 

Techno-eschatology refers to the entanglement of technological visions and ideas of reality that are bound up with religious ideations about human transcendence, visions of judgement and salvation. In the technological variant, the eschaton comprises both revelation and renewal as it pertains to the individual and to humanity at large in one or more ways (as I show in more detail elsewhere). The crucial point, however, is the interplay between technology and the production of knowledge about reality and in particular, future-oriented reality. Techno-eschatology has a longer lineage which David Noble expertly draws out in his seminal work The Religion of Technology, published in 1999. In this text he clearly identifies the role technology plays in shaping narratives of eschatology and the associated production of knowledge needed for these shifting ideas throughout the centuries and decades. It is a long history, like all histories, filled with nuance and detail, but one constant remains: those who could credibly claim that they hold the key to some secret knowledge about humanity’s inevitable future were those that held the greater political power and exerted a significant sway. This is the same today and those with vested financial interests understand that techno-eschatological narratives hold enormous sway. 

The point is not that eschatology, or indeed techno-eschatology must be coherent to be effective. Quite the contrary. The inherent ambiguity of the current techno-eschatological discourse opens a space for belief-making, drawing a greater number of people into a closed system that offers the illusion of provenance, order and some sense of a hopeful future. Those that claim to have discovered secret knowledge are those that are able to direct these futures. 

The information is here.

Here are some thoughts:

This article presents a unique take on the emergence and possible function of AI technologies. The essay explores the intersection of artificial intelligence (AI) and humanity's fascination with apocalyptic narratives. It argues that the discourse surrounding AI often mirrors religious or prophetic language, framing technological advancements as both savior and destroyer. This "techno-eschatology" reflects deep-seated cultural anxieties about the unknown and the potential for AI to disrupt societal norms, ethics, and even existence itself. The piece suggests that this framing is not merely descriptive but performative, shaping how we perceive and interact with AI. By invoking apocalyptic imagery, we risk amplifying fear and misunderstanding, potentially hindering thoughtful, ethical development of AI technologies. The article calls for a more nuanced, grounded approach to AI discourse, one that moves away from sensationalism and toward constructive dialogue about its real-world implications. This perspective is particularly relevant for professionals navigating the ethical and societal impacts of AI, urging a shift from prophecy to pragmatism.

The Dangerous Illusion of AI Consciousness

Shannon Vallor

Closer to the Truth

Originally published 7 Aug 24

OpenAI recently announced GPT-4o: the latest, multimodal version of the generative AI GPT model class that drives the now-ubiquituous ChatGPT tool and Microsoft Copilot. The demo of GPT-4o doesn’t suggest any great leap in intellectual capability over its predecessor GPT-4; there were obvious mistakes even in the few minutes of highly-rehearsed interaction shown. But it does show the new model enabling ChatGPT to interact more naturally and fluidly in real-time conversation, flirt with users, interpret and chat about the user’s appearance and surroundings, and even adopt different ‘emotional’ intonations upon command, expressed in both voice and text.

This next step in the commercial rollout of AI chatbot technology might seem like a nothingburger. After all, we don’t seem to be getting any nearer to AGI, or to the apocalyptic Terminator scenarios that the AI hype/doom cycle was warning of just one year ago. But it’s not benign at all—it might be the most dangerous moment in generative AI’s development.

What’s the problem? It’s far more than the ick factor of seeing yet another AI assistant marketed as a hyper-feminized, irrepressibly perky and compliant persona, one that will readily bend ‘her’ (its) emotional state to the will of the two men running the demo (plus another advertised bonus feature—you can interrupt ‘her’ all day long with no complaints!).

The bigger problem is the grand illusion of artificial consciousness that is now more likely to gain a stronger hold on many human users of AI, thanks to the multimodal, real-time conversational capacity of a GPT-4o-enabled chatbot and others like it, such as Google DeepMind’s Gemini Live. And consciousness is not the sort of thing it is good to have grand illusions about.

The article is here.

Here are some thoughts:

OpenAI's recent release of GPT-4o represents a significant milestone in generative AI technology. While the model does not demonstrate a dramatic intellectual leap over its predecessor, it introduces more natural and fluid real-time interactions, including sophisticated voice communication, image interpretation, and emotional intonation adjustments. These capabilities, however, extend far beyond mere technological improvement and raise profound questions about human-AI interaction.

The most critical concern surrounding GPT-4o is not its technical specifications, but the potential for creating a compelling illusion of consciousness. By enabling multimodal, dynamically social interactions, the AI risks deepening users' tendencies to anthropomorphize technology. This is particularly dangerous because humans have an innate, often involuntary propensity to attribute mental states to non-sentient objects, a tendency that sophisticated AI design can dramatically amplify.

The risks are multifaceted and potentially far-reaching. Users—particularly vulnerable populations like teenagers, emotionally stressed partners, or isolated elderly individuals—might develop inappropriate emotional attachments to these AI systems. These artificially intelligent companions, engineered to be perpetually patient, understanding, and responsive, could compete with and potentially supplant genuine human relationships. The AI's ability to customize its personality, remember conversation history, and provide seemingly empathetic responses creates a seductive alternative to the complexity of human interaction.

Critically, despite their impressive capabilities, these AI models are not conscious. They remain sophisticated statistical engines designed to extract and generate predictive patterns from human data. No serious researchers, including those at OpenAI and Google, claim these systems possess genuine sentience or self-awareness. They are fundamentally advanced language processing tools paired with sensory inputs, not sentient beings.

The potential societal implications are profound. As these AI assistants become more prevalent, they risk fundamentally altering our understanding of companionship, emotional support, and interpersonal communication. The danger lies not in some apocalyptic scenario of AI dominance, but in the more insidious potential for technological systems to gradually erode the depth and authenticity of human emotional connections.

Navigating this new technological landscape will require careful reflection, robust ethical frameworks, and a commitment to understanding the essential differences between artificial intelligence and human consciousness. While GPT-4o represents an remarkable technological achievement, its deployment demands rigorous scrutiny and a nuanced approach that prioritizes human agency and genuine interpersonal relationships.

The meaning crisis, and how we rescue young men from reactionary politics

Aaron Rabinowitz

The Skeptic

22nd November 2024

We need to talk about men. As of the most recent vote counts, 60% of white American men voted for Trump, compared with 53% of white women. While those are not particularly surprising results, 25% of the Black men and 48% of Latino men also voted for Trump, compared to just 10% of the Black women and 39% of Latino women. Trump has doubled his share of Black male voters, and across all racial demographics his gains were highest among younger men. As always, problems like this are intersectional and multifaceted, but one of the crucial facets we need to discuss is clearly the persistent problem of disaffected men.

One likely reason for these gains is that the GOP offers narratives for meaning-making that appeal to young men who feel that modern society is depriving them of a meaningful life. Researchers have tied the ongoing crisis of meaning for men to harmful personal and political choices that result in worse outcomes for men and everyone around them. If we are looking for things that the left can do to address this problem, we can start by adopting a restorative approach towards men in general and the crisis of meaning many of them are experiencing. 

This conversation is made far more difficult by the fact that conservatives like Jordan Peterson have dominated discourse around this topic – that conservative domination, combined with entirely understandable resentment and compassion fatigue towards men, leads many on the left to reject it as a problem worth considering. The common refrain is that men should just “suck it up”, and that “loss of privilege feels like oppression” – which is essentially a fancy way of saying men aren’t actually experiencing real problems, just bad vibes.

Vibes do matter though, and for an unfortunately large number of men, loss of privilege also feels like loss of meaning and purpose. Folks on the left have no trouble mocking Ben Shapiro for his thought-terminating cliché “facts don’t care about your feelings”, but whenever the issue of men’s feelings come up it is often tamped back down with facts about how things are actually perfectly fine for men right now, so people need to shut up about men’s feelings. But men’s feelings do matter, not just because men are people too, but also because having their feelings derided is driving a disturbing proportion of young men to find meaning in the worst possible places.

Here are some thoughts:

The article discusses the growing issue of disaffected men, particularly in the context of the recent US election, where 60% of white American men voted for Trump. This phenomenon is not limited to white men, as 25% of Black men and 48% of Latino men also voted for Trump.

The article suggests that one reason for this trend is that the GOP offers narratives that appeal to young men who feel deprived of a meaningful life. These narratives provide a sense of purpose and meaning, which is lacking in modern society. The article argues that the left needs to present alternative narratives that appeal to these men, rather than simply dismissing their concerns.

The article also highlights the issue of toxic masculinity and the need to dismantle patriarchal culture. It argues that men are socialized to conform to traditional masculine norms, which can lead to feelings of despair and disaffection. The article suggests that the left needs to adopt a more restorative approach, recognizing that men's feelings and needs matter, and that they deserve respect and compassion.

Ultimately, the article argues that the issue of disaffected men is a complex and deeply ingrained problem that requires a fundamental shift in our cultural and societal norms. It requires a move away from toxic masculinity and towards a more inclusive and compassionate understanding of masculinity.

Faculty Must Protect Their Labor from AI Replacement

John Warner

Inside Higher Ed

Originally posted 11 Dec 24

Here is an excerpt:

A PR release from the UCLA Newsroom about a comparative lit class that is using a “UCLA-developed AI system” to substitute for labor that was previously done by faculty or teaching assistants lays out the whole deal. The course textbook has been generated from the professor’s previous course materials. Students will interact with the AI-driven courseware. A professor and teaching assistants will remain, for now, but for how long?

The professor argues—I would say rationalizes—that this is good for students because “Normally, I would spend lectures contextualizing the material and using visuals to demonstrate the content. But now all of that is in the textbook we generated, and I can actually work with students to read the primary sources and walk them through what it means to analyze and think critically.”

(Note: Whenever I see someone touting the benefit of an AI-driven practice as good pedagogy, I wonder what is stopping them from doing it without the AI component, and the answer is usually nothing.)

An additional apparent benefit is “that the platform can help professors ensure consistent delivery of course material. Now that her teaching materials are organized into a coherent text, another instructor could lead the course during the quarters when Stahuljak isn’t teaching—and offer students a very similar experience.”

The info is here.

This article argues that he survival of college faculty in an AI-driven world depends on recognizing themselves as laborers and resisting trends that devalue their work. The rise of adjunctification—prioritizing cheaper, non-tenured faculty over tenured ones—offers a cautionary tale. Similarly, the adoption of generative AI in teaching risks diminishing the human role in education. Examples like UCLA’s AI-powered courseware illustrate how faculty labor becomes interchangeable, paving the way for automation and eroding the value of teaching. Faculty must push back against policies, such as shifts in copyright, that enable these trends, emphasizing the irreplaceable value of their labor and resisting practices that jeopardize the future of academic teaching and learning.

Deus in machina: Swiss church installs AI-powered Jesus

Ashifa Kassam

The Guardian

Originally posted 21 Nov 24

The small, unadorned church has long ranked as the oldest in the Swiss city of Lucerne. But Peter’s chapel has become synonymous with all that is new after it installed an artificial intelligence-powered Jesus capable of dialoguing in 100 different languages.

“It was really an experiment,” said Marco Schmid, a theologian with the Peterskapelle church. “We wanted to see and understand how people react to an AI Jesus. What would they talk with him about? Would there be interest in talking to him? We’re probably pioneers in this.”

The installation, known as Deus in Machina, was launched in August as the latest initiative in a years-long collaboration with a local university research lab on immersive reality.

After projects that had experimented with virtual and augmented reality, the church decided that the next step was to install an avatar. Schmid said: “We had a discussion about what kind of avatar it would be – a theologian, a person or a saint? But then we realised the best figure would be Jesus himself.”

Short on space and seeking a place where people could have private conversations with the avatar, the church swapped out its priest to set up a computer and cables in the confessional booth. After training the AI program in theological texts, visitors were then invited to pose questions to a long-haired image of Jesus beamed through a latticework screen. He responded in real time, offering up answers generated through artificial intelligence.

The article is here.

Here are some thoughts:

A Swiss church conducted a two-month experiment using an AI-powered Jesus avatar in a confessional booth, allowing over 1,000 people to interact with it in various languages. The experiment, called Deus in Machina, aimed to gauge public reaction and explore the potential of AI in religious contexts. While many participants reported a positive spiritual experience, others found the AI's responses trite or superficial, highlighting the limitations of current AI technology in nuanced spiritual conversation. The church ultimately deemed the AI Jesus unsuitable for permanent installation due to the significant responsibility involved. The project sparked both interest and criticism within the church community.

Effectiveness of ex ante honesty oaths in reducing dishonesty depends on content

Zickfeld, J. H., et al. (2024).

Nature human behaviour,

10.1038/s41562-024-02009-0.

Advance online publication.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-02009-0

Abstract

Dishonest behaviours such as tax evasion impose significant societal costs. Ex ante honesty oaths-commitments to honesty before action-have been proposed as interventions to counteract dishonest behaviour, but the heterogeneity in findings across operationalizations calls their effectiveness into question. We tested 21 honesty oaths (including a baseline oath)-proposed, evaluated and selected by 44 expert researchers-and a no-oath condition in a megastudy involving 21,506 UK and US participants from Prolific.com who played an incentivized tax evasion game online. Of the 21 interventions, 10 significantly improved tax compliance by 4.5 to 8.5 percentage points, with the most successful nearly halving tax evasion. Limited evidence for moderators was found. Experts and laypeople failed to predict the most effective interventions, though experts' predictions were more accurate. In conclusion, honesty oaths were effective in curbing dishonesty, but their effectiveness varied depending on content. These findings can help design impactful interventions to curb dishonesty.

The article is paywalled, unfortunately.

Here are some thoughts:

This research has shed light on the nuanced impact of honesty oaths in curbing dishonest behavior. The study found that while these pre-commitment pledges can be effective in reducing dishonesty, their efficacy varies significantly based on the specific wording and content of the oath. This finding underscores the principle that not all honesty oaths are created equal, with some potentially being more impactful than others in preventing dishonest conduct.

The research emphasizes that the content of an honesty oath plays a crucial role in its ability to deter dishonest behavior. While some oaths were shown to significantly reduce dishonesty, others had little to no effect, indicating that a generic oath may not be sufficient. This variation in effectiveness highlights the importance of careful design when crafting honesty oaths to ensure they are targeted and impactful in specific situations.

These findings have potential implications for various domains where honesty is critical. In the realm of ethical decision-making, this research could inform the development of more effective ethical guidelines and codes of conduct in fields such as business or healthcare. For policymakers, the study's insights could guide the design of interventions aimed at reducing dishonest behaviors like tax evasion, by ensuring that honesty pledges are optimally worded and focused. Overall, this research underscores the importance of thoughtful, context-specific approaches when implementing honesty oaths as a tool for promoting ethical behavior.

Can astrologers use astrological charts to understand people's character and lives?

Ferretti, A. (2024, July 29).

Clearer Thinking.

The link is here.

Astrology is very popular — both Gallup and YouGov report that about 25% of Americans believe that the position of the stars and planets can affect people's lives, with an additional 20% of people reporting being uncertain about astrology’s legitimacy.

Previously, we tested whether facts about a person's life can be predicted using their astrological sun signs (such as Pisces, Aries, etc.). A number of astrologers criticized this work, saying that of course we found that sun signs don't predict facts about a person's life, because that's baby or tabloid astrology. Real astrologers use people's entire astrological charts to glean insights about them and their lives. 

And they had a good point! Despite sun sign astrology being popular, most astrologers use entire astrological charts, not merely people's sun signs. Here are some examples of the feedback we received:

Inspired by these critiques, we enlisted the help of six astrologers, and with their feedback and guidance, we designed a new test to see whether astrologers can truly gain insights about people from entire astrological charts!

Here are some thoughts:

A recent study put the claims of astrology to the test, examining the ability of 152 astrologers to accurately match individuals with their corresponding natal charts. Despite their confidence in their abilities, the astrologers performed no better than chance, with none correctly matching more than 5 out of 12 charts. The study found no correlation between experience and accuracy, and even the most experienced astrologers failed to perform better than the rest.

The study highlights the importance of scientifically testing claims, particularly those that are ambiguous or unsubstantiated. To test a claim, one must first make it precise, choose a measurable outcome, design a study, and then analyze the results. In this case, the study's findings provide strong evidence against the claim that astrology can accurately match individuals with their natal charts.

The results also reveal a striking disconnect between the astrologers' confidence in their abilities and their actual performance. This raises questions about the validity of astrology and the need for more rigorous scientific testing of its claims. By applying the scientific method to such claims, we can separate fact from fiction and gain a deeper understanding of the world around us.

State Abortion Policy and Moral Distress Among Clinicians Providing Abortion After the Dobbs Decision

Rivlin, K., Bornstein, M., et al. (2024).

JAMA Network Open, 7(8), e2426248.

https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.26248

Abstract

Importance

Moral distress occurs when individuals feel powerless to do what they think is right, including when clinicians are prevented from providing health care they deem necessary. The loss of federal protections for abortion following the Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization Supreme Court decision may place clinicians providing abortion at risk of experiencing moral distress, as many could face new legal and civil penalties for providing care in line with professional standards and that they perceive as necessary.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Using descriptive statistics and unadjusted and adjusted negative binomial regression models, the association between self-reported moral distress on the Moral Distress Thermometer (MDT), a validated psychometric tool that scores moral distress from 0 (none) to 10 (worst possible), and state abortion policy was examined.

Conclusions and Relevance 

In this purposive national survey study of clinicians providing abortion, moral distress was elevated among all clinicians and more than twice as high among those practicing in states that restrict abortion compared with those in states that protect abortion. The findings suggest that structural changes addressing bans on necessary health care, such as federal protections for abortion, are needed at institutional, state, and federal policy levels to combat widespread moral distress.

Here are some thoughts:

A national survey of 310 abortion clinicians found that those practicing in states with abortion restrictions experience more moral distress than those in states that protect abortion. This study found that clinicians in restrictive states reported moral distress scores that were more than double those in protective states. The study's authors suggest that structural changes at the state, federal, and institutional levels are needed to address this moral distress, such as federal protections for abortion.

Moral distress can occur when people feel powerless to do what they believe is right, such as when clinicians are prevented from providing care they consider necessary. High levels of moral distress can lead to burnout, errors in patient care, and clinician attrition. In restrictive states, these issues could worsen provider shortages and lead to poor patient outcomes. 

However, some clinicians have found ways to cope with moral distress. For example, one participant said they felt more empowered to provide abortion care after the Dobbs decision, while another described feeling motivated by the support of their team. 

The true self and decision-making capacity.

Toomey, J., Lewis, J., Hannikainen, I., & Earp, B. D.

(2024). The American Journal of Bioethics, in press.

Jennifer Hawkins (2024) offers two cases that challenge traditional accounts of decision-making capacity, according to which respect for a medical decision turns on an individual’s cognitive capacities at the time the decision is made (Hawkins 2024; Appelbaum and Grisso 1988). In each of her described cases (involving anorexia nervosa and grief, respectively), a patient makes a decision that—although instrumentally rational at the time—does not reflect the patient’s longer-term values due to being in a particular psychological state. Importantly, this state does not impair the patient’s cognition, but rather predisposes them to make a decision that conflicts with their own broader values, beliefs, or desires.

Under traditional understandings of decision-making capacity, the patient’s decision in either case must be followed by healthcare providers, insofar as it was made while in possession of the requisite cognitive abilities. But this, Hawkins suggests, is the wrong outcome. Although core cognitive capacities are necessary for decision-making capacity, they are not on her view sufficient. From her perspective, patients who clear the threshold of cognitive capacity are not entitled to have their decisions followed when there is good evidence they are making a serious prudential mistake while known to have a condition that makes people more likely than typical to make such mistakes.

A pdf is here.

Here are a few thoughts:

This article highlights a crucial topic regarding decision-making.

Traditionally, a patient's cognitive abilities have been the main focus for evaluating their decision-making capacity. This article challenges that notion by introducing the concept of a patient's "true self". It argues that even if a patient has the cognitive ability to make a decision, it shouldn't be automatically respected if it doesn't reflect their long-term values or identity. This emphasizes the importance of understanding a patient's underlying values and goals when making decisions about their care. The article aligns with the idea that people often judge medical decisions based on a patient's "true self," highlighting the complexity of determining a patient's true wishes.

Finally, the article confronts us with ethical dilemmas where respecting a patient's cognitive decision might conflict with their well-being. This underlines the need for a nuanced approach that considers both cognitive capacity and a patient's identity. In essence, this article encourages mental health professionals to move beyond following just cognitive protocols and strive for a more comprehensive understanding of their patients.

Beliefs versus Reality: People Overestimate the Actual Dishonesty of Others

Martuza, J., Thorbjørnsen, H., & Sjåstad, H.

(2024, June 27).

https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/nm2cz

Abstract

Beliefs about the dishonesty of other people can shape our collective behavior in powerful ways. How accurate are these beliefs? And do we believe that other people are similarly, more, or less dishonest than they truly are? In a research program on moral decision-making consisting of 31 different effects (N = 8,127), initially designed to test a broad collection of different hypotheses, participants were placed in various situations where they could lie for personal gain, without any repercussions or detection risk. Crucially, we also asked all participants to estimate what percentage of other people would lie in a similar situation. Conducting an internal meta-analysis across all experiments, including both incentivized choice experiments and hypothetical marketplace scenarios, the results revealed a substantial overestimation of others' dishonesty by an average of 14 percentage points (meta-analytic effect: Hedge’s g = 0.58). That is, people are less dishonest than we tend to think, in which about 70% of our participants told the truth despite having a financial incentive to lie. These findings reveal a pervasive tendency to overestimate the actual dishonesty of other people, suggesting a biased belief that the world is less moral than it truly is. Does belief accuracy matter? In a new experiment using an information treatment based on our meta-analytic results (N = 981), providing correct information about actual honesty levels did not only lead to more positive honesty beliefs, but also to a broader enhancement of pro-social expectations – including higher interpersonal trust, fairness and helpfulness beliefs, and reduced cynicism.

My interpretation:

The meta-analysis reveals a significant overestimation of others' dishonesty by an average of 14 percentage points, with a meta-analytic effect of Hedge's g = 0.58. This finding, based on 31 effect sizes and over 8,000 participants, supports the overestimation hypothesis of dishonesty and proves robust across variations in methods and procedures.

Further research demonstrates the impact of correcting these biased beliefs. Informing people about actual honesty rates led to more positive pro-social expectations, including higher interpersonal trust, increased fairness and helpfulness beliefs, and lower cynicism. These findings have important implications, challenging the 'wisdom of crowds' approach in moral judgment and contributing to our understanding of the mixed effects of social norm nudges.

The study highlights the importance of data-based views for leaders and policymakers. However, it's crucial to note the limitations of this research, including its focus on American participants, the potential gap between experimental tasks and real-world complexity, and the use of mostly one-shot belief reports.

In conclusion, this research provides robust evidence that people tend to overestimate others' dishonesty. Moreover, correcting these biased beliefs can positively impact social thinking and expectations, potentially leading to more trusting and cooperative societies.  Important points for clinical psychologists.

Harassment of scientists is surging — institutions aren’t sure how to help

Bianca Nogrady

Nature.com

Originally posted 21 May 24

As a vocal advocate of vaccinations for public health, Peter Hotez was no stranger to online harassment and threats. But then the abuse showed up on his doorstep.

It was a Sunday during a brutal Texas heatwave in June 2023 when a man turned up at Hotez’s home, filming himself as he shouted questions at the scientist, who is a paediatrician and virologist at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas.

Because of the long-running online and real-life abuse he has faced, Hotez now has the Texas Medical Center Police, Houston Police Department and Harris County Sheriff’s Office on speed dial, an agent tasked to him from the FBI and extra security whenever he speaks publicly.

“This is a very powerful adversarial force that is seeking to undermine science, and now it’s not only going after the science. It’s going after the scientists,” he says.

Hotez is an especially well-known scientist, but his experience is far from unique. Every day around the world, scientists are being abused and harassed online. They are being attacked on social media and by e-mail, telephone, letter and in person. And their reputations are being smeared with baseless accusations of misconduct. Sometimes, this escalates to real-world confrontations and attacks.

The article is here.

Here is my summary:

The article discusses a rise in harassment faced by scientists, particularly those doing research on hot-button topics like climate change. Universities and research institutions are struggling to develop effective ways to help these scientists.

Some scientists are targeted with online abuse and threats. Others fear repercussions within their field if they report harassment. This fear can silence important voices and discourage scientists from communicating their research.

The article highlights the debate about balancing safety with academic freedom. While some suggest limiting scientists' communication, others argue for better support systems and protection for researchers engaging in public outreach.

The health care workforce crisis is already here

Caitlin Owen

axios.com

Originally posted 7 June 24

Demoralized doctors and nurses are leaving the field, hospitals are sounding the alarm about workforce shortages and employees are increasingly unionizing and even going on strike in high-profile disputes with their employers.

Why it matters: Dire forecasts of health care worker shortages often look to a decade or more from now, but the pandemic — and its ongoing fallout — has already ushered in a volatile era of dissatisfied workers and understaffed health care facilities.

• Some workers and experts say understaffing is, in some cases, the result of intentional cost cutting. Regardless, patients' access to care and the quality of that care are at risk.
• "There are 83 million Americans today who don't have access to primary care," said Jesse Ehrenfeld, president of the American Medical Association. "The problem is here. It's acute in rural parts of the country, it's acute in underserved communities."

The big picture: Complaints about understaffing, administrative burdens and inadequate wages aren't new, but they are getting much louder — and more health workers are leaving their jobs or cutting back their hours.

The info is here.

Here are some thoughts:

The news of the healthcare workforce crisis being "already here" is deeply concerning.  It's not just about future projections; it's about the impact on patient care, provider well-being, and the ethical obligations we all share.

Providers will likely walk an ethical tightrope, that will likely have negative consequences. Imagine a doctor facing a packed waiting room, knowing some patients won't receive the time and attention they deserve.  This is the reality for many providers stretched thin by staffing shortages. It creates an ethical tightrope: how to deliver quality care amidst overwhelming pressure.  Burnout, compassion fatigue, and even medical errors become more likely.  This is likely the starting point for the possibility of moral distress and/or moral injury.

The crisis isn't just a burden on healthcare providers or institutions. It's a societal challenge.  Policymakers, educators, and even patients themself can play a role.

This isn't about pointing fingers; it's about recognizing a shared responsibility.  By working together, we can ensure a healthcare system that is ethical, sustainable, and provides quality care for all.

Attributions toward artificial agents in a modified Moral Turing Test

Aharoni, E., Fernandes, S., Brady, D.J. et al.

Sci Rep 14, 8458 (2024).

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-58087-7

Abstract

Advances in artificial intelligence (AI) raise important questions about whether people view moral evaluations by AI systems similarly to human-generated moral evaluations. We conducted a modified Moral Turing Test (m-MTT), inspired by Allen et al. (Exp Theor Artif Intell 352:24–28, 2004) proposal, by asking people to distinguish real human moral evaluations from those made by a popular advanced AI language model: GPT-4. A representative sample of 299 U.S. adults first rated the quality of moral evaluations when blinded to their source. Remarkably, they rated the AI’s moral reasoning as superior in quality to humans’ along almost all dimensions, including virtuousness, intelligence, and trustworthiness, consistent with passing what Allen and colleagues call the comparative MTT. Next, when tasked with identifying the source of each evaluation (human or computer), people performed significantly above chance levels. Although the AI did not pass this test, this was not because of its inferior moral reasoning but, potentially, its perceived superiority, among other possible explanations. The emergence of language models capable of producing moral responses perceived as superior in quality to humans’ raises concerns that people may uncritically accept potentially harmful moral guidance from AI. This possibility highlights the need for safeguards around generative language models in matters of morality.

Here is my summary:

The researchers conducted a modified Moral Turing Test (m-MTT) to investigate if people view moral evaluations by advanced AI systems similarly to those by humans. They had participants rate the quality of moral reasoning from the AI language model GPT-4 and from humans, while initially blinded to the source.

Key Findings

• Remarkably, participants rated GPT-4's moral reasoning as superior in quality to humans' across dimensions like virtuousness, intelligence, and trustworthiness. This is consistent with passing the "comparative MTT" proposed previously.
• When later asked to identify if the moral evaluations came from a human or computer, participants performed above chance levels.
• However, GPT-4 did not definitively "pass" this test, potentially because its perceived superiority made it identifiable as AI.

Evangelical literary tradition and moral foundations theory

Christopher Douglas

The Journal of American Culture

Originally published 26 Feb 24

Here is an excerpt:

What can MFT tell us about the topography of evangelical ethics as displayed in its bestselling fiction of the last 20 years? In many ways, there is nothing surprising in these findings. As Haidt himself suggests, the five primary foundations discernably track onto political orientations, with conservatives balancing all five criteria but liberals prioritizing care and fairness (as equality): “it's not just members of traditional societies who draw on all five foundations; even within Western societies, we consistently find an ideological effect in which religious and cultural conservatives value and rely upon all five foundations, whereas liberals value and rely upon the harm and fairness foundations primarily” (Haidt, 2007, 1001). Or, in updated form: “Liberals have a three-foundation morality, whereas conservatives use all six” (Haidt, 2012, 214). The Shack seems to aptly confirm this insight, prioritizing care, fairness-as-justice, and egalitarianism at the expense of loyalty, authority, and purity. These values reflect the author's liberal sensibilities that were suggested when Young tweeted criticism of Donald Trump after the Access Hollywood tapes were released (Douglas, 2020, 508n3). LaHaye's conservative credentials, meanwhile, are well known—early partner to Jerry Falwell in the formation of the Moral Majority, fundraiser for the Institute for Creation Research, and so on—and the Left Behind series suggests a mix of moral foundations that does not so much find a balance among all six foundations (as Haidt discovered seems to be true of “Very Conservatives”) as express a sort of Extremely Conservative sensibility. The Shack and the Left Behind series reflect the considerable range of white evangelical politics, but also reflect the fact that white evangelicals tilt heavily conservative, forming the most important demographic of the Republican base, voting for Donald Trump by 77 and 84% in 2016 and 2020, respectively (Igielnik et al., 2021).

The article is here.

Here is my summary:

The article explores the moral foundations of two evangelical best-selling novels: The Shack by William Paul Young and Left Behind by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins. It uses Moral Foundations Theory (MFT) to analyze how these seemingly very different novels prioritize different moral values.

Moral Foundations Theory (MFT) identifies five core moral foundations:

• Care/Harm: Protecting others from harm and promoting their well-being.
• Fairness/Cheating: Ensuring that people are treated justly and receive what they deserve.
• Loyalty/Betrayal: Standing by your group and upholding your commitments.
• Authority/Subversion: Respecting legitimate authority figures and hierarchies.
• Sanctity/Degradation: Purity, avoiding disgust and respecting the sacred.

The Shack by William Paul Young grapples with the kidnapping, abuse, and murder of a child. It focuses on the themes of care/harm and fairness. The protagonist, Mack, wrestles with how God could allow such a tragedy to occur and how fairness can be achieved. The novel explores the idea of forgiveness and reconciliation.

Left Behind by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins is a series about the Rapture and the End Times. It emphasizes the moral foundations of loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and sanctity/degradation. The series depicts a world where good and evil are clearly defined and a battle between God and the Antichrist is about to unfold. The in-group of Christians is loyal to God and resists the authority of the Antichrist. The series emphasizes the importance of following God's will and upholding Christian values.

The article argues that MFT helps explain the enduring appeal of these novels.  The Shack resonates with readers who seek comfort and answers in the face of tragedy. Left Behind appeals to readers who feel like they are part of an embattled community and who believe in a clear distinction between good and evil.

Can Robots have Personal Identity?

Alonso, M.

Int J of Soc Robotics 15, 211–220 (2023).

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-022-00958-y

Abstract

This article attempts to answer the question of whether robots can have personal identity. In recent years, and due to the numerous and rapid technological advances, the discussion around the ethical implications of Artificial Intelligence, Artificial Agents or simply Robots, has gained great importance. However, this reflection has almost always focused on problems such as the moral status of these robots, their rights, their capabilities or the qualities that these robots should have to support such status or rights. In this paper I want to address a question that has been much less analyzed but which I consider crucial to this discussion on robot ethics: the possibility, or not, that robots have or will one day have personal identity. The importance of this question has to do with the role we normally assign to personal identity as central to morality. After posing the problem and exposing this relationship between identity and morality, I will engage in a discussion with the recent literature on personal identity by showing in what sense one could speak of personal identity in beings such as robots. This is followed by a discussion of some key texts in robot ethics that have touched on this problem, finally addressing some implications and possible objections. I finally give the tentative answer that robots could potentially have personal identity, given other cases and what we empirically know about robots and their foreseeable future.

The info is here.

The article explores the idea of personal identity in robots. It acknowledges that this is a complex question tied to how we define "personhood" itself.

There are arguments against robots having personal identity, often focusing on the biological and experiential differences between humans and machines.

On the other hand, the article highlights that robots can develop and change over time, forming a narrative of self much like humans do. They can also build relationships with people, suggesting a form of "relational personal identity".

The article concludes that even if a robot's identity is different from a human's, it could still be considered a true identity, deserving of consideration. This opens the door to discussions about the ethical treatment of advanced AI.

What Deathbed Visions Teach Us About Living

Phoebe Zerwick

The New York Times

Originally posted March 12, 2024

Here is an excerpt:

At the time, only a handful of published medical studies had documented deathbed visions, and they largely relied on secondhand reports from doctors and other caregivers rather than accounts from patients themselves. On a flight home from a conference, Kerr outlined a study of his own, and in 2010, a research fellow, Anne Banas, signed on to conduct it with him. Like Kerr, Banas had a family member who, before his death, experienced visions — a grandfather who imagined himself in a train station with his brothers.

The study wasn’t designed to answer how these visions differ neurologically from hallucinations or delusions. Rather, Kerr saw his role as chronicler of his patients’ experiences. Borrowing from social-science research methods, Kerr, Banas and their colleagues based their study on daily interviews with patients in the 22-bed inpatient unit at the Hospice campus in the hope of capturing the frequency and varied subject matter of their visions. Patients were screened to ensure that they were lucid and not in a confused or delirious state. The research, published in 2014 in The Journal of Palliative Medicine, found that visions are far more common and frequent than other researchers had found, with an astonishing 88 percent of patients reporting at least one vision. (Later studies in Japan, India, Sweden and Australia confirm that visions are common. The percentages range from about 20 to 80 percent, though a majority of these studies rely on interviews with caregivers and not patients.)

In the last 10 years, Kerr has hired a permanent research team who expanded the studies to include interviews with patients receiving hospice care at home and with their families, deepening the researchers’ understanding of the variety and profundity of these visions. They can occur while patients are asleep or fully conscious. Dead family members figure most prominently, and by contrast, visions involving religious themes are exceedingly rare. Patients often relive seminal moments from their lives, including joyful experiences of falling in love and painful ones of rejection. Some dream of the unresolved tasks of daily life, like paying bills or raising children. Visions also entail past or imagined journeys — whether long car trips or short walks to school. Regardless of the subject matter, the visions, patients say, feel real and entirely unique compared with anything else they’ve ever experienced. They can begin days, even weeks, before death. Most significant, as people near the end of their lives, the frequency of visions increases, further centering on deceased people or pets. It is these final visions that provide patients, and their loved ones, with profound meaning and solace.

The info is here.

Here is a summary:

The article explores the phenomenon of deathbed visions experienced by dying individuals. These visions involve seeing and communicating with angels and departed loved ones, instilling a sense of peace and anticipation for the afterlife. The experiences are described as distinct from hallucinations and are often witnessed by family members and medical staff present during the individual's passing. The article emphasizes how these visions can transform perceptions of death, inspiring awe and encouraging a focus on love and spiritual well-being in daily life.

Physicians, Spirituality, and Compassionate Patient Care

Daniel P. Sulmasy

The New England Journal of Medicine

March 16, 2024

DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp2310498

Mind, body, and soul are inseparable. Throughout human history, healing has been regarded as a spiritual event. Illness (especially serious illness) inevitably raises questions beyond science- questions of a transcendent nature. These are questions of meaning, value, and relationship. 1 They touch on perennial and profoundly human enigmas. Why is my child sick? Do I still have value now that I am no longer a "productive" working member of society? Why does brokenness in my body remind me of the brokenness in my relationships? Or conversely, why does brokenness in relationships so profoundly affect my body?

Historically, most people have turned to religious belief and practice to help answer such questions. Yet they arise for people of all religions and of no religion. These questions can aptly be called spiritual.

Whereas spirituality may be defined as the ways people live in relation to transcendent questions of meaning, value, and relationship, a religion involves a community of belief, texts, and practices sharing a common orientation toward these spiritual questions. The decline of religious belief and practice in Europe and North America over recent decades and a perceived conflict between science and religion have led many physicians to dismiss patients' spiritual and religious concerns as not relevant to medicine. Yet religion and spirituality are associated with a number of health care outcomes. Abundant data show that patients want their physicians to help address their spiritual needs, and that patients whose spiritual needs have been met are aided in making difficult decisions (particularly at the end of life), are more satisfied with their care, and report better quality of life.2.... Spiritual questions pervade all aspects of medical care, whether addressing self-limiting, chronic, or life-threatening conditions, and whether in inpatient or outpatient settings.

Beyond the data, however, many medical ethicists recognize that the principles of beneficence and respect for patients as whole persons require physicians to do more than attend to the details of physiological and anatomical derangements. Spirituality and religion are essential to many patients' identities as persons. Patients (and their families) experience illness, healing, and death as whole persons. Ignoring the spiritual aspects of their lives and identities is not respectful, and it divorces medical practice from a fundamental mode of patient experience and coping. Promoting the good of patients requires attention to their notion of the highest good. 

The info is paywalled here.

Here is my summary:

The article discusses the interconnectedness of mind, body, and soul in the context of healing and spirituality. It highlights how illness raises questions beyond science, touching on meaning, value, and relationships. While historically people turned to religious beliefs for answers, these spiritual questions are relevant to individuals of all faiths or no faith. The decline of religious practice in some regions has led to a dismissal of spiritual concerns in medicine, despite evidence showing the impact of spirituality on health outcomes. Patients desire their physicians to address their spiritual needs as it influences decision-making, satisfaction with care, and quality of life. Medical ethics emphasize the importance of considering patients as whole persons, including their spiritual identities. Physicians are encouraged to inquire about patients' spiritual needs respectfully, even if they do not share the same beliefs.