Leading mental health groups file briefs in Supreme Court cases challenging Defense of Marriage Act, California’s Proposition 8
American Psychological Association
Press Release
Released on March 1, 2013
There is no valid scientific basis for denying same-sex couples the right to legal marriage, or to deprive them of considerable benefits of the institution, according to legal briefs filed with the U.S. Supreme Court by the American Psychological Association and other leading mental health associations.
“Empirical research demonstrates that the psychological and social aspects of committed relationships between same-sex partners largely resemble those of heterosexual partnerships,” the briefs state. “Like heterosexual couples, same-sex couples form deep emotional attachments and commitments. Heterosexual and same-sex couples alike face similar issues concerning intimacy, love, equity, loyalty and stability, and they go through similar processes to address those issues.”
Denying recognition to legally married same-sex couples stigmatizes them, according to the “friend of the court” briefs filed in the cases of Hollingsworth v. Perry, which challenges California’s Proposition 8, and U.S. v. Windsor, which challenges the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Perry is slated to be argued before the court on March 26; Windsor will be argued on March 27.
The briefs cite empirical scientific evidence that demonstrate that “homosexuality is a normal expression of human sexuality, is generally not chosen and is highly resistant to change.” Likewise, “there is no scientific basis for concluding that gay and lesbian parents are any less fit or capable than heterosexual parents, or that their children are any less psychologically healthy and well-adjusted,” according to the briefs.
The entire release is here.
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Replicate This
Do classic psychological studies published in high-profile journals hold up? The Reproducibility Project aims to find out.
By Kayt Sukel
Pacific Standard Magazine
Originally published on February 26, 2013
There are few psychological effects better known—or more widely accepted—in academic halls than what is called semantic priming. Show a person a simple stimulus, something as unremarkable as a photograph of a cat. Let some time pass, then ask that same person to list as many words as possible that start with the letter c. This person is more likely not only to come up with the word cat, but to mention catlike animals such as cougars and cheetahs, because he was initially primed with that one little kitty cat.
Priming’s reach, of course, stretches far beyond cognitive tests. Therapists use it to help treat patients with depression during therapy sessions. Advertisers count on commercials to prime us to buy key brands during our trips to the mall or the grocery store. Priming is considered an underlying mechanism in stereotyping. And the word has become part of our cultural lexicon, too. We talk about how we are “primed” to feel, to want, to need, to talk. Priming is everywhere.
And yet, many of the classic studies that led us to our current understanding of priming have never been replicated. In fact, the few attempts to reproduce the results that we have taken at face value for so long have failed. In late 2012, that led Daniel Kahneman, noted Princeton University psychologist and author of the best-selling book Thinking Fast and Slow, to write an open e-mail to the entire priming-research community. He wrote, “Your field is now the poster child for doubts about the integrity of psychological research. Your problem is not with the few people who have actively challenged the validity of some priming results. It is with the much larger population of colleagues who in the past accepted your surprising results as facts when they were published.” Kahneman’s solution? A new research protocol whereby cooperating labs attempt to check and replicate each other’s studies. This is the only way, he argues, to separate the scientific wheat from the chaff.
The entire article is here.
By Kayt Sukel
Pacific Standard Magazine
Originally published on February 26, 2013
There are few psychological effects better known—or more widely accepted—in academic halls than what is called semantic priming. Show a person a simple stimulus, something as unremarkable as a photograph of a cat. Let some time pass, then ask that same person to list as many words as possible that start with the letter c. This person is more likely not only to come up with the word cat, but to mention catlike animals such as cougars and cheetahs, because he was initially primed with that one little kitty cat.
Priming’s reach, of course, stretches far beyond cognitive tests. Therapists use it to help treat patients with depression during therapy sessions. Advertisers count on commercials to prime us to buy key brands during our trips to the mall or the grocery store. Priming is considered an underlying mechanism in stereotyping. And the word has become part of our cultural lexicon, too. We talk about how we are “primed” to feel, to want, to need, to talk. Priming is everywhere.
And yet, many of the classic studies that led us to our current understanding of priming have never been replicated. In fact, the few attempts to reproduce the results that we have taken at face value for so long have failed. In late 2012, that led Daniel Kahneman, noted Princeton University psychologist and author of the best-selling book Thinking Fast and Slow, to write an open e-mail to the entire priming-research community. He wrote, “Your field is now the poster child for doubts about the integrity of psychological research. Your problem is not with the few people who have actively challenged the validity of some priming results. It is with the much larger population of colleagues who in the past accepted your surprising results as facts when they were published.” Kahneman’s solution? A new research protocol whereby cooperating labs attempt to check and replicate each other’s studies. This is the only way, he argues, to separate the scientific wheat from the chaff.
The entire article is here.
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
Slaying the Messenger?
By Allie Grasgreen
Inside Higher Ed
Originally published February 26, 2013
Landen Gambill took an unusual step after she was sexually assaulted.
She reported it.
Unusual why? Because the vast majority of rapes go unreported.
But now Gambill is the one on trial. The student-run Honor Court at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill informed her last week that it’s charging her with violation of the Honor Code under a statute prohibiting “Disruptive or intimidating behavior that willfully abuses, disparages, or otherwise interferes with another…. so as to adversely affect their academic pursuits, opportunities for university employment, participation in university-sponsored extracurricular activities, or opportunities to benefit from other aspects of University Life.”
In other words, as the court told Gambill, she could get expelled for saying she was raped.
The entire article is here.
Inside Higher Ed
Originally published February 26, 2013
Landen Gambill took an unusual step after she was sexually assaulted.
She reported it.
Unusual why? Because the vast majority of rapes go unreported.
But now Gambill is the one on trial. The student-run Honor Court at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill informed her last week that it’s charging her with violation of the Honor Code under a statute prohibiting “Disruptive or intimidating behavior that willfully abuses, disparages, or otherwise interferes with another…. so as to adversely affect their academic pursuits, opportunities for university employment, participation in university-sponsored extracurricular activities, or opportunities to benefit from other aspects of University Life.”
In other words, as the court told Gambill, she could get expelled for saying she was raped.
The entire article is here.
Ethics of Admission, Pt. II: Undergraduates and the Brass Ring
By Jane Robbins
Inside Higher Ed
Originally posted February 26, 2013
Here are some excerpts:
But what about students? Is it worth the chance at the brass ring? One could say there is no choice but get on the merry-go-round—and that is certainly what they are being told. But if we know that many will not get a shot because of where they are placed or when they got on or whether, metaphorically, they lack the height compared to the one behind them to reach the ring, is the current approach wrong—in both the incorrect and immoral senses of the word?
The inevitable is, of course, happening: people are beginning to question the value of a college degree for them as individuals. This is why, counterintutively, the push for the current wage data approach to value is completely wrong-headed and also, I think unethical. It is the individual that has been lost in the wholesale approach to commodity credentials and wage comparison, a particularly perverse kind of educational “channeling.” In the service of whose interests is, for example, the tireless emphasis on STEM and the disparagement of arts? Who will care when large percentages with STEM credentials can’t find jobs, experience depressed wages because there are so many of them, and find themselves with no transferable skills or habits of mind when technology moves on? If it is going to be difficult to find a job anyway, one should at least have followed one’s own interests. Education should allow you to choose your work, not vice versa.
On the constant merry-go-round, we seem to have forgotten that college, or any other education at any level except technical and some forms of professional education, is not to get a job, and certainly not to get a particular job. That is what trade school is for. We should be encouraging students who want a particular job -- a vocation -- to train elsewhere, perhaps with the idea of getting more and broader education at a later time.
The rest of the blog post is here.
Inside Higher Ed
Originally posted February 26, 2013
Here are some excerpts:
But what about students? Is it worth the chance at the brass ring? One could say there is no choice but get on the merry-go-round—and that is certainly what they are being told. But if we know that many will not get a shot because of where they are placed or when they got on or whether, metaphorically, they lack the height compared to the one behind them to reach the ring, is the current approach wrong—in both the incorrect and immoral senses of the word?
The inevitable is, of course, happening: people are beginning to question the value of a college degree for them as individuals. This is why, counterintutively, the push for the current wage data approach to value is completely wrong-headed and also, I think unethical. It is the individual that has been lost in the wholesale approach to commodity credentials and wage comparison, a particularly perverse kind of educational “channeling.” In the service of whose interests is, for example, the tireless emphasis on STEM and the disparagement of arts? Who will care when large percentages with STEM credentials can’t find jobs, experience depressed wages because there are so many of them, and find themselves with no transferable skills or habits of mind when technology moves on? If it is going to be difficult to find a job anyway, one should at least have followed one’s own interests. Education should allow you to choose your work, not vice versa.
On the constant merry-go-round, we seem to have forgotten that college, or any other education at any level except technical and some forms of professional education, is not to get a job, and certainly not to get a particular job. That is what trade school is for. We should be encouraging students who want a particular job -- a vocation -- to train elsewhere, perhaps with the idea of getting more and broader education at a later time.
The rest of the blog post is here.
Monday, March 11, 2013
It's time for psychologists to put their house in order
BMC Psychology pledges 'to put less emphasis on interest levels' and publish repeat studies and negative results
By Keith Laws
The Guardian, Notes & Theories
Originally published February 27, 2013
In 2005, the epidemiologist John Ioannidis provocatively claimed that "most published research findings are false". In the field of psychology – where negative results rarely see the light of day – we have a related problem: there is the very real possibility that many unpublished, negative findings are true.
Psychologists have an aversion to some essential aspects of science that they perceive to be unexciting or less valuable. Historically, the discipline has done almost nothing to ensure the reliability of findings through the publication of repeat studies and negative ("null") findings.
Psychologists find significant statistical support for their hypotheses more frequently than any other science, and this is not a new phenomenon. More than 30 years ago, it was reported that psychology researchers are eight times as likely to submit manuscripts for publication when the results are positive rather than negative.
Unpublished, "failed" replications and negative findings stay in the file-drawer and therefore remain unknown to future investigators, who may independently replicate the null-finding (each also unpublished) - until by chance, a spuriously significant effect turns up.
The entire story is here.
By Keith Laws
The Guardian, Notes & Theories
Originally published February 27, 2013
In 2005, the epidemiologist John Ioannidis provocatively claimed that "most published research findings are false". In the field of psychology – where negative results rarely see the light of day – we have a related problem: there is the very real possibility that many unpublished, negative findings are true.
Psychologists have an aversion to some essential aspects of science that they perceive to be unexciting or less valuable. Historically, the discipline has done almost nothing to ensure the reliability of findings through the publication of repeat studies and negative ("null") findings.
Psychologists find significant statistical support for their hypotheses more frequently than any other science, and this is not a new phenomenon. More than 30 years ago, it was reported that psychology researchers are eight times as likely to submit manuscripts for publication when the results are positive rather than negative.
Unpublished, "failed" replications and negative findings stay in the file-drawer and therefore remain unknown to future investigators, who may independently replicate the null-finding (each also unpublished) - until by chance, a spuriously significant effect turns up.
The entire story is here.
Why Failing Med Students Don’t Get Failing Grades
By Pauline Chen
The New York Times
Originally published February 28, 2013
Here are some excerpts:
Medical educators have long understood that good doctoring, like ducks, elephants and obscenity, is easy to recognize but difficult to quantify. And nowhere is the need to catalog those qualities more explicit, and charged, than in the third year of medical school, when students leave the lecture halls and begin to work with patients and other clinicians in specialty-based courses referred to as “clerkships.” In these clerkships, students are evaluated by senior doctors and ranked on their nascent doctoring skills, with the highest-ranking students going on to the most competitive training programs and jobs.
A student’s performance at this early stage, the traditional thinking went, would be predictive of how good a doctor she or he would eventually become.
But in the mid-1990s, a group of researchers decided to examine grading criteria and asked directors of internal medicine clerkship courses across the country how accurate and consistent they believed their grading to be.
The entire story is here.
The New York Times
Originally published February 28, 2013
Here are some excerpts:
Medical educators have long understood that good doctoring, like ducks, elephants and obscenity, is easy to recognize but difficult to quantify. And nowhere is the need to catalog those qualities more explicit, and charged, than in the third year of medical school, when students leave the lecture halls and begin to work with patients and other clinicians in specialty-based courses referred to as “clerkships.” In these clerkships, students are evaluated by senior doctors and ranked on their nascent doctoring skills, with the highest-ranking students going on to the most competitive training programs and jobs.
A student’s performance at this early stage, the traditional thinking went, would be predictive of how good a doctor she or he would eventually become.
But in the mid-1990s, a group of researchers decided to examine grading criteria and asked directors of internal medicine clerkship courses across the country how accurate and consistent they believed their grading to be.
The entire story is here.
Sunday, March 10, 2013
Protecting Patient Privacy and Data Security
By Julie K. Taitsman, Christi Macrina Grimm, and Shantanu Agrawal
The New England Journal of Medicine - Perspective
February 27, 2013
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp1215258
Here is one portion of the article.
STEPS TO PROTECT AND SECURE INFORMATION WHEN USING MOBILE DEVICES*
• Install and enable encryption
• Use a password or other user authentication
• Install and activate wiping, remote disabling, or both to erase data on lost or stolen devices
• Disable and do not install or use file-sharing applications
• Install and enable a firewall to block unauthorized access
• Install and enable security software to protect against malicious applications, viruses, spyware, and malware-based attacks
• Keep security software up to date
• Research mobile applications before downloading
• Maintain physical control of mobile devices
• Use adequate security to send or receive health information over public Wi-Fi networks
• Delete all stored health information on mobile devices before discarding the devices
* Recommended by the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology
The entire article is here.
Thanks to Gary Schoener for this article.
The New England Journal of Medicine - Perspective
February 27, 2013
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp1215258
Here is one portion of the article.
STEPS TO PROTECT AND SECURE INFORMATION WHEN USING MOBILE DEVICES*
• Install and enable encryption
• Use a password or other user authentication
• Install and activate wiping, remote disabling, or both to erase data on lost or stolen devices
• Disable and do not install or use file-sharing applications
• Install and enable a firewall to block unauthorized access
• Install and enable security software to protect against malicious applications, viruses, spyware, and malware-based attacks
• Keep security software up to date
• Research mobile applications before downloading
• Maintain physical control of mobile devices
• Use adequate security to send or receive health information over public Wi-Fi networks
• Delete all stored health information on mobile devices before discarding the devices
* Recommended by the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology
The entire article is here.
Thanks to Gary Schoener for this article.
Ethics in the age of acceleration
By Vivek Wadhwa
The Washington Post
Originally posted July 13, 2013
Here are some excerpts:
Advances in technology are changing who we are and what we are. Today’s bio-engineered devices and exoskeletons are just a start. Over time, they will become larger components of our bodies, playing more critical roles. As the Glenn case on human-machine mergers shows, modern-day business practices lack an understanding of changes in technology.
But this is the tip of the iceberg. Preeta Bansal says that law and ethics, too, lag behind advances in technology. Bansal is the former White House general counsel and senior policy Advisor and prior to that served as Solicitor General of the state of New York. For example, she asks, how will existing rules of liability be applied when a self-driving car, such as the autonomous vehicle Google is designing, hits a pedestrian? Will robotic devices with attributes of human sentience be subject to criminal laws – either as victims or perpetrators? To what extent will individuals have the right to control the collection, maintenance, dissemination, and accessibility of private information?
The entire story is here.
The Washington Post
Originally posted July 13, 2013
Here are some excerpts:
Advances in technology are changing who we are and what we are. Today’s bio-engineered devices and exoskeletons are just a start. Over time, they will become larger components of our bodies, playing more critical roles. As the Glenn case on human-machine mergers shows, modern-day business practices lack an understanding of changes in technology.
But this is the tip of the iceberg. Preeta Bansal says that law and ethics, too, lag behind advances in technology. Bansal is the former White House general counsel and senior policy Advisor and prior to that served as Solicitor General of the state of New York. For example, she asks, how will existing rules of liability be applied when a self-driving car, such as the autonomous vehicle Google is designing, hits a pedestrian? Will robotic devices with attributes of human sentience be subject to criminal laws – either as victims or perpetrators? To what extent will individuals have the right to control the collection, maintenance, dissemination, and accessibility of private information?
The entire story is here.
It's Hard to Gross Out a Libertarian
The NYU psychologist on sex and the culture war
By Jim Epstein
Originally published on February 26, 2013
“Morality isn’t just about stealing and killing and honesty, it’s often about menstruation, and food, and who you are having sex with, and how you handle corpses,” says NYU social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, who is author of The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics.
By Jim Epstein
Originally published on February 26, 2013
“Morality isn’t just about stealing and killing and honesty, it’s often about menstruation, and food, and who you are having sex with, and how you handle corpses,” says NYU social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, who is author of The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)