By Drake Baer
Business Insider
Originally published May 28, 2015
Here is an excerpt:
What's counterintuitive about housing first is that people get to keep their homes even if they keep using drugs or alcohol. As we reported last February, this method is better at keeping people from lapsing back into homelessness than traditional housing methods, where homeless people have to lock down jobs and stay sober to keep their temporary housing.
So you could say that the Housing First method isn't just more compassionate to the people who suffer from homelessness, it's also more effective at keeping them off the streets and preventing the drain on community funds.
"If you move people into permanent supportive housing first, and then give them help, it seems to work better,” Nan Roman, the president and CEO of the National Alliance for Homelessness, told The New Yorker in September. “It's intuitive, in a way. People do better when they have stability."
The entire article is here.
Thursday, June 18, 2015
Editorial retraction
By Marcia McNutt
Science Magazine
Originally posted on May 28, 2015
Science, with the concurrence of author Donald P. Green, is retracting the 12 December 2014 Report “When contact changes minds: An experiment on transmission of support for gay equality” by LaCour and Green.
The reasons for retracting the paper are as follows: (i) Survey incentives were misrepresented. To encourage participation in the survey, respondents were claimed to have been given cash payments to enroll, to refer family and friends, and to complete multiple surveys. In correspondence received from Michael J. LaCour’s attorney, he confirmed that no such payments were made. (ii) The statement on sponsorship was false. In the Report, LaCour acknowledged funding from the Williams Institute, the Ford Foundation, and the Evelyn and Walter Haas Jr. Fund. Per correspondence from LaCour’s attorney, this statement was not true.
In addition to these known problems, independent researchers have noted certain statistical irregularities in the responses (2). LaCour has not produced the original survey data from which someone else could independently confirm the validity of the reported findings.
Michael J. LaCour does not agree to this Retraction.
Published online 28 May 2015
10.1126/science.aac6638
Here is the article
When contact changes minds: An experiment on transmission of support for gay equality
Michael J. LaCour and Donald P. Green
Science 12 December 2014: 1366-1369.
Science Magazine
Originally posted on May 28, 2015
Science, with the concurrence of author Donald P. Green, is retracting the 12 December 2014 Report “When contact changes minds: An experiment on transmission of support for gay equality” by LaCour and Green.
The reasons for retracting the paper are as follows: (i) Survey incentives were misrepresented. To encourage participation in the survey, respondents were claimed to have been given cash payments to enroll, to refer family and friends, and to complete multiple surveys. In correspondence received from Michael J. LaCour’s attorney, he confirmed that no such payments were made. (ii) The statement on sponsorship was false. In the Report, LaCour acknowledged funding from the Williams Institute, the Ford Foundation, and the Evelyn and Walter Haas Jr. Fund. Per correspondence from LaCour’s attorney, this statement was not true.
In addition to these known problems, independent researchers have noted certain statistical irregularities in the responses (2). LaCour has not produced the original survey data from which someone else could independently confirm the validity of the reported findings.
Michael J. LaCour does not agree to this Retraction.
Published online 28 May 2015
10.1126/science.aac6638
Here is the article
When contact changes minds: An experiment on transmission of support for gay equality
Michael J. LaCour and Donald P. Green
Science 12 December 2014: 1366-1369.
Wednesday, June 17, 2015
Tim Cook says privacy is an issue of morality
By Chris Matyszczyk
cnet.com
Originally posted on June 3, 2015
Here is an excerpt:
Cook, though, presented the issue in deeply political terms. He said: "We believe that people have a fundamental right to privacy. The American people demand it, the constitution demands it, morality demands it."
Morality is a feast that moves as it's eaten. It's admirable that Cook would appeal to our moral core, but how much is there left? And how many can identify it?
The entire article is here.
cnet.com
Originally posted on June 3, 2015
Here is an excerpt:
Cook, though, presented the issue in deeply political terms. He said: "We believe that people have a fundamental right to privacy. The American people demand it, the constitution demands it, morality demands it."
Morality is a feast that moves as it's eaten. It's admirable that Cook would appeal to our moral core, but how much is there left? And how many can identify it?
The entire article is here.
“Should I feel badly that I acted unethically?”
By Craig Klugman
bioethics.net
Originally posted May 29, 2015
Here is an excerpt:
At the base of this whole scenario is the concept that medicine is a business and businesses need to know what their competitors are doing. Unethical businesses try to increase market share not by producing a better product or service, but by undermining their competition. Aside from the medical ethics issues in this case, there is a very basic business ethics concern: Do not harm another to further your own interest. One of the most important professional values in medicine is altruism—that your choices and behaviors are for the benefit of another, not yourself. Roger loses sight of that when he only sees a problem when he feels personally threatened. Altruism is a basic component of a profession. Medicine is a profession. Business is not. Thus, in this situation the values of medicine and the values of business collide.
The corporatization of medicine as a center of profit has lost sight of the goal, which is to help people in need. That a non-medical professional would open a clinic “as a side business” is disturbing. Medicine should not be a way for one to achieve wealth, but rather be a way to be a servant to the community. Business ethics should always come second to medical ethics in a healing environment.
The entire article is here.
bioethics.net
Originally posted May 29, 2015
Here is an excerpt:
At the base of this whole scenario is the concept that medicine is a business and businesses need to know what their competitors are doing. Unethical businesses try to increase market share not by producing a better product or service, but by undermining their competition. Aside from the medical ethics issues in this case, there is a very basic business ethics concern: Do not harm another to further your own interest. One of the most important professional values in medicine is altruism—that your choices and behaviors are for the benefit of another, not yourself. Roger loses sight of that when he only sees a problem when he feels personally threatened. Altruism is a basic component of a profession. Medicine is a profession. Business is not. Thus, in this situation the values of medicine and the values of business collide.
The corporatization of medicine as a center of profit has lost sight of the goal, which is to help people in need. That a non-medical professional would open a clinic “as a side business” is disturbing. Medicine should not be a way for one to achieve wealth, but rather be a way to be a servant to the community. Business ethics should always come second to medical ethics in a healing environment.
The entire article is here.
Tuesday, June 16, 2015
Affective basis of judgment-behavior discrepancy in virtual experiences of moral dilemmas
I. Patil, C. Cogoni, N. Zangrando, L. Chittaro, and G. Silani
Social Neuroscience, 2014
Vol. 9, No. 1, 94-107
Abstract
Although research in moral psychology in the last decade has relied heavily on hypothetical moral dilemmas and has been effective in understanding moral judgment, how these judgments translate into behaviors remains a largely unexplored issue due to the harmful nature of the acts involved. To study this link, we follow a new approach based on a desktop virtual reality environment. In our within-subjects experiment, participants exhibited an order-dependent judgment-behavior discrepancy across temporally separated sessions, with many of them behaving in utilitarian manner in virtual reality dilemmas despite their nonutilitarian judgments for the same dilemmas in textual descriptions. This change in decisions reflected in the autonomic arousal of participants, with dilemmas in virtual reality being perceived more emotionally arousing than the ones in text, after controlling for general differences between the two presentation modalities (virtual reality vs. text). This suggests that moral decision-making in hypothetical moral dilemmas is susceptible to contextual saliency of the presentation of these dilemmas.
The entire article is here.
Social Neuroscience, 2014
Vol. 9, No. 1, 94-107
Abstract
Although research in moral psychology in the last decade has relied heavily on hypothetical moral dilemmas and has been effective in understanding moral judgment, how these judgments translate into behaviors remains a largely unexplored issue due to the harmful nature of the acts involved. To study this link, we follow a new approach based on a desktop virtual reality environment. In our within-subjects experiment, participants exhibited an order-dependent judgment-behavior discrepancy across temporally separated sessions, with many of them behaving in utilitarian manner in virtual reality dilemmas despite their nonutilitarian judgments for the same dilemmas in textual descriptions. This change in decisions reflected in the autonomic arousal of participants, with dilemmas in virtual reality being perceived more emotionally arousing than the ones in text, after controlling for general differences between the two presentation modalities (virtual reality vs. text). This suggests that moral decision-making in hypothetical moral dilemmas is susceptible to contextual saliency of the presentation of these dilemmas.
The entire article is here.
The Coming Merge of Human and Machine Intelligence
By Jeff Stibel
Tufts Now
Originally published May 22, 2015
Here is an excerpt:
The reason that our brains are shrinking is simple: our biology is focused on survival, not intelligence. Larger brains were necessary to allow us to learn to use language, tools and all of the innovations that allowed our species to thrive. But now that we have become civilized—domesticated, if you will—certain aspects of intelligence are less necessary.
This is actually true of all animals: domesticated animals, including dogs, cats, hamsters and birds, have 10 to 15 percent smaller brains than their counterparts in the wild. Because brains are so expensive to maintain, large brain sizes are selected out when nature sees no direct survival benefit. It is an inevitable fact of life.
Fortunately, another influence has evolved over the past 20,000 years that is making us smarter even as our brains are shrinking: technology. Technology has allowed us to leapfrog evolution, enabling our brains and bodies to do things that were otherwise impossible biologically. We weren’t born with wings, but we’ve created airplanes, helicopters, hot air balloons and hang gliders. We don’t have sufficient natural strength or speed to bring down big game, but we’ve created spears, rifles and livestock farms.
The entire article is here.
Tufts Now
Originally published May 22, 2015
Here is an excerpt:
The reason that our brains are shrinking is simple: our biology is focused on survival, not intelligence. Larger brains were necessary to allow us to learn to use language, tools and all of the innovations that allowed our species to thrive. But now that we have become civilized—domesticated, if you will—certain aspects of intelligence are less necessary.
This is actually true of all animals: domesticated animals, including dogs, cats, hamsters and birds, have 10 to 15 percent smaller brains than their counterparts in the wild. Because brains are so expensive to maintain, large brain sizes are selected out when nature sees no direct survival benefit. It is an inevitable fact of life.
Fortunately, another influence has evolved over the past 20,000 years that is making us smarter even as our brains are shrinking: technology. Technology has allowed us to leapfrog evolution, enabling our brains and bodies to do things that were otherwise impossible biologically. We weren’t born with wings, but we’ve created airplanes, helicopters, hot air balloons and hang gliders. We don’t have sufficient natural strength or speed to bring down big game, but we’ve created spears, rifles and livestock farms.
The entire article is here.
Monday, June 15, 2015
The increasing lifestyle use of modafinil by healthy people: safety and ethical issues
By Sebastian Porsdam-Mann & Barbara J Sahakian
Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences
Volume 4, August 2015, Pages 136–141
Pharmacological cognitive enhancers (PCEs) are used in the treatment of a variety of disorders, including targeting cognitive impairment and sleep abnormalities. Evidence suggests that PCEs also enhance cognition in healthy individuals. PCEs have attracted considerable interest recently, particularly from students, academics and the military. Proponents of PCE use in healthy people argue that these substances may be used to reduce fatigue-related and work-related accidents and improve learning outcomes.
In this article, safety concerns as well as ethical issues of fairness and coercion are considered. Discussion amongst experts in the field, government officials and members of society on the topic of the increasing lifestyle use of PCEs in healthy people is urgently needed.
The entire article is here.
Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences
Volume 4, August 2015, Pages 136–141
Pharmacological cognitive enhancers (PCEs) are used in the treatment of a variety of disorders, including targeting cognitive impairment and sleep abnormalities. Evidence suggests that PCEs also enhance cognition in healthy individuals. PCEs have attracted considerable interest recently, particularly from students, academics and the military. Proponents of PCE use in healthy people argue that these substances may be used to reduce fatigue-related and work-related accidents and improve learning outcomes.
In this article, safety concerns as well as ethical issues of fairness and coercion are considered. Discussion amongst experts in the field, government officials and members of society on the topic of the increasing lifestyle use of PCEs in healthy people is urgently needed.
The entire article is here.
Understanding ordinary unethical behavior: why people who value morality act immorally
by Francesca Gino
Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences
Volume 3, June 2015, Pages 107–111
Cheating, deception, organizational misconduct, and many other forms of unethical behavior are among the greatest challenges in today's society. As regularly highlighted by the media, extreme cases and costly scams (e.g., Enron, Bernard Madoff) are common. Yet, even more frequent and pervasive are cases of ‘ordinary’ unethical behavior — unethical actions committed by people who value about morality but behave unethically when faced with an opportunity to cheat. A growing body of research in behavioral ethics and moral psychology shows that even good people (i.e., people who care about being moral) can and often do bad things. Examples include cheating on taxes, deceiving in interpersonal relationships, overstating performance and contributions to teamwork, inflating business expense reports, and lying in negotiations.
When considered cumulatively, ordinary unethical behavior causes considerable societal damage. For instance, employee theft causes U.S. companies to lose approximately $52 billion per year [4]. This empirical evidence is striking in light of social–psychological research that, for decades, has robustly shown that people typically value honesty, believe strongly in their own morality, and strive to maintain a positive self-image as moral individuals.
The entire article is here.
Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences
Volume 3, June 2015, Pages 107–111
Cheating, deception, organizational misconduct, and many other forms of unethical behavior are among the greatest challenges in today's society. As regularly highlighted by the media, extreme cases and costly scams (e.g., Enron, Bernard Madoff) are common. Yet, even more frequent and pervasive are cases of ‘ordinary’ unethical behavior — unethical actions committed by people who value about morality but behave unethically when faced with an opportunity to cheat. A growing body of research in behavioral ethics and moral psychology shows that even good people (i.e., people who care about being moral) can and often do bad things. Examples include cheating on taxes, deceiving in interpersonal relationships, overstating performance and contributions to teamwork, inflating business expense reports, and lying in negotiations.
When considered cumulatively, ordinary unethical behavior causes considerable societal damage. For instance, employee theft causes U.S. companies to lose approximately $52 billion per year [4]. This empirical evidence is striking in light of social–psychological research that, for decades, has robustly shown that people typically value honesty, believe strongly in their own morality, and strive to maintain a positive self-image as moral individuals.
The entire article is here.
Sunday, June 14, 2015
The Evolutionary Roots of Morality and Professional Ethics
By John Gavazzi
Originally published in The Pennsylvania Psychologist
Every aspect of human existence stems from biological and cultural evolution. Even though evolutionary psychology is not a priority for clinical psychologists, the goal of this article is to highlight the evolutionary roots of human morals and professional ethics. At the broadest level possible, morality is defined as the ability to differentiate between right and wrong or good and bad. Most research in moral psychology highlights that many moral decisions are based on emotional responses and cognitive intuitions of right and wrong. Moral judgments are typically affective, rapid, instinctive and unconscious. The speedy cognitive processes and emotional responses are shortcuts intended to respond to environmental demands quickly and effectively. Most individuals do not take long to determine if abortion is right or not; or if same-sex marriage is right or not. How are our morals a function of evolution?
Primatologist Frans de Waal (2013) attempted to answer this question in his book, The Bonobo and The Atheist. The book is based on his work studying primates as well as other animals, like elephants. According to de Waal, morality originated within animal relationships first, prior to homo sapiens culture. He used observations to determine if there are any similarities between primates and humans in terms of morality. Both are social creatures who depend on relationships to function more effectively in the world. In order for primates to cooperate, form relationships, and work as groups, reciprocity and empathy are the two essential “pillars of morality” reported by de Wall. Reciprocity encompasses the bidirectional nature of relationships, including concepts such as give and take, returning favors, and playing fairly. Empathy, defined as the ability to understand and share the feelings of others, can occur at both the cognitive and affective levels. In terms of cognitive empathy, a person or a primate needs to have the mental capacity to understand another group members’ perspective. People and primates also need to gage or feel the emotions of others. As an example of empathy, humans and primates can both see emotional pain in others, demonstrate distress at what they are witnessing, and seek to console the sufferer.
The entire article is here.
Originally published in The Pennsylvania Psychologist
Every aspect of human existence stems from biological and cultural evolution. Even though evolutionary psychology is not a priority for clinical psychologists, the goal of this article is to highlight the evolutionary roots of human morals and professional ethics. At the broadest level possible, morality is defined as the ability to differentiate between right and wrong or good and bad. Most research in moral psychology highlights that many moral decisions are based on emotional responses and cognitive intuitions of right and wrong. Moral judgments are typically affective, rapid, instinctive and unconscious. The speedy cognitive processes and emotional responses are shortcuts intended to respond to environmental demands quickly and effectively. Most individuals do not take long to determine if abortion is right or not; or if same-sex marriage is right or not. How are our morals a function of evolution?
Primatologist Frans de Waal (2013) attempted to answer this question in his book, The Bonobo and The Atheist. The book is based on his work studying primates as well as other animals, like elephants. According to de Waal, morality originated within animal relationships first, prior to homo sapiens culture. He used observations to determine if there are any similarities between primates and humans in terms of morality. Both are social creatures who depend on relationships to function more effectively in the world. In order for primates to cooperate, form relationships, and work as groups, reciprocity and empathy are the two essential “pillars of morality” reported by de Wall. Reciprocity encompasses the bidirectional nature of relationships, including concepts such as give and take, returning favors, and playing fairly. Empathy, defined as the ability to understand and share the feelings of others, can occur at both the cognitive and affective levels. In terms of cognitive empathy, a person or a primate needs to have the mental capacity to understand another group members’ perspective. People and primates also need to gage or feel the emotions of others. As an example of empathy, humans and primates can both see emotional pain in others, demonstrate distress at what they are witnessing, and seek to console the sufferer.
The entire article is here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)