Wireless Philosophy
Published on Jun 8, 2015
Using the method of experimental philosophy, Nina Strohminger (Yale University) and Shaun Nichols (University of Arizona) compare philosophical and everyday answers to the question "Which aspect of the self is most essential for personal identity?"
Dr. Nina Strohminger was kind enough to share thoughts on her research in the Ethics and Psychology podcast: The Moral Self, Moral Injury, and Moral Emotions.
Wednesday, June 24, 2015
Remembering a Just World: Motivated Recall of Victim Culpability
Sahil Sharma
New York University
Research over the last 30 years has demonstrated that individuals will often blame the victim for his or her misfortune. Just World Theory (Lerner, 1980) argues that individuals do so because they are
motivated to perceive their world as fair and just. Gender seems to moderate the effect of Belief in a Just World (BJW) on victim blame. Conflicting evidence suggests that this motivation affects women in different ways from men—she either blames the victim more (Janoff-Bulman, 1980) when there is a threat to the just world or less (Foley & Pigot, 2000) regardless of threat. It is less clear whether just world concerns impact recall of actual victim culpability. In this paper, we investigate whether individuals misremember information about victim responsibility for a sexual assault in order to satisfy the goal to believe that the world is just. We hypothesize that individuals whose just world motive has been experimentally heightened will be more likely to misremember details of a sexual assault in a way that confers responsibility on the victim. Results showed that memory mediates victim-blame. Men, when faced with a high threat to their belief in a just world, blamed the victim more than did women and misremembered the victimization of a female to inculcate greater blame.
The entire paper is here.
New York University
Research over the last 30 years has demonstrated that individuals will often blame the victim for his or her misfortune. Just World Theory (Lerner, 1980) argues that individuals do so because they are
motivated to perceive their world as fair and just. Gender seems to moderate the effect of Belief in a Just World (BJW) on victim blame. Conflicting evidence suggests that this motivation affects women in different ways from men—she either blames the victim more (Janoff-Bulman, 1980) when there is a threat to the just world or less (Foley & Pigot, 2000) regardless of threat. It is less clear whether just world concerns impact recall of actual victim culpability. In this paper, we investigate whether individuals misremember information about victim responsibility for a sexual assault in order to satisfy the goal to believe that the world is just. We hypothesize that individuals whose just world motive has been experimentally heightened will be more likely to misremember details of a sexual assault in a way that confers responsibility on the victim. Results showed that memory mediates victim-blame. Men, when faced with a high threat to their belief in a just world, blamed the victim more than did women and misremembered the victimization of a female to inculcate greater blame.
The entire paper is here.
Tuesday, June 23, 2015
UO whistleblowers: giving student's confidential therapy records to campus lawyers felt wrong
By Richard Read
The Oregonian
Originally posted June 4, 2015
The executive assistant to the director of the University of Oregon's Counseling Center disobeyed instructions last December and showed a therapist a confidential email from their boss.
The email's directions horrified both Karen Stokes, the director's assistant, and Jennifer Morlok, the clinician.
Shelly Kerr, the center's director, told Stokes in the Dec. 8, 2014, message to give the university's legal office a client's entire case file -- including notes taken by Morlok during private therapy sessions.
The client was a UO freshman who says she was gang raped multiple times on March 8, 2014, by three members of the men's basketball team.
Normally mental-health professionals go to great lengths, even in the face of court orders, to release as little information about clients as possible. Clinicians want patients to feel safe expressing their most intimate thoughts and feelings during therapy.
The entire article is here.
The Oregonian
Originally posted June 4, 2015
The executive assistant to the director of the University of Oregon's Counseling Center disobeyed instructions last December and showed a therapist a confidential email from their boss.
The email's directions horrified both Karen Stokes, the director's assistant, and Jennifer Morlok, the clinician.
Shelly Kerr, the center's director, told Stokes in the Dec. 8, 2014, message to give the university's legal office a client's entire case file -- including notes taken by Morlok during private therapy sessions.
The client was a UO freshman who says she was gang raped multiple times on March 8, 2014, by three members of the men's basketball team.
Normally mental-health professionals go to great lengths, even in the face of court orders, to release as little information about clients as possible. Clinicians want patients to feel safe expressing their most intimate thoughts and feelings during therapy.
The entire article is here.
Increased Grey Matter in Those With Higher Levels of Moral Reasoning
Neuroscience News
Originally published June 3, 2015
Research from Penn scientists and business scholars aims to link moral reasoning with brain architecture.
Individuals with a higher level of moral reasoning skills showed increased gray matter in the areas of the brain implicated in complex social behavior, decision making, and conflict processing as compared to subjects at a lower level of moral reasoning, according to new research from the Perelman School of Medicine and the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania in collaboration with a researcher from Charité Universitätsmediz in Berlin, Germany. The team studied students in the Masters of Business Administration (MBA) program at the Wharton School. The work is published in the June 3rd edition of the journal PLOS ONE.
The article is here.
Originally published June 3, 2015
Research from Penn scientists and business scholars aims to link moral reasoning with brain architecture.
Individuals with a higher level of moral reasoning skills showed increased gray matter in the areas of the brain implicated in complex social behavior, decision making, and conflict processing as compared to subjects at a lower level of moral reasoning, according to new research from the Perelman School of Medicine and the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania in collaboration with a researcher from Charité Universitätsmediz in Berlin, Germany. The team studied students in the Masters of Business Administration (MBA) program at the Wharton School. The work is published in the June 3rd edition of the journal PLOS ONE.
The article is here.
Monday, June 22, 2015
The Attack on Truth
We have entered an age of willful ignorance
By Lee McIntyre
The Chronicle of Higher Education
Originally published June 8, 2015
To see how we treat the concept of truth these days, one might think we just don’t care anymore. Politicians pronounce that global warming is a hoax. An alarming number of middle-class parents have stopped giving their children routine vaccinations, on the basis of discredited research. Meanwhile many commentators in the media — and even some in our universities — have all but abandoned their responsibility to set the record straight. (It doesn’t help when scientists occasionally have to retract their own work.)
Humans have always held some wrongheaded beliefs that were later subject to correction by reason and evidence. But we have reached a watershed moment, when the enterprise of basing our beliefs on fact rather than intuition is truly in peril.
It’s not just garden-variety ignorance that periodically appears in public-opinion polls that makes us cringe or laugh. A 2009 survey by the California Academy of Sciences found that only 53 percent of American adults knew how long it takes for Earth to revolve around the sun. Only 59 percent knew that the earliest humans did not live at the same time as the dinosaurs.
The entire article is here.
By Lee McIntyre
The Chronicle of Higher Education
Originally published June 8, 2015
To see how we treat the concept of truth these days, one might think we just don’t care anymore. Politicians pronounce that global warming is a hoax. An alarming number of middle-class parents have stopped giving their children routine vaccinations, on the basis of discredited research. Meanwhile many commentators in the media — and even some in our universities — have all but abandoned their responsibility to set the record straight. (It doesn’t help when scientists occasionally have to retract their own work.)
Humans have always held some wrongheaded beliefs that were later subject to correction by reason and evidence. But we have reached a watershed moment, when the enterprise of basing our beliefs on fact rather than intuition is truly in peril.
It’s not just garden-variety ignorance that periodically appears in public-opinion polls that makes us cringe or laugh. A 2009 survey by the California Academy of Sciences found that only 53 percent of American adults knew how long it takes for Earth to revolve around the sun. Only 59 percent knew that the earliest humans did not live at the same time as the dinosaurs.
The entire article is here.
Episode 21: Ethics and Skills for Psychologist as Supervisor-Post-Doctoral Supervision
Podcasts 21, 22, and 23 will provide supervisors and supervisees with an understanding of the skills and ethical issues surrounding supervision, including the Pennsylvania State Board of Psychology’s Regulations dealing with postdoctoral supervision. The workshop will review the basic requirements for ethical supervision, common pitfalls, and give supervisors an understanding of the requirements that must be met for obtaining post-doctoral supervision.
In this episode, John's guest is John Jay Mills, Ph.D., ABPP, a psychologist and professor at Indiana University of Pennsylvania.
At the end of the podcast series the participants will be able to:
1. Describe essential factors involved in ethically sound and effective supervision;
2. List or identify the State Board of Psychology requirements for post-doctoral supervision;
3. Explain ways to improve supervisee's level of competence, self-reflection, and professionalism; &
4. Identify strategies to comply with the Pennsylvania State Board of Psychology regulations on supervision of post-doctoral trainees.
1. Describe essential factors involved in ethically sound and effective supervision;
2. List or identify the State Board of Psychology requirements for post-doctoral supervision;
3. Explain ways to improve supervisee's level of competence, self-reflection, and professionalism; &
4. Identify strategies to comply with the Pennsylvania State Board of Psychology regulations on supervision of post-doctoral trainees.
PA § 41.32. Experience qualifications to become a psychologist
Verification of Post-doctoral Experience from the Pennsylvania State Board of Psychology
Sunday, June 21, 2015
How the brain makes decisions
Science Simplified
Originally published on May 25, 2015
Here are two excerpts:
The results of the study drew three major conclusions. First, that human decision-making can perform just as well as current sophisticated computer models under non-Markovian conditions, such as the presence of a switch-state. This is a significant finding in our current efforts to model the human brain and develop artificial intelligence systems.
Secondly, that delayed feedback significantly impairs human decision-making and learning, even though it does not impact the performance of computer models, which have perfect memory. In the second experiment, it took human participants ten times more attempts to correctly recall and assign arrows to icons. Feedback is a crucial element of decision-making and learning. We set a goal, make a decision about how to achieve it, act accordingly, and then find out whether or not our goal was met. In some cases, e.g. learning to ride a bike, feedback on every decision we make for balancing, pedaling, braking etc. is instant: either we stay up and going, or we fall down. But in many other cases, such as playing backgammon, feedback is significantly delayed; it can take a while to find out if each move has led us to victory or not.
The entire article is here.
Source Material:
Clarke AM, Friedrich J, Tartaglia EM, Marchesotti S, Senn W, Herzog MH. Human and Machine Learning in Non-Markovian Decision Making. PLoS One 21 April 2015.
Originally published on May 25, 2015
Here are two excerpts:
The results of the study drew three major conclusions. First, that human decision-making can perform just as well as current sophisticated computer models under non-Markovian conditions, such as the presence of a switch-state. This is a significant finding in our current efforts to model the human brain and develop artificial intelligence systems.
Secondly, that delayed feedback significantly impairs human decision-making and learning, even though it does not impact the performance of computer models, which have perfect memory. In the second experiment, it took human participants ten times more attempts to correctly recall and assign arrows to icons. Feedback is a crucial element of decision-making and learning. We set a goal, make a decision about how to achieve it, act accordingly, and then find out whether or not our goal was met. In some cases, e.g. learning to ride a bike, feedback on every decision we make for balancing, pedaling, braking etc. is instant: either we stay up and going, or we fall down. But in many other cases, such as playing backgammon, feedback is significantly delayed; it can take a while to find out if each move has led us to victory or not.
The entire article is here.
Source Material:
Clarke AM, Friedrich J, Tartaglia EM, Marchesotti S, Senn W, Herzog MH. Human and Machine Learning in Non-Markovian Decision Making. PLoS One 21 April 2015.
Saturday, June 20, 2015
Mind Over Masters: The Question of Free Will
World Science Festival
Originally streamed May 30, 2015
Do we make conscious decisions? Or, as many scientists and philosophers argue, are all of our actions predetermined? And if they are predetermined—if we don't have free will—are we responsible for what we do? These are questions that have been debated for centuries, but now neurotechnology is allowing scientists to study brain activity neuron by neuron to try to determine how and when our brains decide to act. With neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers we’ll use the latest findings to explore the question of just how much agency we have in the world, and how the answer impacts our ethics, our behavior, and our society.
Originally streamed May 30, 2015
Do we make conscious decisions? Or, as many scientists and philosophers argue, are all of our actions predetermined? And if they are predetermined—if we don't have free will—are we responsible for what we do? These are questions that have been debated for centuries, but now neurotechnology is allowing scientists to study brain activity neuron by neuron to try to determine how and when our brains decide to act. With neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers we’ll use the latest findings to explore the question of just how much agency we have in the world, and how the answer impacts our ethics, our behavior, and our society.
Friday, June 19, 2015
Why Free Will Makes No Sense
By Daniel Miessler
danielmiessler.com
Originally posted June 3, 2015
In this short presentation I discuss the flaws with the common and Compatibilist views on Free Will. It covers the following topics:
Definitions
Absolute and Practical Free Will
Experience is Not Reality
Moral Responsibility
The Ability to Do Otherwise
Real-world Implications of Discarding Free Will
danielmiessler.com
Originally posted June 3, 2015
In this short presentation I discuss the flaws with the common and Compatibilist views on Free Will. It covers the following topics:
Definitions
Absolute and Practical Free Will
Experience is Not Reality
Moral Responsibility
The Ability to Do Otherwise
Real-world Implications of Discarding Free Will
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)