Weary of Relativity

By Frank Bruni
The New York Times
Originally posted May 23, 2015

Here are two excerpts:

Then there’s the moral jujitsu that American voters have become especially adept at in these polarized times. Many of them unreservedly exalt their party’s emissary — and inoculate him or her from disparagement — simply because he or she represents the alternative to someone from the other side. Being the lesser of evils is confused with being virtuous, though it’s a far, far cry from that.

(cut)

There are standards to which government, religion and higher education should be held. There are examples that politicians and principled business people should endeavor to set, regardless of whether their peers are making that effort. There’s right and wrong, not just better or worse.

And there’s a word for recognizing and rising to that: leadership. We could use more of it.

The entire article is here.

The Pope on Climate Change, Science, and Morality

By Angela Anderson
The Equation: a blog on independent science + practical solutions
Originally published June 12, 2015

Here is an excerpt:

Sustainability and climate change are not political and economic issues — they are moral issues

News reports indicate that the encyclical will assert that sustainability and climate change are not political and economic issues — they are moral issues. It will point to harm to human beings that result from climate change – from reduced drinking water availability to growing hunger to complete inundation of communities — and sometimes entire countries — by rising seas. The encyclical will also bring a theological lens to the politicized climate conversation, citing scripture that links God’s greatness with the grandeur of the earth; calling for stewardship, and calling out the failure to protect the earth as sacrilegious. And it will reaffirm that the burden of climate change or attempts to deal with climate change should not be borne solely by the poor – those whom Jesus called “the least of these” – but should be shouldered by those to whom the most has been given.

The entire article is here.

Humans did not invent morality says study showing moral behaviour in rats

By Jayalakshmi K
IBT
Originally published June 8, 2015

Humans probably inherited morality rather than invented it, suggests an experiment showing that rats can be as morally strong as humans.

The rodents tend to help out fellow rats, even in situations where they do not stand to lose anything by refusing help.

This demonstration of prosocial behaviour seen in the new experiment led the researchers to suggest biological mechanisms probably evolved to keep a group of individuals together.

The entire article is here.

When the Therapist Is a Quack

By Olga Khazan
The Atlantic
Originally published June 4, 2015

Here is an excerpt:

Some conversion therapy practitioners are bona-fide psychologists or counselors. But many operate on the fringes, pitching themselves either as religious mentors or, in Downing’s case, as mere “coaches.” In some ways, the rise of therapeutic-sounding titles like “life coach”—with its patina of personal growth and near absence of accountability—has allowed conversion therapy to flourish.

“To my knowledge there is no regulation of the [life coach] title, nor are they licensed by any state,” said Jack Drescher, a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst who helped write the American Psychological Association’s reports on conversion therapies. “As far as I know, life coaches can say and do pretty much whatever they want.” In most states, he added, even the title of "therapist" is not regulated: Anyone who wants to hang a shingle, can.

The entire article is here.

Episode 22: 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, and Samuel J. Knapp, Ed.D., ABPP, psychologist and Professional Affairs Officer at the Pennsylvania Psychological Association.

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.



The associated SlideShare presentation can be found here.

The YouTube video can be found here.

PA § 41.33. Supervisor requirements

PA § 41.32. Experience qualifications to become a psychologist

Verification of Post-doctoral Experience from the Pennsylvania State Board of Psychology

Is God Necessary for Morality?

The Veritas Forum
William Lane Craig and Shelly Kagan
Published on June 24, 2014

In the midst of a largely secular university and a highly pluralistic nation, the Columbia community is home to widely varying notions of how a "good life" is to be lived. Dr. William Lane Craig adds to the conversation by questioning the common assumption that the existence of God is not necessary for morality. "Can we really be good apart from God?" Yale philosopher Dr. Shelly Kagan defends the idea of morality without God in a debate with Dr. Craig that questions the basis of many views that are held today. A Q&A session with the audience follows the debate.

Rein It In, Dr Oz

By Art Caplan
MedScape
Originally published April 30, 2015

Dr Mehmet Oz is in trouble again. He was accused by 10 physicians in a letter of promoting quackery. They demanded that Columbia University Medical Center fire Dr Oz. Now, I can say with some authority that as "America's Doctor"—the person who, for many Americans, is the voice of medicine—he is not going to be fired. His show is not going to end. That isn't going to happen.

Dr Oz has evoked this response from these 10 physicians because he continues to push the border of legitimacy on his shows with respect to touting things for which there isn't much evidence. And that is a problem. Many doctors tell me that when Dr Oz endorses something—green coffee beans, some neti pot to cure the common cold—whatever it is, they are going to be asked about it, and their patients run out and buy it. He has enormous power when it comes to the platform he has built. And let's face it: He is an effective communicator. His show is fun to watch. I understand why the American people are paying attention to Dr Oz.

The entire article is here.

Have You Ever Been Wrong?

By Peter Wehner
Commentary
Originally posted June 6, 2015

Here is an excerpt:

“Thus,” Mr. Mehlman writes, “policy positions were not driving partisanship, but rather partisanship was driving policy positions. Voters took whichever position was ascribed to their party, irrespective of the specific policies that position entailed.”

So what explains this? Some of it probably has to do with deference. Many people don’t follow public policy issues very closely — but they do know whose team they’re on. And so if their team endorses a particular policy, they’re strongly inclined to as well. They assume the position merits support based on who (and who does not) supports it.

The flip side of this is mistrust. If you’re a Democrat and you are told about the details of a Republican plan, you might automatically assume it’s a bad one (the same goes for how a Republican would receive a Democratic plan). If a party you despise holds a view on a certain issue, your reflex will be to hold that opposite view.

The entire article is here.

Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory

By Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber
Behavioral and Brain Sciences (2011) 34, 57 –111
doi:10.1017/S0140525X10000968

Abstract:

Reasoning is generally seen as a means to improve knowledge and make better decisions. However, much evidence shows that reasoning often leads to epistemic distortions and poor decisions. This suggests that the function of reasoning should be rethought.  Our hypothesis is that the function of reasoning is argumentative. It is to devise and evaluate arguments intended to persuade.  Reasoning so conceived is adaptive given the exceptional dependence of humans on communication and their vulnerability to misinformation. A wide range of evidence in the psychology of reasoning and decision making can be reinterpreted and better explained in the light of this hypothesis. Poor performance in standard reasoning tasks is explained by the lack of argumentative context. When the same problems are placed in a proper argumentative setting, people turn out to be skilled arguers. Skilled arguers, however, are not after the truth but after arguments supporting their views. This explains the notorious confirmation bias.  This bias is apparent not only when people are actually arguing, but also when they are reasoning proactively from the perspective of having to defend their opinions. Reasoning so motivated can distort evaluations and attitudes and allow erroneous beliefs to
persist. Proactively used reasoning also favors decisions that are easy to justify but not necessarily better. In all these instances traditionally described as failures or flaws, reasoning does exactly what can be expected of an argumentative device: Look for arguments that support a given conclusion, and, ceteris paribus, favor conclusions for which arguments can be found.

The entire article is here.