By Jordan Gaines Lewis
Gaines, on the Brain
Originally published November 9, 2015
Here is an excerpt:
But what if doctors and researchers could attack PTSD at the source: actually implanting or erasing specific memories in a person's brain?
It may sound like science fiction — not unlike Lord Voldemort luring Harry Potter to the Ministry of Magic by creating false images in Harry's mind, or the entire premise of the movie Inception — but science is actually getting close. In mice, neuroscientists have found ways to not only identify the location of certain memories, but to actually manipulate those memories.
But can we do this in humans — in patients with PTSD? And perhaps the bigger question: should we?
The entire blog post is here.
Saturday, December 5, 2015
Friday, December 4, 2015
Researchers uncover patterns in how scientists lie about their data
Science Simplified
Originally posted November 16, 2015
Even the best poker players have "tells" that give away when they're bluffing with a weak hand. Scientists who commit fraud have similar, but even more subtle, tells, and a pair of Stanford researchers have cracked the writing patterns of scientists who attempt to pass along falsified data.
The work, published in the Journal of Language and Social Psychology, could eventually help scientists identify falsified research before it is published.
There is a fair amount of research dedicated to understanding the ways liars lie. Studies have shown that liars generally tend to express more negative emotion terms and use fewer first-person pronouns. Fraudulent financial reports typically display higher levels of linguistic obfuscation – phrasing that is meant to distract from or conceal the fake data – than accurate reports.
The entire research review is here.
Originally posted November 16, 2015
Even the best poker players have "tells" that give away when they're bluffing with a weak hand. Scientists who commit fraud have similar, but even more subtle, tells, and a pair of Stanford researchers have cracked the writing patterns of scientists who attempt to pass along falsified data.
The work, published in the Journal of Language and Social Psychology, could eventually help scientists identify falsified research before it is published.
There is a fair amount of research dedicated to understanding the ways liars lie. Studies have shown that liars generally tend to express more negative emotion terms and use fewer first-person pronouns. Fraudulent financial reports typically display higher levels of linguistic obfuscation – phrasing that is meant to distract from or conceal the fake data – than accurate reports.
The entire research review is here.
Folk Moral Relativism
Hagop Sarkissian, John Park, David Tien, Jennifer Wright & Joshua Knobe
Mind and Language 26 (4):482-505 (2011)
Abstract
It has often been suggested that people's ordinary understanding of morality involves a belief in objective moral truths and a rejection of moral relativism. The results of six studies call this claim into question. Participants did offer apparently objectivist moral intuitions when considering individuals from their own culture, but they offered increasingly relativist intuitions considering individuals from increasingly different cultures or ways of life. The authors hypothesize that people do not have a fixed commitment to moral objectivism but instead tend to adopt different views depending on the degree to which they consider radically different perspectives on moral questions.
The entire article is here.
Mind and Language 26 (4):482-505 (2011)
Abstract
It has often been suggested that people's ordinary understanding of morality involves a belief in objective moral truths and a rejection of moral relativism. The results of six studies call this claim into question. Participants did offer apparently objectivist moral intuitions when considering individuals from their own culture, but they offered increasingly relativist intuitions considering individuals from increasingly different cultures or ways of life. The authors hypothesize that people do not have a fixed commitment to moral objectivism but instead tend to adopt different views depending on the degree to which they consider radically different perspectives on moral questions.
The entire article is here.
Thursday, December 3, 2015
Empathic Robots Built to Detect Human Emotions?
Science Simplified
Originally released
Here is an excerpt:
Zara determines users’ gender and ethnicity by their appearances before choosing the right medium of communications. As an early version of what intends to be a truly empathetic robot, Zara could already grasp a person’s character by asking questions about their childhood, or experiences with their bosses. Zara could also make comments in response to what the person has said, taking into account his tones and facial expressions. The robot has received positive feedback while on display at the World Economic Forum in September 2015.
The entire article is here.
Originally released
Here is an excerpt:
Zara determines users’ gender and ethnicity by their appearances before choosing the right medium of communications. As an early version of what intends to be a truly empathetic robot, Zara could already grasp a person’s character by asking questions about their childhood, or experiences with their bosses. Zara could also make comments in response to what the person has said, taking into account his tones and facial expressions. The robot has received positive feedback while on display at the World Economic Forum in September 2015.
The entire article is here.
We have greater moral obligations to robots than to humans
By Eric Schwitzgebel
Aeon - Opinion
Originally posted November 12, 2015
Here is an excerpt:
I think that, if we someday create robots with human-like cognitive and emotional capacities, we owe them more moral consideration than we would normally owe to otherwise similar human beings.
Here’s why: we will have been their creators and designers. We are thus directly responsible both for their existence and for their happy or unhappy state. If a robot needlessly suffers or fails to reach its developmental potential, it will be in substantial part because of our failure – a failure in our creation, design or nurturance of it. Our moral relation to robots will more closely resemble the relation that parents have to their children, or that gods have to the beings they create, than the relationship between human strangers.
Wednesday, December 2, 2015
Volkswagen and the Future of Honesty
By Peter Singer
Project Syndicate
Originally posted October 7, 2015
Here is an excerpt:
Then came the revelations that Volkswagen installed software on 11 million diesel cars that reduced emissions of nitrogen oxides only when the cars were undergoing emissions tests, enabling them to pass, even though in normal use their emissions levels greatly exceeded permitted levels. In the wake of the ensuing scandal, the New York Times invited experts to comment on whether “the pervasiveness of cheating” has made moral behavior passé. The newspaper published their responses under the heading: “Is Honesty for Suckers?”
Cynics would say that nothing has changed in the last 40 years, and nothing will change, because in business, all talk of ethics is intended only to camouflage the ultimate aim: profit maximization. Yet Volkswagen’s cheating is odd, because, even – or especially – by the standard of profit maximization, it was an extraordinarily reckless gamble. Anyone at Volkswagen who knew what the software was doing should have been able to predict the company was likely to lose.
The entire article is here.
Project Syndicate
Originally posted October 7, 2015
Here is an excerpt:
Then came the revelations that Volkswagen installed software on 11 million diesel cars that reduced emissions of nitrogen oxides only when the cars were undergoing emissions tests, enabling them to pass, even though in normal use their emissions levels greatly exceeded permitted levels. In the wake of the ensuing scandal, the New York Times invited experts to comment on whether “the pervasiveness of cheating” has made moral behavior passé. The newspaper published their responses under the heading: “Is Honesty for Suckers?”
Cynics would say that nothing has changed in the last 40 years, and nothing will change, because in business, all talk of ethics is intended only to camouflage the ultimate aim: profit maximization. Yet Volkswagen’s cheating is odd, because, even – or especially – by the standard of profit maximization, it was an extraordinarily reckless gamble. Anyone at Volkswagen who knew what the software was doing should have been able to predict the company was likely to lose.
The entire article is here.
Losing Informed Consent
By Paul Burcher
Bioethics Blog
Originally posted November 11, 2015
Here is an excerpt:
This case exemplifies the ambiguity around “informed consent.” The nurse was referring to a document, a signed piece of paper; I was referencing a conversation, a process involving sharing information and answering questions. From a legal perspective, informed consent would seem to represent the document, whereas from an ethical perspective it is the process, not the paper that embodies informed consent. Of course, ultimately, both have a role to play, and in the case of a significant procedure it is best to have both sides of this informed consent coin documented. But what I would like to suggest is that the signed document represents an artifact—a physical symbol that two parties agree that the real nature of informed consent has been fulfilled. The piece of paper is derivative, and a signed document that lacks the ethical underpinning of a complete and valid consent discussion is meaningless. A lawyer would probably give a slightly different answer, but this is an ethics blog, not a discussion of medical malpractice.
So if the signed document is not an essential aspect of informed consent, but rather evidence of the process that has supposed to have had occurred, what then represents the essential elements of informed consent? The standard answer is really not bad: all relevant information regarding the procedure, its risks, and alternatives have been discussed, and the patient’s questions have been answered. But the devil is always in the details, and in this case the detail of importance is how we define relevant.
The entire blog post is here.
Bioethics Blog
Originally posted November 11, 2015
Here is an excerpt:
This case exemplifies the ambiguity around “informed consent.” The nurse was referring to a document, a signed piece of paper; I was referencing a conversation, a process involving sharing information and answering questions. From a legal perspective, informed consent would seem to represent the document, whereas from an ethical perspective it is the process, not the paper that embodies informed consent. Of course, ultimately, both have a role to play, and in the case of a significant procedure it is best to have both sides of this informed consent coin documented. But what I would like to suggest is that the signed document represents an artifact—a physical symbol that two parties agree that the real nature of informed consent has been fulfilled. The piece of paper is derivative, and a signed document that lacks the ethical underpinning of a complete and valid consent discussion is meaningless. A lawyer would probably give a slightly different answer, but this is an ethics blog, not a discussion of medical malpractice.
So if the signed document is not an essential aspect of informed consent, but rather evidence of the process that has supposed to have had occurred, what then represents the essential elements of informed consent? The standard answer is really not bad: all relevant information regarding the procedure, its risks, and alternatives have been discussed, and the patient’s questions have been answered. But the devil is always in the details, and in this case the detail of importance is how we define relevant.
The entire blog post is here.
Tuesday, December 1, 2015
How Corrupt Is Your State?
by AJ Vicens
Moyers and Company
Originally posted November 10, 2015
Here is an excerpt:
That’s according to the State Integrity Investigation, a sweeping project released today by the nonprofit investigative reporting group the Center for Public Integrity. The Washington, DC-based Center worked with experienced journalists in every state (but not the District of Columbia) to assess state government rules and systems that were in place between January 2013 and March 2015. The journalists combed through records and laws, using 245 specific “indicators” that measured transparency and accountability, for example public access to information or state lobbying disclosure laws. Good government experts in each state, and later editors at Global Integrity, a government watchdog that tracks governmental accountability around the world, then reviewed the assessments for consistency and accuracy. Each state was assigned an overall letter grade, but also scores on 13 subcategories that include political finance, election oversight, lobbying, and ethics, among others.
The entire article is here.
Moyers and Company
Originally posted November 10, 2015
Here is an excerpt:
That’s according to the State Integrity Investigation, a sweeping project released today by the nonprofit investigative reporting group the Center for Public Integrity. The Washington, DC-based Center worked with experienced journalists in every state (but not the District of Columbia) to assess state government rules and systems that were in place between January 2013 and March 2015. The journalists combed through records and laws, using 245 specific “indicators” that measured transparency and accountability, for example public access to information or state lobbying disclosure laws. Good government experts in each state, and later editors at Global Integrity, a government watchdog that tracks governmental accountability around the world, then reviewed the assessments for consistency and accuracy. Each state was assigned an overall letter grade, but also scores on 13 subcategories that include political finance, election oversight, lobbying, and ethics, among others.
The entire article is here.
I can't get over the first time a patient killed herself
Anonymous
The Guardian
Originally posted November 12, 2015
It wasn’t an if, but a when. I knew it would happen eventually. I knew it would suck. Finding out a patient has killed themselves definitely does. And it should. The first time something like this happens and it stops sucking, I will immediately hand in my notice and do something else.
I found out one lunchtime. My colleague, Matt, and I were talking about responsibility and moaning about how, as therapists, we can be expected to be “on call” 24/7, soothing the distress of those we work with, far beyond the limits of the therapeutic hour we spend with patients. We had received a message from our patient Jenny’s friend asking if we could ring her back. In the kitchen, while I was eating risotto we decided between the two of us who should chase it up. Matt went to call her and returned a few minutes later looking grim. He asked if he could speak to me privately. I sensed something was seriously wrong. I said, “It’s not great, is it?”. He just said, “No”.
The entire article is here.
The Guardian
Originally posted November 12, 2015
It wasn’t an if, but a when. I knew it would happen eventually. I knew it would suck. Finding out a patient has killed themselves definitely does. And it should. The first time something like this happens and it stops sucking, I will immediately hand in my notice and do something else.
I found out one lunchtime. My colleague, Matt, and I were talking about responsibility and moaning about how, as therapists, we can be expected to be “on call” 24/7, soothing the distress of those we work with, far beyond the limits of the therapeutic hour we spend with patients. We had received a message from our patient Jenny’s friend asking if we could ring her back. In the kitchen, while I was eating risotto we decided between the two of us who should chase it up. Matt went to call her and returned a few minutes later looking grim. He asked if he could speak to me privately. I sensed something was seriously wrong. I said, “It’s not great, is it?”. He just said, “No”.
The entire article is here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)