David McRaney
You are Not So Smart Blog: The Celebration of Self-Delusion
Originally published March 25, 2011 (and still relevant)
The Misconception: You make rational decisions based on the future value of objects, investments and experiences.
The Truth: Your decisions are tainted by the emotional investments you accumulate, and the more you invest in something the harder it becomes to abandon it.
The blog post is here.
Note: This heuristic may be one reason psychologists hang onto patients longer than required.
Monday, April 11, 2016
New Technologies as Social Experiments: An Ethical Framework
By John Danaher
Philosophical Disquisitions
Posted: Mar 19, 2016
What was Apple thinking when it launched the iPhone? It was an impressive bit of technology, poised to revolutionise the smartphone industry, and set to become nearly ubiquitous within a decade. The social consequences have been dramatic. Many of those consequences have been positive: increased connectivity, increased knowledge and increased day-to-day convenience.
A considerable number have been quite negative: the assault on privacy; increased distractability, endless social noise. But were any of them weighing on the mind of Steve Jobs when he stepped onstage to deliver his keynote on January 9th 2007?
Some probably were, but more than likely they leaned toward the positive end of the spectrum. Jobs was famous for his ‘reality distortion field’; it’s unlikely he allowed the negative to hold him back for more than a few milliseconds. It was a cool product and it was bound to be a big seller. That’s all that mattered. But when you think about it this attitude is pretty odd. The success of the iPhone and subsequent smartphones has given rise to one of the biggest social experiments in human history. The consequences of near-ubiquitous smartphone use were uncertain at the time.
The article is here.
Philosophical Disquisitions
Posted: Mar 19, 2016
What was Apple thinking when it launched the iPhone? It was an impressive bit of technology, poised to revolutionise the smartphone industry, and set to become nearly ubiquitous within a decade. The social consequences have been dramatic. Many of those consequences have been positive: increased connectivity, increased knowledge and increased day-to-day convenience.
A considerable number have been quite negative: the assault on privacy; increased distractability, endless social noise. But were any of them weighing on the mind of Steve Jobs when he stepped onstage to deliver his keynote on January 9th 2007?
Some probably were, but more than likely they leaned toward the positive end of the spectrum. Jobs was famous for his ‘reality distortion field’; it’s unlikely he allowed the negative to hold him back for more than a few milliseconds. It was a cool product and it was bound to be a big seller. That’s all that mattered. But when you think about it this attitude is pretty odd. The success of the iPhone and subsequent smartphones has given rise to one of the biggest social experiments in human history. The consequences of near-ubiquitous smartphone use were uncertain at the time.
The article is here.
Sunday, April 10, 2016
The Paradox of Nonlethal Weapons
Fritz Allhoff
Law and Bioethics Blog
Originally published March 10, 2016
Here are two excerpts:
These are all examples of lethal weapons. Importantly, though, there are myriad restrictions on the use of nonlethal weapons as well. And this gives rise to what I’ll call the “paradox of nonlethal weapons.” The paradox is simply that, sometimes, international law allows soldiers to kill, but not to disable. Or, in other words, some nonlethal weapons may be prohibited, while, at the same time, some lethal weaponry is not. As Donald Rumsfeld put it, “in many instances, our forces are allowed to shoot somebody and kill them, but they’re not allowed to use a nonlethal riot control agent.”
(cut)
Regardless of the specific technologies, though, the general question is this: why should there be limits on nonlethal weapons at the same time that lethal weapons are allowed? This leads to the curious—and perhaps perverse—outcome that enemy combatants can be killed, but not even temporarily disabled.
The article is here.
Law and Bioethics Blog
Originally published March 10, 2016
Here are two excerpts:
These are all examples of lethal weapons. Importantly, though, there are myriad restrictions on the use of nonlethal weapons as well. And this gives rise to what I’ll call the “paradox of nonlethal weapons.” The paradox is simply that, sometimes, international law allows soldiers to kill, but not to disable. Or, in other words, some nonlethal weapons may be prohibited, while, at the same time, some lethal weaponry is not. As Donald Rumsfeld put it, “in many instances, our forces are allowed to shoot somebody and kill them, but they’re not allowed to use a nonlethal riot control agent.”
(cut)
Regardless of the specific technologies, though, the general question is this: why should there be limits on nonlethal weapons at the same time that lethal weapons are allowed? This leads to the curious—and perhaps perverse—outcome that enemy combatants can be killed, but not even temporarily disabled.
The article is here.
Saturday, April 9, 2016
Machines That Will Think and Feel
By David Gelernter
The Wall Street Journal
Originally published March 18, 2016
Here is an excerpt:
AI prophets envision humanlike intelligence within a few decades: not expertise at a single, specified task only but the flexible, wide-ranging intelligence that Alan Turing foresaw in a 1950 paper proposing the test for machine intelligence that still bears his name. Once we have figured out how to build artificial minds with the average human IQ of 100, before long we will build machines with IQs of 500 and 5,000. The potential good and bad consequences are staggering. Humanity’s future is at stake.
Suppose you had a fleet of AI software apps with IQs of 150 (and eventually 500 or 5,000) to help you manage life. You download them like other apps, and they spread out into your phones and computers—and walls, clothes, office, car, luggage—traveling within the dense computer network of the near future that is laid in by the yard, like thin cloth, everywhere.
AI apps will read your email and write responses, awaiting your nod to send them. They will escort your tax return to the IRS, monitor what is done and report back. They will murmur (from your collar, maybe) that the sidewalk is icier than it looks, a friend is approaching across the street, your gait is slightly odd—have you hurt your back?
The article is here.
The Wall Street Journal
Originally published March 18, 2016
Here is an excerpt:
AI prophets envision humanlike intelligence within a few decades: not expertise at a single, specified task only but the flexible, wide-ranging intelligence that Alan Turing foresaw in a 1950 paper proposing the test for machine intelligence that still bears his name. Once we have figured out how to build artificial minds with the average human IQ of 100, before long we will build machines with IQs of 500 and 5,000. The potential good and bad consequences are staggering. Humanity’s future is at stake.
Suppose you had a fleet of AI software apps with IQs of 150 (and eventually 500 or 5,000) to help you manage life. You download them like other apps, and they spread out into your phones and computers—and walls, clothes, office, car, luggage—traveling within the dense computer network of the near future that is laid in by the yard, like thin cloth, everywhere.
AI apps will read your email and write responses, awaiting your nod to send them. They will escort your tax return to the IRS, monitor what is done and report back. They will murmur (from your collar, maybe) that the sidewalk is icier than it looks, a friend is approaching across the street, your gait is slightly odd—have you hurt your back?
The article is here.
Friday, April 8, 2016
Why Therapist Should Talk Politics
By Richard Brouillettee
The New York Times
Originally published March 15, 2016
Here is an except:
Typically, therapists avoid discussing social and political issues in sessions. If the patient raises them, the therapist will direct the conversation toward a discussion of symptoms, coping skills, the relevant issues in a patient’s childhood and family life. But I am growing more and more convinced that this is inadequate. Psychotherapy, as a field, is not prepared to respond to the major social issues affecting our patients’ lives.
When people can’t live up to the increasingly taxing demands of the economy, they often blame themselves and then struggle to live with the guilt. You see this same tendency, of course, in a variety of contexts, from children of divorce who feel responsible for their parents’ separation to the “survivor guilt” of those who live through disasters. In situations that may seem impossible or unacceptable, guilt becomes a shield for the anger you otherwise would feel: The child may be angry with her parents for divorcing, the survivor may be angry with those who perished.
The article is here.
The New York Times
Originally published March 15, 2016
Here is an except:
Typically, therapists avoid discussing social and political issues in sessions. If the patient raises them, the therapist will direct the conversation toward a discussion of symptoms, coping skills, the relevant issues in a patient’s childhood and family life. But I am growing more and more convinced that this is inadequate. Psychotherapy, as a field, is not prepared to respond to the major social issues affecting our patients’ lives.
When people can’t live up to the increasingly taxing demands of the economy, they often blame themselves and then struggle to live with the guilt. You see this same tendency, of course, in a variety of contexts, from children of divorce who feel responsible for their parents’ separation to the “survivor guilt” of those who live through disasters. In situations that may seem impossible or unacceptable, guilt becomes a shield for the anger you otherwise would feel: The child may be angry with her parents for divorcing, the survivor may be angry with those who perished.
The article is here.
Tennessee Lawmakers Pass Bill Permitting Mental Health Professionals to Discriminate
By Eric Levitz
New York Magazine
Originally posted April 6, 2016
Tennessee's House of Representatives just passed a bill that would allow therapists who believe homosexuality is the mark of Satan to refuse to treat gay clients. More precisely, the bill allows mental-health counselors to deny treatment to anyone who seeks help with "goals, outcomes, or behaviors that conflict with the sincerely held principles of the counselors or therapist." If the bill makes it into law, Tennessee would be the first state to allow therapists to pick what kind of clients they're willing to serve.
From a certain angle, the law may appear more significant on a symbolic level than a practical one: If you're a gay teenager looking for someone to counsel you through your first same-sex relationship, it's probably in your interest to see someone who doesn't think that relationship will bring you eternal hellfire. But what's really at stake in the legislation is what the ethical code for licensed mental-health professionals in the United States will entail. The bill was drafted in reaction to the American Counseling Association's 2014 code of ethics, which warned counselors not to impose their personal values onto their clients. Tennessee's bill would allow the state's mental-health professionals to reject clients — for failing to conform to their beliefs — without losing their licenses.
The article is here.
New York Magazine
Originally posted April 6, 2016
Tennessee's House of Representatives just passed a bill that would allow therapists who believe homosexuality is the mark of Satan to refuse to treat gay clients. More precisely, the bill allows mental-health counselors to deny treatment to anyone who seeks help with "goals, outcomes, or behaviors that conflict with the sincerely held principles of the counselors or therapist." If the bill makes it into law, Tennessee would be the first state to allow therapists to pick what kind of clients they're willing to serve.
From a certain angle, the law may appear more significant on a symbolic level than a practical one: If you're a gay teenager looking for someone to counsel you through your first same-sex relationship, it's probably in your interest to see someone who doesn't think that relationship will bring you eternal hellfire. But what's really at stake in the legislation is what the ethical code for licensed mental-health professionals in the United States will entail. The bill was drafted in reaction to the American Counseling Association's 2014 code of ethics, which warned counselors not to impose their personal values onto their clients. Tennessee's bill would allow the state's mental-health professionals to reject clients — for failing to conform to their beliefs — without losing their licenses.
The article is here.
Thursday, April 7, 2016
Apple’s Engineers, if Defiant, Would be in Sync With Ethics Code
By John Markoff
The New York Times
Originally published March 18, 2016
If Apple employees refused to perform the software engineering tasks that would be necessary to provide the F.B.I. with access to the contents of an iPhone used by one of the shooters in the December mass killing in San Bernardino, Calif., their decision would be explicitly supported by the code of ethics of a professional organization called the Association for Computing Machinery.
The group urges computer professionals to obey existing laws unless they raise ethical issues that come into play around privacy and technological systems that have the ability to harm the public.
The article is here.
The New York Times
Originally published March 18, 2016
If Apple employees refused to perform the software engineering tasks that would be necessary to provide the F.B.I. with access to the contents of an iPhone used by one of the shooters in the December mass killing in San Bernardino, Calif., their decision would be explicitly supported by the code of ethics of a professional organization called the Association for Computing Machinery.
The group urges computer professionals to obey existing laws unless they raise ethical issues that come into play around privacy and technological systems that have the ability to harm the public.
The article is here.
The Curious Case of Informed Consent for Egg Donation
by Alana Rose Cattapan
BMJ Blogs
Originally posted March 17, 2016
As Michael Dunn writes in a recent editorial for the JME, “no medical ethicist worth their salt would deny that consent is a foundational concept in contemporary medical ethics,” and it is an extraordinary understatement to say that much ink has been spilled on the topic. The spaces between consent in theory and in practice is the subject of Dunn’s editorial, where he describes the ways that scholarship about consent fails, at times, to account for the messiness of the real-life process.
Obtaining consent for egg donation is a particularly messy endeavour. We still know relatively little about the long term effects of egg donation, and donors are sometimes seen as secondary players while the recipient of the eggs – the woman carrying a pregnancy and having a child – is viewed as the primary patient. Like other corporeal donations – blood, organ, bone marrow – egg donation presents a curious case of medical treatment in which there are no physiological benefits to the donor.
The blog post is here.
BMJ Blogs
Originally posted March 17, 2016
As Michael Dunn writes in a recent editorial for the JME, “no medical ethicist worth their salt would deny that consent is a foundational concept in contemporary medical ethics,” and it is an extraordinary understatement to say that much ink has been spilled on the topic. The spaces between consent in theory and in practice is the subject of Dunn’s editorial, where he describes the ways that scholarship about consent fails, at times, to account for the messiness of the real-life process.
Obtaining consent for egg donation is a particularly messy endeavour. We still know relatively little about the long term effects of egg donation, and donors are sometimes seen as secondary players while the recipient of the eggs – the woman carrying a pregnancy and having a child – is viewed as the primary patient. Like other corporeal donations – blood, organ, bone marrow – egg donation presents a curious case of medical treatment in which there are no physiological benefits to the donor.
The blog post is here.
Wednesday, April 6, 2016
Ethical ways for psychologists to counteract negative reviews online
Pauline Wallin
The National Psychologist
Originally published March 9, 2016
If you Google your name, the first page of search results may show ratings from Healthgrades, Yelp and similar sites. Sometimes these ratings are less than kind. And sometimes they’re not even posted by real clients.
Upon seeing a negative review, your first thought might be, “How do I get this removed?” Check the website’s Terms of Service. Many rating sites stipulate that reviews must be based on facts and must not include inflammatory, racist, sexist or other prejudicial content.
Thus, if someone posts a scathing review, calling you “scum of the earth,” that would likely violate the rating site’s terms of service and your request for removal of that review will be granted.
If the review is obviously factually inaccurate and does not reflect your mode of practice – e.g., a complaint that you didn’t clean your stethoscope – you can probably get it removed.
The National Psychologist
Originally published March 9, 2016
If you Google your name, the first page of search results may show ratings from Healthgrades, Yelp and similar sites. Sometimes these ratings are less than kind. And sometimes they’re not even posted by real clients.
Upon seeing a negative review, your first thought might be, “How do I get this removed?” Check the website’s Terms of Service. Many rating sites stipulate that reviews must be based on facts and must not include inflammatory, racist, sexist or other prejudicial content.
Thus, if someone posts a scathing review, calling you “scum of the earth,” that would likely violate the rating site’s terms of service and your request for removal of that review will be granted.
If the review is obviously factually inaccurate and does not reflect your mode of practice – e.g., a complaint that you didn’t clean your stethoscope – you can probably get it removed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)