Matthew M. Hollander and Douglas W. Maynard
Social Psychology Quarterly August 2, 2016
Abstract
We introduce conversation analysis (CA) as a methodological innovation that contributes to studies of the classic Milgram experiment, one allowing for substantive advances in the social psychological “obedience to authority” paradigm. Data are 117 audio recordings of Milgram’s original experimental sessions. We discuss methodological features of CA and then show how CA allows for methodological advances in understanding the Milgramesque situation by treating it as a three-party interactional scene, explicating an interactional dilemma for the “Teacher” subjects, and decomposing categorical outcomes (obedience vs. defiance) into their concrete interactional routes. Substantively, we analyze two kinds of resistance to directives enacted by both obedient and defiant participants, who may orient to how continuation would be troublesome primarily for themselves (self-attentive resistance) or for the person receiving shocks (other-attentive resistance). Additionally, we find that defiant participants mobilize two other-attentive practices almost never used by obedient ones: Golden Rule accounts and “letting the Learner decide.”
The article is here.
Sunday, December 11, 2016
Saturday, December 10, 2016
Decision-making on behalf of people living with dementia: how do surrogate decision-makers decide?
Deirdre Fetherstonhaugh, Linda McAuliffe, Michael Bauer, Chris Shanley
J Med Ethics
doi:10.1136/medethics-2015-103301
Abstract
Background
For people living with dementia, the capacity to make important decisions about themselves diminishes as their condition advances. As a result, important decisions (affecting lifestyle, medical treatment and end of life) become the responsibility of someone else, as the surrogate decision-maker. This study investigated how surrogate decision-makers make important decisions on behalf of a person living with dementia.
Methods
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 34 family members who had formally or informally taken on the role of surrogate decision-maker. Thematic analysis of interviews was undertaken, which involved identifying, analysing and reporting themes arising from the data.
Results
Analysis revealed three main themes associated with the process of surrogate decision-making in dementia: knowing the person's wishes; consulting with others and striking a balance. Most participants reported that there was not an advance care plan in place for the person living with dementia. Even when the prior wishes of the person with dementia were known, the process of decision-making was often fraught with complexity.
Discussion
Surrogate decision-making on behalf of a person living with dementia is often a difficult process. Advance care planning can play an important role in supporting this process. Healthcare professionals can recognise the challenges that surrogate decision-makers face and support them through advance care planning in a way that suits their needs and circumstances.
The article is here.
J Med Ethics
doi:10.1136/medethics-2015-103301
Abstract
Background
For people living with dementia, the capacity to make important decisions about themselves diminishes as their condition advances. As a result, important decisions (affecting lifestyle, medical treatment and end of life) become the responsibility of someone else, as the surrogate decision-maker. This study investigated how surrogate decision-makers make important decisions on behalf of a person living with dementia.
Methods
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 34 family members who had formally or informally taken on the role of surrogate decision-maker. Thematic analysis of interviews was undertaken, which involved identifying, analysing and reporting themes arising from the data.
Results
Analysis revealed three main themes associated with the process of surrogate decision-making in dementia: knowing the person's wishes; consulting with others and striking a balance. Most participants reported that there was not an advance care plan in place for the person living with dementia. Even when the prior wishes of the person with dementia were known, the process of decision-making was often fraught with complexity.
Discussion
Surrogate decision-making on behalf of a person living with dementia is often a difficult process. Advance care planning can play an important role in supporting this process. Healthcare professionals can recognise the challenges that surrogate decision-makers face and support them through advance care planning in a way that suits their needs and circumstances.
The article is here.
Friday, December 9, 2016
The Case Against Reality
Amanda Gefter
The Atlantic
Originally posted April 22, 2016
Here is an excerpt:
The true reality might be forever beyond our reach, but surely our senses give us at least an inkling of what it’s really like.
Not so, says Donald D. Hoffman, a professor of cognitive science at the University of California, Irvine. Hoffman has spent the past three decades studying perception, artificial intelligence, evolutionary game theory and the brain, and his conclusion is a dramatic one: The world presented to us by our perceptions is nothing like reality. What’s more, he says, we have evolution itself to thank for this magnificent illusion, as it maximizes evolutionary fitness by driving truth to extinction.
Getting at questions about the nature of reality, and disentangling the observer from the observed, is an endeavor that straddles the boundaries of neuroscience and fundamental physics. On one side you’ll find researchers scratching their chins raw trying to understand how a three-pound lump of gray matter obeying nothing more than the ordinary laws of physics can give rise to first-person conscious experience. This is the aptly named “hard problem.”
The article is here.
The Atlantic
Originally posted April 22, 2016
Here is an excerpt:
The true reality might be forever beyond our reach, but surely our senses give us at least an inkling of what it’s really like.
Not so, says Donald D. Hoffman, a professor of cognitive science at the University of California, Irvine. Hoffman has spent the past three decades studying perception, artificial intelligence, evolutionary game theory and the brain, and his conclusion is a dramatic one: The world presented to us by our perceptions is nothing like reality. What’s more, he says, we have evolution itself to thank for this magnificent illusion, as it maximizes evolutionary fitness by driving truth to extinction.
Getting at questions about the nature of reality, and disentangling the observer from the observed, is an endeavor that straddles the boundaries of neuroscience and fundamental physics. On one side you’ll find researchers scratching their chins raw trying to understand how a three-pound lump of gray matter obeying nothing more than the ordinary laws of physics can give rise to first-person conscious experience. This is the aptly named “hard problem.”
The article is here.
Moral neuroenhancement
Earp, B. D., Douglas, T., & Savulescu, J. (forthcoming). Moral neuroenhancement. In S. Johnson & K. Rommelfanger (eds.), Routledge Handbook of Neuroethics. New York: Routledge.
Abstract
In this chapter, we introduce the notion of moral neuroenhancement, offering a novel definition as well as spelling out three conditions under which we expect that such neuroenhancement would be most likely to be permissible (or even desirable). Furthermore, we draw a distinction between first-order moral capacities, which we suggest are less promising targets for neurointervention, and second-order moral capacities, which we suggest are more promising. We conclude by discussing concerns that moral neuroenhancement might restrict freedom or otherwise misfire, and argue that these concerns are not as damning as they may seem at first.
The book chapter is here.
Abstract
In this chapter, we introduce the notion of moral neuroenhancement, offering a novel definition as well as spelling out three conditions under which we expect that such neuroenhancement would be most likely to be permissible (or even desirable). Furthermore, we draw a distinction between first-order moral capacities, which we suggest are less promising targets for neurointervention, and second-order moral capacities, which we suggest are more promising. We conclude by discussing concerns that moral neuroenhancement might restrict freedom or otherwise misfire, and argue that these concerns are not as damning as they may seem at first.
The book chapter is here.
Thursday, December 8, 2016
Crowdfunding FOR MEDICAL CARE: Ethical Issues in an Emerging Health Care Funding Practice
Jeremy Snyder
The Hastings Center Report
November 22, 2016
Abstract
Crowdfunding websites allow users to post a public appeal for funding for a range of activities, including adoption, travel, research, participation in sports, and many others. One common form of crowdfunding is for expenses related to medical care. Medical crowdfunding appeals serve as a means of addressing gaps in medical and employment insurance, both in countries without universal health insurance, like the United States, and countries with universal coverage limited to essential medical needs, like Canada. For example, as of 2012, the website Gofundme had been used to raise a total of 8.8 million dollars (U.S.) for seventy-six hundred campaigns, the majority of which were health related. This money can make an important difference in the lives of crowdfunding users, as the costs of unexpected or uninsured medical needs can be staggering. In this article, I offer an overview of the benefits of medical crowdfunding websites and the ethical concerns they raise. I argue that medical crowdfunding is a symptom and cause of, rather than a solution to, health system injustices and that policy-makers should work to address the injustices motivating the use of crowdfunding sites for essential medical services. Despite the sites’ ethical problems, individual users and donors need not refrain from using them, but they bear a political responsibility to address the inequities encouraged by these sites. I conclude by suggesting some responses to these concerns and future directions for research.
The article is here.
The Hastings Center Report
November 22, 2016
Abstract
Crowdfunding websites allow users to post a public appeal for funding for a range of activities, including adoption, travel, research, participation in sports, and many others. One common form of crowdfunding is for expenses related to medical care. Medical crowdfunding appeals serve as a means of addressing gaps in medical and employment insurance, both in countries without universal health insurance, like the United States, and countries with universal coverage limited to essential medical needs, like Canada. For example, as of 2012, the website Gofundme had been used to raise a total of 8.8 million dollars (U.S.) for seventy-six hundred campaigns, the majority of which were health related. This money can make an important difference in the lives of crowdfunding users, as the costs of unexpected or uninsured medical needs can be staggering. In this article, I offer an overview of the benefits of medical crowdfunding websites and the ethical concerns they raise. I argue that medical crowdfunding is a symptom and cause of, rather than a solution to, health system injustices and that policy-makers should work to address the injustices motivating the use of crowdfunding sites for essential medical services. Despite the sites’ ethical problems, individual users and donors need not refrain from using them, but they bear a political responsibility to address the inequities encouraged by these sites. I conclude by suggesting some responses to these concerns and future directions for research.
The article is here.
Morality in transportation
Jeffrey C. Peters
The Conversation by way of Salon
Originally posted November 19, 2016
A common fantasy for transportation enthusiasts and technology optimists is for self-driving cars and trucks to form the basis of a safe, streamlined, almost choreographed dance. In this dream, every vehicle — and cyclist and pedestrian — proceeds unimpeded on any route, as the rest of the traffic skillfully avoids collisions and even eliminates stop-and-go traffic. It’s a lot like the synchronized traffic chaos in “Rush Hour,” a short movie by Black Sheep Films.
Today, autonomous cars are becoming more common, but safety is still a question. More than 30,000 people die on U.S. roads every year — nearly 100 a day. That’s despite the best efforts of government regulators, car manufacturers and human drivers alike. Early statistics from autonomous driving suggest that widespread automation could drive the death toll down significantly.
There’s a key problem, though: Computers like rules — solid, hard-and-fast instructions to follow. How should we program them to handle difficult situations? The hypotheticals are countless: What if the car has to choose between hitting one cyclist or five pedestrians? What if the car must decide to crash into a wall and kill its occupant, or slam through a group of kindergartners? How do we decide? Who does the deciding?
The article is here.
The Conversation by way of Salon
Originally posted November 19, 2016
A common fantasy for transportation enthusiasts and technology optimists is for self-driving cars and trucks to form the basis of a safe, streamlined, almost choreographed dance. In this dream, every vehicle — and cyclist and pedestrian — proceeds unimpeded on any route, as the rest of the traffic skillfully avoids collisions and even eliminates stop-and-go traffic. It’s a lot like the synchronized traffic chaos in “Rush Hour,” a short movie by Black Sheep Films.
Today, autonomous cars are becoming more common, but safety is still a question. More than 30,000 people die on U.S. roads every year — nearly 100 a day. That’s despite the best efforts of government regulators, car manufacturers and human drivers alike. Early statistics from autonomous driving suggest that widespread automation could drive the death toll down significantly.
There’s a key problem, though: Computers like rules — solid, hard-and-fast instructions to follow. How should we program them to handle difficult situations? The hypotheticals are countless: What if the car has to choose between hitting one cyclist or five pedestrians? What if the car must decide to crash into a wall and kill its occupant, or slam through a group of kindergartners? How do we decide? Who does the deciding?
The article is here.
Wednesday, December 7, 2016
Do conservatives value ‘moral purity’ more than liberals?
Kate Johnson and Joe Hoover
The Conversation
Originally posted November 21, 2016
Here is an excerpt:
Our results were remarkably consistent with our first study. When people thought the person they were being partnered with did not share their purity concerns, they tended to avoid them. And, when people thought their partner did share their purity concerns, they wanted to associate with them.
As on Twitter, people were much more likely to associate with the other person when they had similar response to the moral purity scenarios and to avoid them when they had dissimilar response. And this pattern of responding was much stronger for purity concerns than similarities or differences for any other moral concerns, regardless of people’s religious and political affiliation and the religious and political affiliation they attributed to their partner.
There are many examples of how moral purity concerns are woven deeply into the fabric of social life. For example, have you noticed that when we derogate another person or social group we often rely on adjectives like “dirty,” and “disgusting”? Whether we are talking about “dirty hippies” or an entire class of “untouchables” or “deplorables,” we tend to signal inferiority and separation through moral terms grounded in notions of bodily and spiritual purity.
The article is here.
The Conversation
Originally posted November 21, 2016
Here is an excerpt:
Our results were remarkably consistent with our first study. When people thought the person they were being partnered with did not share their purity concerns, they tended to avoid them. And, when people thought their partner did share their purity concerns, they wanted to associate with them.
As on Twitter, people were much more likely to associate with the other person when they had similar response to the moral purity scenarios and to avoid them when they had dissimilar response. And this pattern of responding was much stronger for purity concerns than similarities or differences for any other moral concerns, regardless of people’s religious and political affiliation and the religious and political affiliation they attributed to their partner.
There are many examples of how moral purity concerns are woven deeply into the fabric of social life. For example, have you noticed that when we derogate another person or social group we often rely on adjectives like “dirty,” and “disgusting”? Whether we are talking about “dirty hippies” or an entire class of “untouchables” or “deplorables,” we tend to signal inferiority and separation through moral terms grounded in notions of bodily and spiritual purity.
The article is here.
Moralized Rationality: Relying on Logic and Evidence in the Formation and Evaluation of Belief Can Be Seen as a Moral Issue
Tomas Ståhl, Maarten P. Zaal, Linda J. Skitka
PLOS One
Published: November 16, 2016
Abstract
In the present article we demonstrate stable individual differences in the extent to which a reliance on logic and evidence in the formation and evaluation of beliefs is perceived as a moral virtue, and a reliance on less rational processes is perceived as a vice. We refer to this individual difference variable as moralized rationality. Eight studies are reported in which an instrument to measure individual differences in moralized rationality is validated. Results show that the Moralized Rationality Scale (MRS) is internally consistent, and captures something distinct from the personal importance people attach to being rational (Studies 1–3). Furthermore, the MRS has high test-retest reliability (Study 4), is conceptually distinct from frequently used measures of individual differences in moral values, and it is negatively related to common beliefs that are not supported by scientific evidence (Study 5). We further demonstrate that the MRS predicts morally laden reactions, such as a desire for punishment, of people who rely on irrational (vs. rational) ways of forming and evaluating beliefs (Studies 6 and 7). Finally, we show that the MRS uniquely predicts motivation to contribute to a charity that works to prevent the spread of irrational beliefs (Study 8). We conclude that (1) there are stable individual differences in the extent to which people moralize a reliance on rationality in the formation and evaluation of beliefs, (2) that these individual differences do not reduce to the personal importance attached to rationality, and (3) that individual differences in moralized rationality have important motivational and interpersonal consequences.
Tuesday, December 6, 2016
Living with the animals: animal or robotic companions for the elderly in smart homes?
Dirk Preuß and Friederike Legal
J Med Ethics doi:10.1136/medethics-2016-103603
Abstract
Although the use of pet robots in senior living facilities and day-care centres, particularly for individuals suffering from dementia, has been intensively researched, the question of introducing pet robots into domestic settings has been relatively neglected. Ambient assisted living (AAL) offers many interface opportunities for integrating motorised companions. There are diverse medical reasons, as well as arguments from animal ethics, that support the use of pet robots in contrast to living with live animals. However, as this paper makes clear, we should not lose sight of the option of living with animals at home for as long as possible and in conformity with the welfare of the animal assisted by AAL technology.
The article is here.
J Med Ethics doi:10.1136/medethics-2016-103603
Abstract
Although the use of pet robots in senior living facilities and day-care centres, particularly for individuals suffering from dementia, has been intensively researched, the question of introducing pet robots into domestic settings has been relatively neglected. Ambient assisted living (AAL) offers many interface opportunities for integrating motorised companions. There are diverse medical reasons, as well as arguments from animal ethics, that support the use of pet robots in contrast to living with live animals. However, as this paper makes clear, we should not lose sight of the option of living with animals at home for as long as possible and in conformity with the welfare of the animal assisted by AAL technology.
The article is here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)