Paul K. McClure
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion.
Abstract
Internet technology presents a new conceptual reality, one that could potentially challenge religion in subtle but distinct ways. Few sociologists of religion, however, have attempted to evaluate whether using the Internet impacts the way people think about and practice religion. This article elaborates on the concept of “tinkering” discussed by Berger, Berger, and Kellner (1974), Turkle (1997), and Wuthnow (2010) to argue that Internet use affects how people think about and affiliate with religious traditions. Using data from Wave III of the Baylor Religion Survey (2010), I find that Internet use is associated with increases in being religiously unaffiliated and decreases in religious exclusivism. At the same time, I find that television viewing is linked to decreases in religious attendance and other time-related religious activities, but these outcomes are not impacted by Internet use. To explain these disparate findings, I argue that the Internet is fundamentally different from previous technologies like television and thus impacts religious beliefs and belonging but not time-related religious activities.
The research is here.
Monday, February 5, 2018
A Robot Goes to College
Lindsay McKenzie
Inside Higher Ed
Originally published December 21, 2017
A robot called Bina48 has successfully taken a course in the philosophy of love at Notre Dame de Namur University, in California.
According to course instructor William Barry, associate professor of philosophy and director of the Mixed Reality Immersive Learning and Research Lab at NDNU, Bina48 is the world’s first socially advanced robot to complete a college course, a feat he described as “remarkable.” The robot took part in class discussions, gave a presentation with a student partner and participated in a debate with students from another institution.
(cut)
Barry said that working with Bina48 had been a valuable experience for him and his students. “We need to get over our existential fear about robots and see them as an opportunity,” he said. “If we approach artificial intelligence with a sense of the dignity and sacredness of all life, then we will produce robots with those same values,” he said.
The information is here.
Inside Higher Ed
Originally published December 21, 2017
A robot called Bina48 has successfully taken a course in the philosophy of love at Notre Dame de Namur University, in California.According to course instructor William Barry, associate professor of philosophy and director of the Mixed Reality Immersive Learning and Research Lab at NDNU, Bina48 is the world’s first socially advanced robot to complete a college course, a feat he described as “remarkable.” The robot took part in class discussions, gave a presentation with a student partner and participated in a debate with students from another institution.
(cut)
Barry said that working with Bina48 had been a valuable experience for him and his students. “We need to get over our existential fear about robots and see them as an opportunity,” he said. “If we approach artificial intelligence with a sense of the dignity and sacredness of all life, then we will produce robots with those same values,” he said.
The information is here.
Sunday, February 4, 2018
Goldwater Rule: Red Line or Guideline?
Scott O. Lilienfeld, , Joshua D. Miller, Donald R. Lynam
Perspectives on Psychological Science
Vol 13, Issue 1, pp. 33 - 35
First Published October 13, 2017
The decades following Miller’s (1969) call for psychological scientists to “give psychology away” have witnessed a growing recognition that we need to do more to communicate our knowledge to the general public (Kaslow, 2015; Lilienfeld, 2012). But should there be limits on the nature of this communication? The Goldwater Rule, which expressly forbids psychiatrists from commenting on the mental health of public figures whom they have not directly examined, answers this query in the affirmative; as we observed in our article (Lilienfeld, Miller, & Lynam, 2017), this rule has been de facto adopted by psychology.
We appreciate the opportunity to respond to two commentators who raise thoughtful qualifications and objections to our thesis, which holds that the Goldwater Rule is antiquated and premised on dubious scientific assumptions. We are pleased that both scholars concur with us that the direct interview assumption—the principal empirical linchpin of the Goldwater Rule—is contradicted by large bodies of psychological research.
(cut to the conclusion)
Psychologists should typically refrain from proffering diagnostic judgments regarding public figures. Such judgments boost the risk of inaccurate ‘arm chair' diagnoses and of damaging the reputation of public figures and the profession at large. At the same time, there is scant justification for a categorical ban on this practice, especially because psychologists can at times offer diagnostic information that bears to some degree on the question of individuals’ suitability for high public office. We therefore recommend reformulating the 'Goldwater Rule” as the 'Goldwater Guideline.’ Such a change would underscore the wisdom of discretion with respect to statements concerning the diagnostic status of public figures but remind psychologists that such statements can be useful and even advisable within limits.
The article is here.
Perspectives on Psychological Science
Vol 13, Issue 1, pp. 33 - 35
First Published October 13, 2017
The decades following Miller’s (1969) call for psychological scientists to “give psychology away” have witnessed a growing recognition that we need to do more to communicate our knowledge to the general public (Kaslow, 2015; Lilienfeld, 2012). But should there be limits on the nature of this communication? The Goldwater Rule, which expressly forbids psychiatrists from commenting on the mental health of public figures whom they have not directly examined, answers this query in the affirmative; as we observed in our article (Lilienfeld, Miller, & Lynam, 2017), this rule has been de facto adopted by psychology.
We appreciate the opportunity to respond to two commentators who raise thoughtful qualifications and objections to our thesis, which holds that the Goldwater Rule is antiquated and premised on dubious scientific assumptions. We are pleased that both scholars concur with us that the direct interview assumption—the principal empirical linchpin of the Goldwater Rule—is contradicted by large bodies of psychological research.
(cut to the conclusion)
Psychologists should typically refrain from proffering diagnostic judgments regarding public figures. Such judgments boost the risk of inaccurate ‘arm chair' diagnoses and of damaging the reputation of public figures and the profession at large. At the same time, there is scant justification for a categorical ban on this practice, especially because psychologists can at times offer diagnostic information that bears to some degree on the question of individuals’ suitability for high public office. We therefore recommend reformulating the 'Goldwater Rule” as the 'Goldwater Guideline.’ Such a change would underscore the wisdom of discretion with respect to statements concerning the diagnostic status of public figures but remind psychologists that such statements can be useful and even advisable within limits.
The article is here.
Vignette 37: The Fabricated Letter
Dr. Krista Gordon received an email from E Corp, the employer of a current patient Mr. Elliot Alderson (someone she provided psychotherapy for over a year, but has cancelled multiple appointments recently due to some family issues). Dr. Gordon has not seen him for over a month, and he is not scheduled until the following month.
The email from E Corp was for the purposes of letting Dr. Gordon know that her patient had submitted documentation to E Corp (supposedly from Dr. Gordon), and they wanted to confirm that these documents were legitimate and unaltered.
To Dr. Gordon’s disappointment, she saw one legitimate letter (an older letter she wrote for Alderson to submit to his boss, confirming regular 4:30 pm appointment times, which allowed Alderson to leave 30 minutes early on those days), and one entirely questionable, clearly altered letter.
Apparently, Mr. Alderson copied Dr. Gordon’s letterhead and pasted it as an image for the false documentation. The body of the letter is something Gordon never wrote (saying that Dr. Gordon assessed Alderson and determined he is unfit to return to work for an indefinite period). Dr. Gordon’s signature is also copied and pasted on the fake letter. The fake letter was shoddily done, the footer is cut-off, some of the text is cut-off, and most of the text appears to be slightly at an angle. The letter clearly did not come from Dr. Gordon.
Of course, this a huge breach of trust and Dr. Gordon struggling to organize her thinking as she feels incredibly violated by Mr. Alderson. Dr. Gordon calls you for a consultation.
What are the clinical issues involved in this situation?
What are the ethical issues involved in this scenario?
What are the ramifications about the therapeutic relationship?
How does Dr. Gordon respond or not respond to E Corp?
Are there any other legal issues that may be in play?
What course of action would you suggest to Dr. Gordon?
The email from E Corp was for the purposes of letting Dr. Gordon know that her patient had submitted documentation to E Corp (supposedly from Dr. Gordon), and they wanted to confirm that these documents were legitimate and unaltered.
To Dr. Gordon’s disappointment, she saw one legitimate letter (an older letter she wrote for Alderson to submit to his boss, confirming regular 4:30 pm appointment times, which allowed Alderson to leave 30 minutes early on those days), and one entirely questionable, clearly altered letter.
Apparently, Mr. Alderson copied Dr. Gordon’s letterhead and pasted it as an image for the false documentation. The body of the letter is something Gordon never wrote (saying that Dr. Gordon assessed Alderson and determined he is unfit to return to work for an indefinite period). Dr. Gordon’s signature is also copied and pasted on the fake letter. The fake letter was shoddily done, the footer is cut-off, some of the text is cut-off, and most of the text appears to be slightly at an angle. The letter clearly did not come from Dr. Gordon.
Of course, this a huge breach of trust and Dr. Gordon struggling to organize her thinking as she feels incredibly violated by Mr. Alderson. Dr. Gordon calls you for a consultation.
What are the clinical issues involved in this situation?
What are the ethical issues involved in this scenario?
What are the ramifications about the therapeutic relationship?
How does Dr. Gordon respond or not respond to E Corp?
Are there any other legal issues that may be in play?
What course of action would you suggest to Dr. Gordon?
Saturday, February 3, 2018
Can We Reimagine Our Approach To Treating Disease?
Siddhartha Mukherjee
TED Talk
Posted December 22, 2017
When it comes to medicine, one rule of thinking has generally prevailed: Have disease, take pill, kill something. But physician Siddhartha Mukherjee says treatment should take a broader approach.
TED Talk
Posted December 22, 2017
When it comes to medicine, one rule of thinking has generally prevailed: Have disease, take pill, kill something. But physician Siddhartha Mukherjee says treatment should take a broader approach.
Friday, February 2, 2018
Has Technology Lost Society's Trust?
Mustafa Suleyman
The RSA.org
Originally published January 8, 2018
Has technology lost society's trust? Mustafa Suleyman, co-founder and Head of Applied AI at DeepMind, considers what tech companies have got wrong, how to fix it and how technology companies can change the world for the better. (7 minute video)
The RSA.org
Originally published January 8, 2018
Has technology lost society's trust? Mustafa Suleyman, co-founder and Head of Applied AI at DeepMind, considers what tech companies have got wrong, how to fix it and how technology companies can change the world for the better. (7 minute video)
Confidential deals can obscure sexual misconduct allegations against doctors
Jayne O'Donnell
USA TODAY
Originally published January 5, 2018
Here are two excerpts:
Hospitals will often take over doctors' liability in confidential settlements, which Washington plaintiffs' attorney Patrick Malone calls a "frequent dodge" to keep medical negligence claims out of the National Practitioners Data Bank. Before they hire doctors, hospitals check the data bank, which also includes disciplinary actions by hospitals, medical societies and boards, which also have access to it.
Duncan's case, however, was a "miscellaneous tort claim," filed after Ohio's one-year statute of limitations for medical malpractice claims had passed.
That's just one of the many laws working in the favor of the Cleveland Clinic and the health care industry in Ohio. Plaintiff lawyer Michael Shroge, a former Cleveland Clinic associate general counsel, says major health care systems are "very often more interested in protecting their brand than protecting the health of patients."
(cut)
Critics of settlement deals' gag clauses say they compromise patients' health and safety and are unethical.
Confidential settlements are particularly problematic when it comes to health care, as "we take off our clothes in front of doctors," said Malone, who specializes in medical malpractice cases. "For a doctor to violate that in a sexual way is the ultimate wrong," he said, adding that he only agrees to confidential settlements if his client insists and only of the settlement amount.
The information is here.
USA TODAY
Originally published January 5, 2018
Here are two excerpts:
Hospitals will often take over doctors' liability in confidential settlements, which Washington plaintiffs' attorney Patrick Malone calls a "frequent dodge" to keep medical negligence claims out of the National Practitioners Data Bank. Before they hire doctors, hospitals check the data bank, which also includes disciplinary actions by hospitals, medical societies and boards, which also have access to it.
Duncan's case, however, was a "miscellaneous tort claim," filed after Ohio's one-year statute of limitations for medical malpractice claims had passed.
That's just one of the many laws working in the favor of the Cleveland Clinic and the health care industry in Ohio. Plaintiff lawyer Michael Shroge, a former Cleveland Clinic associate general counsel, says major health care systems are "very often more interested in protecting their brand than protecting the health of patients."
(cut)
Critics of settlement deals' gag clauses say they compromise patients' health and safety and are unethical.
Confidential settlements are particularly problematic when it comes to health care, as "we take off our clothes in front of doctors," said Malone, who specializes in medical malpractice cases. "For a doctor to violate that in a sexual way is the ultimate wrong," he said, adding that he only agrees to confidential settlements if his client insists and only of the settlement amount.
The information is here.
Thursday, February 1, 2018
How to Counter the Circus of Pseudoscience
Lisa Pryor
The New York Times
Originally published January 5, 2018
Here are two excerpts:
In the face of such doubt, it is not surprising that some individuals, even those who are intelligent and well educated, are swept away by the breezy confidence of health gurus, who are full of passionate intensity while the qualified lack all conviction, to borrow from Yeats.
It is a cognitive bias known in psychology as the Dunning-Kruger Effect. In short, the less you know, the less able you are to recognize how little you know, so the less likely you are to recognize your errors and shortcomings. For the highly skilled, like trained scientists, the opposite is true: The more you know, the more likely you are to see how little you know. This is truly a cognitive bias for our time.
(cut)
Engaging is difficult when the alternative-health proponents are on such a different astral plane that it is a challenge even to find common language for a conversation, especially when they promote spurious concepts such as “pyrrole disease,” which they can speak about in great, false detail, drawing the well-informed physician, dietitian or scientist into a vortex of personal anecdote and ancient wisdom, with quips about big pharma thrown in for good measure.
The information is here.
The New York Times
Originally published January 5, 2018
Here are two excerpts:
In the face of such doubt, it is not surprising that some individuals, even those who are intelligent and well educated, are swept away by the breezy confidence of health gurus, who are full of passionate intensity while the qualified lack all conviction, to borrow from Yeats.
It is a cognitive bias known in psychology as the Dunning-Kruger Effect. In short, the less you know, the less able you are to recognize how little you know, so the less likely you are to recognize your errors and shortcomings. For the highly skilled, like trained scientists, the opposite is true: The more you know, the more likely you are to see how little you know. This is truly a cognitive bias for our time.
(cut)
Engaging is difficult when the alternative-health proponents are on such a different astral plane that it is a challenge even to find common language for a conversation, especially when they promote spurious concepts such as “pyrrole disease,” which they can speak about in great, false detail, drawing the well-informed physician, dietitian or scientist into a vortex of personal anecdote and ancient wisdom, with quips about big pharma thrown in for good measure.
The information is here.
Ethics for healthcare data is obsessed with risk – not public benefits
Tim Spector and Barbara Prainsack
The Conversation
Originally published January 5, 2018
Here is an excerpt:
Health researchers working with human participants – or their identifiable information – need to jump through lots of ethical and bureaucratic hoops. The underlying rationale is that health research poses particularly high risks to people, and that these risks need to be minimised. But does the same rationale apply to non-invasive research using digital health data? Setting aside physically invasive research, which absolutely should maintain the most stringent of safeguards, is data-based health research really riskier than other research that analyses people's information?
Many corporations can use data from their customers for a wide range of purposes without needing research ethics approval, because their users have already "agreed" to this (by ticking a box), or the activity itself isn't qualified as health research. But is the assumptions that it is less risky justified?
Facebook and Google hold voluminous and fine-grained datasets on people. They analyse pictures and text posted by users. But they also study behavioural information, such as whether or not users "like" something or support political causes. They do this to profile users and discern new patterns connecting previously unconnected traits and behaviours. These findings are used for marketing; but they also contribute to knowledge about human behaviour.
The information is here.
The Conversation
Originally published January 5, 2018
Here is an excerpt:
Health researchers working with human participants – or their identifiable information – need to jump through lots of ethical and bureaucratic hoops. The underlying rationale is that health research poses particularly high risks to people, and that these risks need to be minimised. But does the same rationale apply to non-invasive research using digital health data? Setting aside physically invasive research, which absolutely should maintain the most stringent of safeguards, is data-based health research really riskier than other research that analyses people's information?
Many corporations can use data from their customers for a wide range of purposes without needing research ethics approval, because their users have already "agreed" to this (by ticking a box), or the activity itself isn't qualified as health research. But is the assumptions that it is less risky justified?
Facebook and Google hold voluminous and fine-grained datasets on people. They analyse pictures and text posted by users. But they also study behavioural information, such as whether or not users "like" something or support political causes. They do this to profile users and discern new patterns connecting previously unconnected traits and behaviours. These findings are used for marketing; but they also contribute to knowledge about human behaviour.
The information is here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)