Donald Robertson
The Globe and Mail
Originally published April 19, 2019
Recently, a bartender in Nova Scotia showed me a quote from the Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius tattooed on his forearm. “Waste no more time arguing what a good man should be,” it said, “just be one.”
We live in an age when social media bombards everyone, especially the young, with advice about every aspect of their lives. Stoic philosophy, of which Marcus Aurelius was history’s most famous proponent, taught its followers not to waste time on diversions that don’t actually improve their character.
In recent decades, Stoicism has been experiencing a resurgence in popularity, especially among millennials. There has been a spate of popular self-help books that helped to spread the word. One of the best known is Ryan Holiday and Steven Hanselman’s The Daily Stoic, which introduced a whole new generation to the concept of philosophy, based on the classics, as a way of life. It has fuelled interest among Silicon Valley entrepreneurs. So has endorsement from self-improvement guru Tim Ferriss who describes Stoicism as the “ideal operating system for thriving in high-stress environments.”
Why should the thoughts of a Roman emperor who died nearly 2,000 years ago seem particularly relevant today, though? What’s driving this rebirth of Stoicism?
The info is here.
Tuesday, May 14, 2019
Who Should Decide How Algorithms Decide?
Mark Esposito, Terence Tse, Joshua Entsminger, and Aurelie Jean
Project-Syndicate
Originally published April 17, 2019
Here is an excerpt:
Consider the following scenario: a car from China has different factory standards than a car from the US, but is shipped to and used in the US. This Chinese-made car and a US-made car are heading for an unavoidable collision. If the Chinese car’s driver has different ethical preferences than the driver of the US car, which system should prevail?
Beyond culturally based differences in ethical preferences, one also must consider differences in data regulations across countries. A Chinese-made car, for example, might have access to social-scoring data, allowing its decision-making algorithm to incorporate additional inputs that are unavailable to US carmakers. Richer data could lead to better, more consistent decisions, but should that advantage allow one system to overrule another?
Clearly, before AVs take to the road en masse, we will need to establish where responsibility for algorithmic decision-making lies, be it with municipal authorities, national governments, or multilateral institutions. More than that, we will need new frameworks for governing this intersection of business and the state. At issue is not just what AVs will do in extreme scenarios, but how businesses will interact with different cultures in developing and deploying decision-making algorithms.
The info is here.
Project-Syndicate
Originally published April 17, 2019
Here is an excerpt:
Consider the following scenario: a car from China has different factory standards than a car from the US, but is shipped to and used in the US. This Chinese-made car and a US-made car are heading for an unavoidable collision. If the Chinese car’s driver has different ethical preferences than the driver of the US car, which system should prevail?
Beyond culturally based differences in ethical preferences, one also must consider differences in data regulations across countries. A Chinese-made car, for example, might have access to social-scoring data, allowing its decision-making algorithm to incorporate additional inputs that are unavailable to US carmakers. Richer data could lead to better, more consistent decisions, but should that advantage allow one system to overrule another?
Clearly, before AVs take to the road en masse, we will need to establish where responsibility for algorithmic decision-making lies, be it with municipal authorities, national governments, or multilateral institutions. More than that, we will need new frameworks for governing this intersection of business and the state. At issue is not just what AVs will do in extreme scenarios, but how businesses will interact with different cultures in developing and deploying decision-making algorithms.
The info is here.
Monday, May 13, 2019
How has President Trump changed white Christians' views of 'morality'?
Brandon Showalter
The Christian Post
Originally published April 26, 2019
A notable shift has taken place within the past decade regarding how white evangelicals consider "morality" with regard to the politicians they support.
While the subject was frequently discussed during the 2016 election cycle in light of significant support then-candidate Donald Trump received from evangelical Christians, the attitude shift related to what an elected official does in his private life having any bearing on his public duties appears to have persisted over two years into his presidency, The Washington Post noted Thursday.
A 2011 Public Religion and Research Institute and Religion News Service poll found that 60 percent of white evangelicals believed that a public official who “commits an immoral act in their personal life” cannot still “behave ethically and fulfill their duties in their public and professional life.”
By October 2016, however, shortly after the release of the “Access Hollywood” tape in which President Trump was heard making lewd comments, another PRRI poll found that only 20 percent of white evangelicals answered the same question the same way.
No other religious demographic saw such a profound change.
The info is here.
The Christian Post
Originally published April 26, 2019
A notable shift has taken place within the past decade regarding how white evangelicals consider "morality" with regard to the politicians they support.
While the subject was frequently discussed during the 2016 election cycle in light of significant support then-candidate Donald Trump received from evangelical Christians, the attitude shift related to what an elected official does in his private life having any bearing on his public duties appears to have persisted over two years into his presidency, The Washington Post noted Thursday.
A 2011 Public Religion and Research Institute and Religion News Service poll found that 60 percent of white evangelicals believed that a public official who “commits an immoral act in their personal life” cannot still “behave ethically and fulfill their duties in their public and professional life.”
By October 2016, however, shortly after the release of the “Access Hollywood” tape in which President Trump was heard making lewd comments, another PRRI poll found that only 20 percent of white evangelicals answered the same question the same way.
No other religious demographic saw such a profound change.
The info is here.
How to Be an Ethical Leader: 4 Tips for Success
Sammi Caramela
www.businessnewsdaily.com
Originally posted August 27, 2018
Here is an excerpt:
Define and align your morals
Consider the values you had growing up – treat others how you want to be treated, always say "thank you," show support to those struggling, etc. But as you grow, and as society progresses, conventions change, often causing values to shift.
"This is the biggest challenge ethics face in our culture and at work, and the biggest challenge ethical leadership faces," said Matthew Kelly, founder and CEO of FLOYD Consulting and author of "The Culture Solution" (Blue Sparrow Books, 2019). "What used to be universally accepted as good and true, right and just, is now up for considerable debate. This environment of relativism makes it very difficult for values-based leaders."
Kelly added that to find success in ethical leadership, you should demonstrate how adhering to specific values benefits the mission of the organization.
"Culture is not a collection of personal preferences," he said. "Mission is king. When that ceases to be true, an organization has begun its journey toward the mediocre middle."
Ask yourself what matters to you as an individual and then align that with your priorities as a leader. Defining your morals not only expresses your authenticity, it encourages your team to do the same, creating a shared vision for all workers.
Hire those with similar ethics
While your ethics don't need to be the same as your workers', you should be able to establish common ground with them. This often starts with the hiring process and is maintained through a vision statement.
The info is here.
www.businessnewsdaily.com
Originally posted August 27, 2018
Here is an excerpt:
Define and align your morals
Consider the values you had growing up – treat others how you want to be treated, always say "thank you," show support to those struggling, etc. But as you grow, and as society progresses, conventions change, often causing values to shift.
"This is the biggest challenge ethics face in our culture and at work, and the biggest challenge ethical leadership faces," said Matthew Kelly, founder and CEO of FLOYD Consulting and author of "The Culture Solution" (Blue Sparrow Books, 2019). "What used to be universally accepted as good and true, right and just, is now up for considerable debate. This environment of relativism makes it very difficult for values-based leaders."
Kelly added that to find success in ethical leadership, you should demonstrate how adhering to specific values benefits the mission of the organization.
"Culture is not a collection of personal preferences," he said. "Mission is king. When that ceases to be true, an organization has begun its journey toward the mediocre middle."
Ask yourself what matters to you as an individual and then align that with your priorities as a leader. Defining your morals not only expresses your authenticity, it encourages your team to do the same, creating a shared vision for all workers.
Hire those with similar ethics
While your ethics don't need to be the same as your workers', you should be able to establish common ground with them. This often starts with the hiring process and is maintained through a vision statement.
The info is here.
Sunday, May 12, 2019
Looking at the Mueller report from a mental health perspective
Bandy X. Lee, Leonard L. Glass and Edwin B. FisherThe Boston Globe
Updated May 9, 2019
Here is an excerpt:
These episodes demonstrate not only a lack of control over emotions but preoccupation with threats to the self. There is no room for consideration of national plans or policies, or his own role in bringing about his predicament and how he might change, but instead a singular focus on how he is a victim of circumstance and his familiar whining about unfairness.
This mindset can easily turn into rage reactions; it is commonly found in violent offenders in the criminal justice system, who perpetually consider themselves victims under attack, even as they perpetrate violence against others, often without provocation. In this manner, a “victim mentality” and paranoia are symptoms that carry a high risk of violence.
“We noted, among other things, that the president stated on more than 30 occasions that he ‘does not recall’ or ‘remember’ or have an ‘independent recollection’ of information called for by the questions. Other answers were ‘incomplete or imprecise.’ ” (Vol. II, p. C-1)
This response is from a president who, in public rallies, rarely lacks certainty, no matter how false his assertions and claims that he has “the world’s greatest memory” and “one of the great memories of all time.” His lack of recall is particularly meaningful in the context of his unprecedented mendacity, which alone is dangerous and divisive for the country. Whether he truly does not remember or is totally fabricating, either is pathological and highly dangerous in someone who has command over the largest military in the world and over thousands of nuclear weapons.
The Mueller report details numerous lies by the president, perhaps most clearly regarding his handling of the disclosure of the meeting at Trump Tower (Vol II, p. 98ff). First he denied knowing about the meeting, then described it as only about adoption, then denied crafting his son’s response, and then, in his formal response to Mueller, conceded that it was he who dictated the press release. Lying per se is not especially remarkable. Coupled with the other characteristics noted here, however, lying becomes a part of a pervasive, compelling, reflexive pattern of distraught gut reactions for handling challenges by misleading, manipulating, and blocking others’ access to the truth. Rather than being seen as bona fide alternatives, challenges are perceived as personal threats and responded to in a dangerous, no-holds-barred manner.
The info is here.
Saturday, May 11, 2019
Free Will, an Illusion? An Answer from a Pragmatic Sentimentalist Point of View
Maureen Sie
Appears in : Caruso, G. (ed.), June 2013, Exploring the Illusion of Free Will and Moral Responsibility, Rowman & Littlefield.
According to some people, diverse findings in the cognitive and neurosciences suggest that free will is an illusion: We experience ourselves as agents, but in fact our brains decide, initiate, and judge before ‘we’ do (Soon, Brass, Heinze and Haynes 2008; Libet and Gleason 1983). Others have replied that the distinction between ‘us’ and ‘our brains’ makes no sense (e.g., Dennett 2003) or that scientists misperceive the conceptual relations that hold between free will and responsibility (Roskies 2006). Many others regard the neuro-scientific findings as irrelevant to their views on free will. They do not believe that determinist processes are incompatible with free will to begin with, hence, do not understand why deterministic processes in our brain would be (see Sie and Wouters 2008, 2010). That latter response should be understood against the background of the philosophical free will discussion. In philosophy, free will is traditionally approached as a metaphysical problem, one that needs to be dealt with in order to discuss the legitimacy of our practices of responsibility. The emergence of our moral practices is seen as a result of the assumption that we possess free will (or some capacity associated with it) and the main question discussed is whether that assumption is compatible with determinism. In this chapter we want to steer clear from this 'metaphysical' discussion.
The question we are interested in in this chapter, is whether the above mentioned scientific findings are relevant to our use of the concept of free will when that concept is approached from a different angle. We call this different angle the 'pragmatic sentimentalist'-approach to free will (hereafter the PS-approach). This approach can be traced back to Peter F. Strawson’s influential essay “Freedom and Resentment”(Strawson 1962). Contrary to the metaphysical approach, the PS-approach does not understand free will as a concept that somehow precedes our moral practices. Rather it is assumed that everyday talk of free will naturally arises in a practice that is characterized by certain reactive attitudes that we take towards one another. This is why it is called 'sentimentalist.' In this approach, the practical purposes of the concept of free will are put central stage. This is why it is called 'pragmatist.'
A draft of the book chapter can be downloaded here.
Appears in : Caruso, G. (ed.), June 2013, Exploring the Illusion of Free Will and Moral Responsibility, Rowman & Littlefield.
According to some people, diverse findings in the cognitive and neurosciences suggest that free will is an illusion: We experience ourselves as agents, but in fact our brains decide, initiate, and judge before ‘we’ do (Soon, Brass, Heinze and Haynes 2008; Libet and Gleason 1983). Others have replied that the distinction between ‘us’ and ‘our brains’ makes no sense (e.g., Dennett 2003) or that scientists misperceive the conceptual relations that hold between free will and responsibility (Roskies 2006). Many others regard the neuro-scientific findings as irrelevant to their views on free will. They do not believe that determinist processes are incompatible with free will to begin with, hence, do not understand why deterministic processes in our brain would be (see Sie and Wouters 2008, 2010). That latter response should be understood against the background of the philosophical free will discussion. In philosophy, free will is traditionally approached as a metaphysical problem, one that needs to be dealt with in order to discuss the legitimacy of our practices of responsibility. The emergence of our moral practices is seen as a result of the assumption that we possess free will (or some capacity associated with it) and the main question discussed is whether that assumption is compatible with determinism. In this chapter we want to steer clear from this 'metaphysical' discussion.
The question we are interested in in this chapter, is whether the above mentioned scientific findings are relevant to our use of the concept of free will when that concept is approached from a different angle. We call this different angle the 'pragmatic sentimentalist'-approach to free will (hereafter the PS-approach). This approach can be traced back to Peter F. Strawson’s influential essay “Freedom and Resentment”(Strawson 1962). Contrary to the metaphysical approach, the PS-approach does not understand free will as a concept that somehow precedes our moral practices. Rather it is assumed that everyday talk of free will naturally arises in a practice that is characterized by certain reactive attitudes that we take towards one another. This is why it is called 'sentimentalist.' In this approach, the practical purposes of the concept of free will are put central stage. This is why it is called 'pragmatist.'
A draft of the book chapter can be downloaded here.
Friday, May 10, 2019
Privacy, data science and personalised medicine. Time for a balanced discussion
Claudia Pagliari
LinkedIn.com Post
Originally posted March 26, 2019
There are several fundamental truths that those of us working at the intersection of data science, ethics and medical research have recognised for some time. Firstly that 'anonymised’ and ‘pseudonymised' data can potentially be re-identified through the convergence of related variables, coupled with clever inference methods (although this is by no means easy). Secondly that genetic data is not just about individuals but also about families and generations, past and future. Thirdly, as we enter an increasingly digitized society where transactional, personal and behavioural data from public bodies, businesses, social media, mobile devices and IoT are potentially linkable, the capacity of data to tell meaningful stories about us is becoming constrained only by the questions we ask and the tools we are able to deploy to get the answers. Some would say that privacy is an outdated concept, and control and transparency are the new by-words. Others either disagree or are increasingly confused and disenfranchised.
Some of the quotes from the top brass of Iceland’s DeCODE Genetics, appearing in today’s BBC’s News, neatly illustrate why we need to remain vigilant to the ethical dilemmas presented by the use of data sciences for personalised medicine. For those of you who are not aware, this company has been at the centre of innovation in population genomics since its inception in the 1990s and overcame a state outcry over privacy and consent, which led to its temporary bankruptcy, before rising phoenix-like from the ashes. The fact that its work has been able to continue in an era of increasing privacy legislation and regulation shows just how far the promise of personalized medicine has skewed the policy narrative and the business agenda in recent years. What is great about Iceland, in terms of medical research, is that it is a relatively small country that has been subjected to historically low levels of immigration and has a unique family naming system and good national record keeping, which means that the pedigree of most of its citizens is easy to trace. This makes it an ideal Petri dish for genetic researchers. And here’s where the rub is. In short, by fully genotyping only 10,000 people from this small country, with its relatively stable gene pool, and integrating this with data on their family trees - and doubtless a whole heap of questionnaires and medical records - the company has, with the consent of a few, effectively seized the data of the "entire population".
The info is here.
LinkedIn.com Post
Originally posted March 26, 2019
There are several fundamental truths that those of us working at the intersection of data science, ethics and medical research have recognised for some time. Firstly that 'anonymised’ and ‘pseudonymised' data can potentially be re-identified through the convergence of related variables, coupled with clever inference methods (although this is by no means easy). Secondly that genetic data is not just about individuals but also about families and generations, past and future. Thirdly, as we enter an increasingly digitized society where transactional, personal and behavioural data from public bodies, businesses, social media, mobile devices and IoT are potentially linkable, the capacity of data to tell meaningful stories about us is becoming constrained only by the questions we ask and the tools we are able to deploy to get the answers. Some would say that privacy is an outdated concept, and control and transparency are the new by-words. Others either disagree or are increasingly confused and disenfranchised.
Some of the quotes from the top brass of Iceland’s DeCODE Genetics, appearing in today’s BBC’s News, neatly illustrate why we need to remain vigilant to the ethical dilemmas presented by the use of data sciences for personalised medicine. For those of you who are not aware, this company has been at the centre of innovation in population genomics since its inception in the 1990s and overcame a state outcry over privacy and consent, which led to its temporary bankruptcy, before rising phoenix-like from the ashes. The fact that its work has been able to continue in an era of increasing privacy legislation and regulation shows just how far the promise of personalized medicine has skewed the policy narrative and the business agenda in recent years. What is great about Iceland, in terms of medical research, is that it is a relatively small country that has been subjected to historically low levels of immigration and has a unique family naming system and good national record keeping, which means that the pedigree of most of its citizens is easy to trace. This makes it an ideal Petri dish for genetic researchers. And here’s where the rub is. In short, by fully genotyping only 10,000 people from this small country, with its relatively stable gene pool, and integrating this with data on their family trees - and doubtless a whole heap of questionnaires and medical records - the company has, with the consent of a few, effectively seized the data of the "entire population".
The info is here.
An Evolutionary Perspective On Free Will Belief
Cory Clark & Bo Winegard
Science Trends
Science Trends
Originally posted April 9, 2019
Here is an excerpt:
Both scholars and everyday people seem to agree that free will (whatever it is) is a prerequisite for moral responsibility (though note, among philosophers, there are numerous definitions and camps regarding how free will and moral responsibility are linked). This suggests that a crucial function of free will beliefs is the promotion of holding others morally responsible. And research supports this. Specifically, when people are exposed to another’s harmful behavior, they increase their broad beliefs in the human capacity for free action. Thus, believing in free will might facilitate the ability of individuals to punish harmful members of the social group ruthlessly.
But recent research suggests that free will is about more than just punishment. People might seek morally culpable agents not only when desiring to punish, but also when desiring to praise. A series of studies by Clark and colleagues (2018) found that, whereas people generally attributed more free will to morally bad actions than to morally good actions, they attributed more free will to morally good actions than morally neutral ones. Moreover, whereas free will judgments for morally bad actions were primarily driven by affective desires to punish, free will judgments for morally good actions were sensitive to a variety of characteristics of the behavior.
Thursday, May 9, 2019
The 'debate of the century': what happened when Jordan Peterson debated Slavoj Žižek
Stephen Marche
The Guardian
Originally published April 20, 2019
Here is an excerpt:
The great surprise of this debate turned out to be how much in common the old-school Marxist and the Canadian identity politics refusenik had.
One hated communism. The other hated communism but thought that capitalism possessed inherent contradictions. The first one agreed that capitalism possessed inherent contradictions. And that was basically it. They both wanted the same thing: capitalism with regulation, which is what every sane person wants. The Peterson-Žižek encounter was the ultra-rare case of a debate in 2019 that was perhaps too civil.
They needed enemies, needed combat, because in their solitudes, they had so little to offer. Peterson is neither a racist nor a misogynist. He is a conservative. He seemed, in person, quite gentle. But when you’ve said that, you’ve said everything. Somehow hectoring mobs have managed to turn him into an icon of all they are not. Remove him from his enemies and he is a very poor example of a very old thing – the type of writer whom, from Samuel Smiles’ Self-Help to Eckhart Tolle’s The Power of Now, have promised simple answers to complex problems. Rules for Life, as if there were such things.
The info is here.
Originally published April 20, 2019
Here is an excerpt:
The great surprise of this debate turned out to be how much in common the old-school Marxist and the Canadian identity politics refusenik had.
One hated communism. The other hated communism but thought that capitalism possessed inherent contradictions. The first one agreed that capitalism possessed inherent contradictions. And that was basically it. They both wanted the same thing: capitalism with regulation, which is what every sane person wants. The Peterson-Žižek encounter was the ultra-rare case of a debate in 2019 that was perhaps too civil.
They needed enemies, needed combat, because in their solitudes, they had so little to offer. Peterson is neither a racist nor a misogynist. He is a conservative. He seemed, in person, quite gentle. But when you’ve said that, you’ve said everything. Somehow hectoring mobs have managed to turn him into an icon of all they are not. Remove him from his enemies and he is a very poor example of a very old thing – the type of writer whom, from Samuel Smiles’ Self-Help to Eckhart Tolle’s The Power of Now, have promised simple answers to complex problems. Rules for Life, as if there were such things.
The info is here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)