Towards a Social Psychology of Cynicism

Neumann, E., & Zaki, j. (2022, September 13).

https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/gjm8c

Abstract

Cynicism is the attitude that people are primarily motivated by self-interest. It tracks numerous negative outcomes, and yet many people are cynical. To understand this “cynicism paradox,” we review and call for more social psychological work on how cynicism spreads, with implications for how we might slow it down.

The Cynicism Paradox

Out of almost 8,000 respondents from 41 countries, many agree that “powerful people tend to exploit others” or that “kind-hearted people usually suffer losses”. This indicates widespread cynicism, the attitude that people are primarily motivated by self-interest, often accompanied by emotions such as contempt, anger, and distress, and antagonistic interactions with others. What explains such cynicism? Perhaps it reflects a realistic perception of the suffering caused by human self-interest. But workin social psychology regularly demonstrates that attitudes are not always perfect  mirrors of reality.  We will argue  that  people  often  overestimate self-interest,  create  it through their expectations, or overstate their own to not appear naïve. Cynicism rises when people witness self-interest, but social psychology –so far relatively quiet on the topic –can explain why they get trapped in this worldview even when it stops tracking reality.

Cynicism is related, but not reducible to, a lack of trust. Trust is often defined as accepting vulnerability based on positive expectations of others. Generalized trust implies a general tendency to  have  positive  expectations  of  others,  and  shares  with  cynicism  the  tendency  to  judge  the character of a whole group of people. But cynicism is more than reduced positive expectations.It entails a strongly negative view of human nature. The intensity of cynicism’s hostility further differentiates it from mere generalized distrust. Finally, while people can trust and distrust others’ competence,  integrity,  and  predictability,  cynicism  usually  focuses  on  judgments  of  moral character.  This  differentiates  cynicism  from  mere  pessimism,  which  encompasses  any  negative beliefs about the future, moral or non-moral alike. 

The info is here.

Direct applications to psychotherapy.

Why are scientists growing human brain cells in the lab?

Hannah Flynn

Medical News Today

Originally posted 24 OCT 22

Here is an excerpt:

Ethical boundaries

One of the limitations of using organoids for research is that it is observed in vitro. The way an organ might act in a system, in connection with different organs, or when exposed to metabolites in the blood, for example, could be different from how it behaves when cells are isolated in a single tissue.

More recently, researchers placed an organoid derived from human cells inside the brain of a rat, in a study outlined in Nature.

Using neural organoids that had been allowed to self-organize, these were implanted into the somatosensory cortex — which is in the middle of the brain — of newborn rats. The scientists then found that these cortical organoids had grown axons throughout the rat brain, and were able to contribute to reward-seeking behavior in the rat.

This breakthrough suggested that the lab-created cells are recognizable to other tissues in the body and can influence systems.

Combining the cells of animals and humans is not without some ethical considerations. In fact, this has been the focus of a recent project.

The Brainstorm Organoid Project published its first paper in the form of a comment piece outlining the benefits of the project in Nature Neuroscience on October 18, 2022, the week after the aforementioned study was published.

The Project brought together prominent bioethicists as part of the Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative of the US National Institutes of Health, which funded the project.

Co-author of the comment piece Dr. Jeantine E Lunshof, head of collaborative ethics at the Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering at Harvard University, MA, told Medical News Today in an interview that existing biomedical research and animal welfare guidelines already provide a framework for this type of work to be done ethically.

Pointing to the International Society for Stem Cell Research guidelines published last year, she stated that those do cover the creation of chimeras, where cells of two species are combined.

These hybrids with non-primates are permitted, she explained: “This is very, very strong emphasis on animal welfare in this ISSCR guideline document that also aligns with existing animal welfare and animal research protocols.”

The potential benefits of this research needed to be considered, “though at this moment, we are still at the stage that a lot of fundamental research is necessary. And I think that that really must be emphasized,” she said.

The info is here.

White (but Not Black) Americans Continue to See Racism as a Zero-Sum Game; White Conservatives (but Not Moderates or Liberals) See Themselves as Losing

Rasmussen, R., Levari, D. E.,  et al.

Perspectives on Psychological Science, 0(0).

Abstract

In a 2011 article in this journal entitled “Whites See Racism as a Zero-Sum Game That They Are Now Losing” (Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 215–218), Norton and Sommers assessed Black and White Americans’ perceptions of anti-Black and anti-White bias across the previous 6 decades—from the 1950s to the 2000s. They presented two key findings: White (but not Black) respondents perceived decreases in anti-Black bias to be associated with increases in anti-White bias, signaling the perception that racism is a zero-sum game; White respondents rated anti-White bias as more pronounced than anti-Black bias in the 2000s, signaling the perception that they were losing the zero-sum game. We collected new data to examine whether the key findings would be evident nearly a decade later and whether political ideology would moderate perceptions. Liberal, moderate, and conservative White (but not Black) Americans alike believed that racism is a zero-sum game. Liberal White Americans saw racism as a zero-sum game they were winning by a lot, moderate White Americans saw it as a game they were winning by only a little, and conservative White Americans saw it as a game they were losing. This work has clear implications for public policy and behavioral science and lays the groundwork for future research that examines to what extent racial differences in perceptions of racism by political ideology are changing over time.

Conclusions

Our results suggest that zero-sum thinking about racism pervades the entire political ideological spectrum among White Americans; even liberal White Americans believe that gains for Black people mean losses for White people. However, views of whether and by how much White people are seen as now winning or losing the zero-sum game vary by political ideology. Liberal, moderate, and conservative White Americans agree that White people were winning the zero-sum racism game in the past. They disagree on the outcome more recently; in the most recent decade, liberal White Americans see it as a game they are still winning by a lot, moderate White Americans see it as a game they are still winning but by a little, and conservative White Americans see racism as a zero-sum game they are now losing by a little.

Win or lose, why do White Americans, even liberal White Americans, view racism as a zero-sum game? The zero-sum pattern may be a logical consequence of structural racism, “racial practices that reproduce racial inequality in contemporary America [that] (1) are increasingly covert, (2) are embedded in normal operations of institutions, (3) avoid direct racial terminology, and (4) are invisible to most Whites” (Bonilla-Silva, 1997, p. 476). Racial progress by Black Americans may signal deviation from normal operations of American institutions, which is perceived as a threat to White Americans that motivates them to reassert cultural dominance (Wilkins et al., 2021).

A pdf of the research is here.

Powerlessness Also Corrupts: Lower Power Increases Self-Promotional Lying

Li, H.(., Chen, Y., & Hildreth, J.A. (2022).

Organization Science.

Abstract

The popular maxim holds that power corrupts, and research to date supports the view that power increases self-interested unethical behavior. However, we predict the opposite effect when unethical behavior, specifically lying, helps an individual self-promote: lower rather than higher power increases self-promotional lying. Drawing from compensatory consumption theory, we propose that this effect occurs because lower power people feel less esteemed in their organizations than do higher power people. To compensate for this need to view themselves as esteemed members of their organizations, lower power individuals are more likely to inflate their accomplishments. Evidence from four studies supports our predictions: compared with those with higher power, executives with lower power in their organizations were more likely to lie about their work achievements (Study 1, n = 230); graduate students with lower power in their Ph.D. studies were more likely to lie about their publication records (Study 2, n = 164); and employees with lower power were more likely to lie about having signed a business contract (Studies 3 and 4). Mediation analyses suggest that lower power increased lying because lower power individuals feel lower esteem in their organizations (Study 3, n = 562). Further supporting this mechanism, a self-affirmation intervention reduced the effect of lower power on self-promotional lying (Study 4, n = 536). These converging findings show that, when lies are self-promotional, lower power can be more corruptive than higher power.

Conclusion

The popular maxim that power corrupts has long held sway over the public imagination, but recently, scholarly research has challenged the universality of this maxim and added an important modifier: power corrupts when corruption is selfish in nature. In the current research, we drive another nail into this maxim’s coffin, finding that lower rather than higher power can increase certain self-interested unethical behaviors.  Specifically, we find that lower power increases self-promotional lying because it triggers the aversive feeling of low esteem. Therefore, the effects of power on corruption depend critically on the motivations underlying a particular unethical behavior. Even when corruption is self-interested in nature, power need not always corrupt.

A pdf of this research can be found on Dr. Li's website here.

You Can't Win at Morality

Kurt Gray, Will Blakey, and Carlos Rebollar

Moral Understanding Substack

Originally posted 26 OCT 22

Here is an excerpt:

Moral Ideals

Most of us want to do good in the world, and follow a set of moral guidelines, or “ideals.” But the word “ideals” has dangerous roots. The etymology of the very word “ideal” implies perfection, which we authors believe is bad.

 In 1796, Immanuel Kant used the word “ideal” to describe a hypothetically perfect person, thing, or state. It may have been easy for Kant to fetishize the perfect moral person, but it’s not clear that he is the best role model for us modern people (or anyone else). Kant was a weird guy. He once likened sex to sucking dry a lemon (scholars think he died a virgin), he thought you had to tell the truth even if it meant the slaughter of an innocent family, and he thought it was a good idea to get a portrait taken that highlighted his giant bald forehead and left most of his face in darkness (see picture).

Despite Kant’s questionable judgment, an ideal-driven ethics is widely promoted. Christianity’s most popular role model is Jesus, and they say he was perfect. Tony Robbins, self-help guru, says that we should become the best version of ourselves. The reasoning goes, “if our ideals are unachievable, that’s the whole point! They’re supposed to make you shoot for the moon.” This is why Kant’s idealism is so seductive. We think it’ll make us never stop improving ourselves. When it comes to role models, we don’t search for pretty good people, we search for moral perfection and emulate it to the best of our abilities.

As advocates for increasing moral understanding in the world, we are not arguing that people should stop striving to do good. But we do think that the quest for moral perfection can lead us astray. “The perfect is the enemy of the good” is a quote that’s useful in a lot of cases, but it’s especially useful when it comes to morality.

We argue that striving for moral perfection or “trying to win at morality,” has at least two main drawbacks: First, it can contribute to unhealthy thinking, and second, it can deter us from taking steps in the right direction. Instead, we propose that striving for more moral good (not the most) and practicing moral humility can help us do good in the world around us.

Anxiety is the Dizziness of Freedom… When Your Goal is Perfection

Achieving moral perfection is tricky because, as we saw with Janet, answers to the “most moral good” are uncertain. And this is a problem because uncertainty about big questions doesn’t feel good.

Take these big questions: Is God real? Are we living in a simulation? Why are we here and what is the meaning of life? For many, the uncertainty inherent in these questions is a background feature of life. But for others, including me (Will), it is too often an anxiety-provoking challenge. I struggle with “existential OCD,” a psychological disorder involving anxiety resulting from intrusive thoughts and discomfort about these big life questions. Not knowing why we’re all here or where we’re all going often stresses me out. But I’ve largely been able to combat this stress through therapy and renegotiating a better relationship with uncertainty.

The info is here.

America Is Pursuing Happiness in All the Wrong Places

Arthur Brooks

The Atlantic

Originally posted 16 NOV 22

Here are two excerpt:

As a social scientist, I believe that happiness should be understood as a combination of three phenomena: enjoyment, satisfaction, and meaning. Enjoyment is pleasure consciously and purposefully experienced, so it can create a positive memory. Satisfaction is the joy of an achievement, the reward for a job well done.

And then, there’s meaning. You can make do without enjoyment for a while, and even without a lot of satisfaction. But without meaning, you will be utterly lost. That is the psychiatrist and Holocaust survivor Viktor Frankl’s argument in his classic book Man’s Search for Meaning. Without a sense of meaning—a sense of the why of our existence–our lives cannot be endured.

Here is a quick diagnostic tool I sometimes use to find out if someone has a good sense of their life’s meaning. I ask them two questions:

1. Why do you exist?
2. For what would you be willing to die?

There is no greater joy than seeing someone you love find their answers. I remember this in the case of my son Carlos. He struggled in high school, like so many adolescents, to find a sense of his life’s meaning.  After high school, he joined the military. Today, at 22, he is Corporal Carlos Brooks, Scout Sniper, Third Battalion, Fifth Marine Regiment, Weapons Company.

(cut)

But my goal is not just to tell you our troubles. It is to suggest solutions. Let me propose three that we all can undertake.

First, share your secrets of meaning. When I explained the importance of faith, family, friendship, and work, perhaps you said to yourself, I practice those things! That’s great. But it’s not enough to practice these things in our own lives—we need to celebrate them openly and recommend them to others. We all need to preach what we practice. To keep quiet about your sources of meaning because you are worried about looking judgmental is an act of selfishness.

Second, go out of your way to reject identity politics, and tell our shared story as Americans instead. If we want to find our way back as a nation, we must repudiate the poison of grievance and victimization and work instead to reestablish a healthy sense of meaning by constructing a narrative for our country that includes all of us.

Please don’t dismiss this as impossibly idealistic. On the contrary, some of our most successful presidents, from Washington to Lincoln to Franklin D. Roosevelt, did exactly this in times of crisis and trouble—they told a shared story to unite Americans against a common threat rather than balkanizing our people against one another.

The info is here.

AI Isn’t Ready to Make Unsupervised Decisions

Joe McKendrick and Andy Thurai

Harvard Business Review

Originally published September 15, 2022

Artificial intelligence is designed to assist with decision-making when the data, parameters, and variables involved are beyond human comprehension. For the most part, AI systems make the right decisions given the constraints. However, AI notoriously fails in capturing or responding to intangible human factors that go into real-life decision-making — the ethical, moral, and other human considerations that guide the course of business, life, and society at large.

Consider the “trolley problem” — a hypothetical social scenario, formulated long before AI came into being, in which a decision has to be made whether to alter the route of an out-of-control streetcar heading towards a disaster zone. The decision that needs to be made — in a split second — is whether to switch from the original track where the streetcar may kill several people tied to the track, to an alternative track where, presumably, a single person would die.

While there are many other analogies that can be made about difficult decisions, the trolley problem is regarded to be the pinnacle exhibition of ethical and moral decision making. Can this be applied to AI systems to measure whether AI is ready for the real world, in which machines can think independently, and make the same ethical and moral decisions, that are justifiable, that humans would make?

Trolley problems in AI come in all shapes and sizes, and decisions don’t necessarily need to be so deadly — though the decisions AI renders could mean trouble for a business, individual, or even society at large. One of the co-authors of this article recently encountered his own AI “trolley moment,” during a stay in an Airbnb-rented house in upstate New Hampshire. Despite amazing preview pictures and positive reviews, the place was poorly maintained and a dump with condemned adjacent houses. The author was going to give the place a low one-star rating and a negative review, to warn others considering a stay.

However, on the second morning of the stay, the host of the house, a sweet and caring elderly woman, knocked on the door, inquiring if the author and his family were comfortable and if they had everything they needed. During the conversation, the host offered to pick up some fresh fruits from a nearby farmers market. She also said she doesn’t have a car, she would walk a mile to a friend’s place, who would then drive her to the market. She also described her hardships over the past two years, as rentals slumped due to Covid and that she is caring for someone sick full time.

Upon learning this, the author elected not to post the negative review. While the initial decision — to write a negative review — was based on facts, the decision not to post the review was purely a subjective human decision. In this case, the trolley problem was concern for the welfare of the elderly homeowner superseding consideration for the comfort of other potential guests.

How would an AI program have handled this situation? Likely not as sympathetically for the homeowner. It would have delivered a fact-based decision without empathy for the human lives involved.

The article is here.

Telehealth is here to stay. Psychologists should equip themselves to offer it.

Hannah Calkins

The Monitor On Psychology

Vol. 53 No. 7, Print version: page 30

Telehealth continues to play a significant role in the health care industry. However, psychologists who offer both in-person and virtual services are poised to meet increased demand for flexible, accessible mental health care.

In 2020, psychologists responded to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic by making a nearly universal pivot to telehealth. This rapid and widespread adoption was largely enabled by the federal government’s declaration of a public health emergency (PHE), which prompted several significant policy changes that made telehealth more feasible for both patients and providers.

Yet in the following year, an APA survey found that 50% of psychologists had moved to offering both in-person and virtual services to their patients, up from 30% in 2020. Additionally, Pew Research Center data showed that 25% of adults with ­low incomes do not own smartphones, and 40% of this group do not have broadband internet or computers at home, signaling significant concerns about telehealth equity.

This means that psychologists should prepare for a hybrid future in which they deliver services via both modalities.

“Telehealth is here to stay. In-person isn’t going away,” said Robin McLeod, PhD, a licensed psychologist and president and chief business development officer at Natalis Psychology in St. Paul, Minnesota. “I believe it is vital for most psychologists to be able and willing to provide both options for patients. It just makes good business sense.”

Meeting demand for telehealth

Like many other providers, those at McLeod’s large practice made a quick pivot to virtual care during the pandemic and now offer hybrid options.

“[Our] providers have returned to providing in-person care, which many of our patients welcomed,” said McLeod. “However, most every provider in our organization continues to provide telehealth services for those clients who prefer that.”

Similarly, Zixuan Wang, PsyD, of Encounter Psychotherapy in Gaithersburg, Maryland, also has a robust hybrid practice. However, prior to spring 2020, she had never seriously considered offering telehealth.

“I am so appreciative that technology has enabled us to provide telehealth services, as they have been proven to be effective and beneficial for so many people who need care,” she said.

Wang and McLeod’s stories are scaled-down versions of the broader narrative of telehealth during the pandemic: Rapid and sustained implementation out of necessity has led to a permanent change.

The info is here.

Human mini-brains were transplanted into rats. Is this ethical?

Julian Savulescu

channelnewsasia.com

Originally posted 22 OCT 22

Here is an excerpt:

Are 'Humanized Rats' just rats?

In a world-first, scientists have transplanted human brain cells into the brains of baby rats, offering immense possibilities to study and develop treatment for neurological and psychiatric conditions.

The human brain tissue, known as brain organoids or “mini-organs”, are independent nerve structures grown in a lab from a person’s cells, such as their skin cells, using stem cell technology. Although they can’t yet replicate a full brain, they resemble features or parts of an embryonic human brain.

The study, published in the journal Nature on Oct 12, showed that the human organoids integrated into the rat brain and function, and were even capable of affecting the behaviour of the rats.

A few months later, up to one-sixth of the rat cortex was human. In terms of their biology, they were “humanised rats”.

This is an exciting discovery for science. It will allow brain organoids to grow bigger than they have in a lab, and opens up many possibilities of understanding how early human neurons develop and form the brain, and what goes wrong in disease. It also raises the possibility of organoids being used to treat brain injury.

Indeed, the rat models showed the neuronal defects related to one rare severe disease called Timothy Syndrome, a genetic condition that affects brain development and causes severe autism.

This is one step further along the long road to making progress in brain disease, which has proved so intransigent so far.

The research must go ahead. But at the same time, it calls for new standards to be set for future research. At present, the research raises no significant new ethical issues. However, it opens the door to more elaborate or ambitious research that could raise significant ethical issues.

Moral Status of Animals with Human Tissue

The human tissue transplanted into the rats’ brains were in a region that processes sensory information such as touch and pain.

These organoids did not increase the capacities of the rats. But as larger organoids are introduced, or organoids are introduced affecting more key areas of the brain, the rat brain may acquire more advanced consciousness, including higher rational capacities or self-consciousness.

This would raise issues of how such “enhanced” rats ought to be treated. It would be important to not treat them as rats, just because they look like rats, if their brains are significantly enhanced.

This requires discussion and boundaries set around what kinds of organoids can be implanted and what key sites would be targets for enhancement of capacities that matter to moral status.

The info is here.