Real scientific breakthroughs of that scope don’t have to announce themselves. Fake ones do, because evolutionary psychology never produced a lightbulb and “artificial intelligence” never built a car. They certainly made advances, they contributed, but the wild claims that they would change everything about human society were the lonely mating call of scientists out on a limb.
If your ears are open, you can hear neurobiology making that same sound.
In this month’s Atlantic, neuroscientist David Eagleman is crowing about the way his field is going to forever change the criminal justice system. Apparently it has proven … or is on the verge of proving … or probably will eventually prove … or could in theory at some point arguably argue … that there is no free will, only differences in biology.
Eventually, at some point, probably, possibly, maybe … let’s hypothesize … this will have a huge impact on the way we assign blame in criminal cases.
The fact that it hasn’t done so yet is merely an accident of timing. Science, Eagleman tells us, will come through: We’ll get those flying cars eventually. We always have.
The trouble is that the case he builds is based on two premises – one of which is indisputably true, and one of which is horrifically wrong.
Great advice, Shakespeare, but could you help us a bit with that first part? What’s a “True self?”
“Experimental philosopher” Joshua Knobe recently wrote a New York Times blog in which he suggested that the true self is whatever one is ideologically disposed to believe it is: conservatives think it’s the rational self which tames the impulses, liberals think it’s the romantic impulses that chafe at rationality.
A blog in The Economist, meanwhile, responded that the “true self” is in fact an illusory product of evolution: it’s adaptive if we have “selves” that others can trust, therefore we create the image of selves:
We used to know what "collaboration" meant. But in the 21st century we can collaborate "in person," or through chat, or video chat, or through email, or "waves," or 3D avatars in a virtual environment.
Are they all the same thing? Or does the new technology for collaboration mean new kinds of collaboration?
Organizational Systems PhD student Jan Spencer has looked at the issue, and has an answer.
Let us know what you think. Has technology changed the way you work with others? Is it for the better?
How have specific places affected you? Do you think differently in certain spots? Tell us about it in the comments section below.
At the LIOS blog, David Franklin wants to know if celebrating is an appropriate response to the death of Osama bin Laden.
Do we give ourselves a pat on the back, or do we recognize that we have to take our moral obligation to be better just as seriously in victory?
Read the post, and tell us what you think.
Is it too hard to find a male therapist?
A recent article in the New York Times suggested that only one in five new Masters Degrees in therapy are awarded to men … and that this means patients who are seeking a male perspective, or are more comfortable confiding to a man, are out of luck.
Says the times:
Some college psychology programs cannot even attract male applicants, much less students. And at many therapists’ conferences, attendees with salt-and-pepper beards wander the hallways as lonely as peaceniks at a gun fair.
The result, many therapists argue, is that the profession is at risk of losing its appeal for a large group of sufferers — most of them men — who would like to receive therapy but prefer to start with a male therapist.
Is this a real shift? Or, more to the point, is it a real problem?
The needs of our new farms with their domesticated animals and seasonal crops kept pushing us to bigger and bigger feats of civilization: the idea is that a culture evolves on its stomach.
But an article in National Geographic says maybe the high school text books got it wrong. It's not "food" - it's "spirituality."
The oldest human architectural structure ever discovered – over 11 thousand years old – turns out to be a temple -- and it turns out that our ancestors were building temples before they were making farms.
At a time when human beings were living in nomadic tribes, they were also carving massive stone pillars to provide a better place to worship.
Was it our sense of the sacred – and our need to relate to an awe-inspiring universe – that really inspired civilization?
According to National Geographic, many archeologists say the evidence suggests that’s the case.
But are we any good at grieving?
In an article in Natural News, Dr. Larry Malerba explores the correlation between unresolved grief and chronic illnesses. Entitled, Could Grief Be Causing Your Chronic Illness, Dr. Malerba looks at grief from a psychophysiological perspective exploring the grieving process as a normative human experience that has ravaging maladaptive physical and psychological effects if cut short. While complex, the grieving process over a tragic event or death is found to be most successful with individuals who possess a strong degree of psychological maturity, solid support systems, a sense of spirituality, and congruent emotional and cultural perspectives toward the grieving process. Conversely, Dr. Malerba asserts than unfinished or unprocessed grief has ravaging effects—often leading to a variety of chronic physical illnesses; namely: depression, anxiety, gastrointestinal issues, migraines—to name a few.
“Legal highs” are becoming increasingly common, with the same dangerous side effects as illicit street drugs, reports the Wall Street Journal. Last year alone, the number of recognized legal psychoactive substances doubled in Europe. Powders, pills, salts-- you name it and they are being invented under the radar and sold, clandestinely, on the internet.
It’s the latest development in a perilous up hill battle for lawmakers, addiction specialists, and public health officials. With legal substances composed of chemical compounds similar to marijuana, cocaine, and ecstasy, the same addictive battle rages for those that use. The complexity of addiction recovery for mental health professionals who treat them, however, is more complex.
With the changes in addictive substances and overall substance abuse on the rise the field of addiction recovery must rise to the occasion to adapt and meet the needs of the community through effective measures … measures that will fail unless they are imbued with the values of humanistic psychology.
The misuse of antipsychotic drugs on the elderly has been under scrutiny for some time now. Research reports, warnings by federal and state governments and physicians have apparently fallen on deaf ears.
According to recent research, millions of nursing home residents are being prescribed antipsychotic medications they don’t need – just to keep them docile.
Propublica, an independent nonprofit newsroom specializing investigative reporting for the public interest, published a blog May 10th, highlighting the troubles of nursing home care.
The New York Times also discussed a recent report issued by the Health and Human Services Department. The report reviewed the details from the largest medical care program for persons over 65 to determine just how many were receiving prescriptions for atypical antipsychotic drugs while they were living in nursing homes. These are drugs that have not been approved for use on patients with dementia … and in fact the FDA specifically issued a warning in 2005 that they should not be used this way.
A majority of nursing homes don’t appear to be listening.