User:Bellebramer/sandbox
Brainstorming ideas Wiki-workshop
editGroup brainstorming ideas:
Confusion between disciplines related to truth/evidence within a specific ‘real life example’
Climate change: —> truth (evidence)
editSub-ideas
- food waste
- plastic pollution
- car pollution —> switching to green
- deforestation
- agriculture; meat industry —> taxation, etc.
- land fill
Relevant disciplines
- politics/policy making
- economics
- environmental science
Managing the spread of epidemics —> evidence?
editSub-ideas
- HIV/AIDS
- black plague
Relevant Disciplines
- anthropology
- religion
- sociology
- economics
- statistics
- mathematical modelling
Other ideas
edit- monopolies/collusion
- trophy hunting (ecology)
More brainstorming...
editFood waste
edit- High consumption of water and fossil fuels needed to produce food. Food waste means a waste of these resources
- Emissions of CO2 and methane from decomposing food -> GHG emissions
- Difficulties of quantifying food waste (EVIDENCE)
- Typical data comes from "structured interviews, measurement of plate waste, direct examination of garbage". [1]
- This data is somewhat indirect, and experts from different fields may debate its reliability/validity. (Thus making it an interdisciplinary issue.)
Drug legalisation
editEvidence
Legalisation of medical hallucinogens
Medicine/clinical psychology
- Carhart-Harris; UK clinical trial of psilocybin (active element in psilocybin 'magic' mushrooms)
- used for "treatment-resistant" depression
- 5 of the 12 individuals included in the study were not depressed any longer after 3 months[2]
Politics
- Societal issues
- Difference between legalisation & decriminalisation
- Legalisation of drugs:
- becomes profitable; almost 'advertise' use
- Collapse of profit for criminal groups; could possibly lead to uncertainty
- Destabilising force due to connections of the illegal market to many societies and governments
- politics and economics connected to money supply coming from illegal markets[3]
- Different solution to the 'drug' problem
Sociology
- Normalisation of drug use
- Greater exposure to drug use by the entire society
Race Science and Racism
edit- History – argued different races were different species – believed to be true, pseudo-scientific evidence and therefore pseudoscientific racism– social construct ‘types of mankind’ 1854 – human zoos, white supremacy – eugenics
- No biological evidence for race – more variation within human populations than between populations
- Race based medicine – race can help identify populations at risk of disease - evidence for Jewish people being more prone to Tay sach’s disease. Inherent belief can also lead to treating people differently – racial bias in pain assessment
- Subconscious and conscious beliefs ; conscious (implicit) associations role in behaviour and beliefs
- Implicit association test – people make connections quickly between pairs of ideas already related in our minds than those unfamiliar – male and family vs female and career – more difficult – more mental associations with maleness and careers
- Online test – measure response times – race IAT – beginning asked what your attitudes to whites and blacks are – 80% pro-white associations – attitudes towards race operate on 2 levels
- conscious attitudes (choose to believe) – values we use to direct our behaviour
- IAT measures attitude on an unconscious level – automatic associations not deliberately chosen – data from experiences, people, lessons, books, movies – formulates an opinion we may not be aware of
- Philosophical stance – does subconscious opinion define who we truly are?
- Since our actions are consciously driven and are therefore controlled, to what extend does our sub-conscious actually affect these decisions? Do our subconscious thoughts actually matter in terms of our behaviour?
Chapter structure
edit(structure we agreed upon for the wikibook chapter)
Subconscious racism
Interdisciplinary issue: Truth
Introduction:
- establish argument; does our sub-conscious reflect our racist beliefs
- establish what the IAT test is = the basis of the interdisciplinary issue
Argument:
1. Behavioural psychology argument
Claim: Our subconscious reflects our racist beliefs and the IAT can identify these beliefs.
- IAT reflects inherent racism
- how the IAT test works;
Counter argument:
1. Sociology
Claim: Our subconscious beliefs do not reflect our values, since our subconscious is a result of social constructs.
- Race science: if race is itself a social construct = subconscious will be affected
- But will not have an innate racism
- only caused by social construct / imperialism
- But will not have an innate racism
- Frederick Oswald research team did meta-analysis of 46 studies, found IAT scores are poor predictors of actual behavior and policy preferences / IAT scores predicted behaviors and policy preferences no better than scores on simple paper-and-pencil measures of prejudice
2. Neuroscientists
Claim: The IAT reflects quick associations in the brain, but there is no concrete link between these reactions among neurons and our conscious values regarding issues such as race.
- MRIs of brain activity
- racial bias is caused by fast automatic thinking
3. Cognitive science
Claim: links to neuroscientist claim
- IAT = assesses familiarity
- need to answer very quickly
- some cannot cognitively process the information fast enough
- IAT is a measuring construct of salient attributes
- test describes something about racist beliefs but racism in itself is a social construct
- the subconscious tests do not express something biological but more an environment consequence of our society
- The test-retest reliability (repeatability) of the Race IAT is only .42, which falls well below the psychometric standard of .80 - repeatibility as a key scientific value
Counter-counter argument
1. Social Psychology
Claim: The IAT is valid in determining the truth of our subconscious beliefs regarding race, as it provides a more genuine response than alternate research methods would.
- validity of self-reports depends on how sensitive the topic/situation asked about is
- if asking about a sensitive topic (ie. whether or not the individual deems themselves racist); cannot ask people directly without getting inaccurate results
- Therefore: supports that the IAT can help find out through their subconscious if an individual may actually have racist beliefs
- However: even their subconscious may not accurately reflect what that individual believes
Conclusion
- subconscious is more built around our environment
- see differences in studies between countries; effect of specific environment
- key is how we use these results (evidence) to form truths --> what does the IAT measure and therefore what truth can we form? does it measure prejudice / racism / cognitive ability etc?[5]
References
edit- ↑ Kevin D. Hall, Juen Guo, Michael Dore, Carson C. Chow. "The Progressive Increase of Food Waste in America and its Environmental Impact." November 25, 2009.
- ↑ https://www.newscientist.com/article/2144520-psychedelic-medicine-the-potential-the-people-the-politics/
- ↑ https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/sep/22/consider-the-impact-of-drug-legalisation
- ↑ a b https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23374228
- ↑ https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/culture-conscious/201706/is-implicit-bias-useful-scientific-concept