chrisschuck.bsky.social
Graduate student in psychology and ambivalence | philosophy of psychology | philosophy of social science | University of Guelph
297 posts
113 followers
269 following
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Where did you see this?
comment in response to
post
In that sense it has instrumental value, I suppose. It's interesting how it tends to get conflated with honesty. Or even self-honesty. But authenticity seems a bit different; as much existential as epistemic or virtue. Perhaps bc we continue to "become who we are." Looking forward to your book!
comment in response to
post
For what it's worth, I have always thought of authenticity as morality-adjacent and sometimes overlapping with ethics but not inherently ethical in itself. Perhaps it's best viewed in terms of discerning the real reasons for doing what you do or valuing what you value, as opposed to "right" reasons.
comment in response to
post
Awesome, thanks for the quick response!
comment in response to
post
Looks great -any chance the talk may eventually be available online? I registered for the webinar but sadly was not free to join because of the time difference.
comment in response to
post
Oh, that sounds great! That's how I prefer to learn: lots of reference points and discussion of interconnections between them. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
comment in response to
post
I know nothing about this book, but my friend @dgozli.bsky.social speaks highly of Greg Dember's work on metamodernism, so maybe check out his book too?
whatismetamodern.com
My immediate thought about the "metamodernism" thing is: old wine in new bottles? But maybe that's the whole point!
comment in response to
post
Although, one of the commenters underneath made a good point that even from the standpoint of theoretical understanding, psychological systems are evolved for non-lab environments and thus (aside from real-world irrelevance) what happens in controlled lab conditions may not yield accurate knowledge.
comment in response to
post
Maybe the appeal is precisely that it's a space where they can share and acknowledge their (perceived) vulnerabilities and build solidarity around this belief in a common threat, not unlike people being vulnerable together in non-toxic spaces, only predicated on very different assumptions.
comment in response to
post
Interesting - makes sense to me that self-report with the buffer of extra time and privacy would be more conducive to bringing out that wider range and diversity vs. real-time interviews, but maybe your experience has been opposite.
comment in response to
post
Do you mean 2nd ed. self-report, or longer one? Can you say more about what you think it manages to capture, that other analogous scales don't? I have taken it more X than I can count and find it extremely frustrating. But perhaps it's simply the inherent limitations of questionnaires, not Y-BOCS.
comment in response to
post
Whoa, so that was a bot asking you about novels capturing reality?
comment in response to
post
Done!
comment in response to
post
Downloadable, no? philpapers.org/rec/CHEBPL
comment in response to
post
Happy to send it - just tell me where. (And I think it's in her PhilPapers for future reference).
comment in response to
post
Kate Slaney's book Validating Psychological Constructs certainly speaks to that "master validity" narrative among psychologists (and some of its problems). It's the deepest dive into construct validity in a psychology context that I know of. That Kino Zhao paper was really neat! And very readable.
comment in response to
post
Oh, I see. So she really does want to place more emphasis on the specific nature of the tool itself, then?
comment in response to
post
Maybe there's also a potential fallacy of abstracting the "tool" in the metaphor as if it's totally separate from the person utilizing it. When in reality, it's equally about *who* is using a tool, how well-positioned or competent to use it, ultimate motivation for using it, etc.
comment in response to
post
Ah yes, I remember this one! (I follow The Philosopher and have appreciated your work there). Thanks for reminding me about it.
comment in response to
post
That's interesting - I wonder if there's a cultural thing where using that kind of junkie language is a way of signalling that you are a grizzled, savvy veteran. It's also a way of saying "you *owe* me this, doctor" which you can't really say for illegal street drugs which is your own decision.
comment in response to
post
That book caught my eye too. I remember an interview where the author comments that she was really angry when she wrote it.
comment in response to
post
Is there a particular paper corresponding to this talk, or possibly a public recording that might be released? This topic relates to my MA thesis so very interested!
comment in response to
post
Sorry to be dense, but "how much variance" in what: the choices they end up making, or in the range of ethical reasons they cite? And total decision space = all reasons they factor into their decisions, not just ethical reasons?
comment in response to
post
Yeah, interesting to think about in terms of challenges! And to be clear, you're right to think of background knowledge too - I meant either kind of context. Didn't realize you had an entire blog over there, very cool.
comment in response to
post
Not only shared context for background knowledge, but in many real situations shared interest & emotional stakes (if it's an interaction or relationship). If you know the person to be physically aggressive, maybe you focus on their body. If you trust them, maybe their face.
comment in response to
post
Interesting idea! One limitation is they must assess emotion from outside the situation giving rise to it (not sharing same social-situational context with the target, as we normally do when deciphering cues). A background narrative, or letting cue emerge during a film, adds ecological sensitivity.
comment in response to
post
What's the distinction between considering ethical factors and mapping the decision space, for these purposes? Does that just mean adding all non-ethical considerations on top of the ethical ones, or a different task entirely? Sorry if that's a naive question
comment in response to
post
I only mention TV shows bc there might be a difference between 1) empirical reality of what is actually prioritized in real instances of triage for various contexts, 2) empirical reality of attitudes experts hold on what should be prioritized, 3) folk attitudes among nonexperts & portrayed in media.
comment in response to
post
And then lots of theoretical discussions in bioethics journals, that probably have lit reviews, e.g. onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/...
Or philosophical treatments: pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC...
There's a whole new subfield in X-Phi devoted to bioethics:
www.bioxphi.org/home
comment in response to
post
Are you more interested in which factors are most relevant, or which factors different parties seem to think are most relevant? I bet you could find good stereotyped examples in some of those medic TV shows like ER or House MD. There must be plenty of studies surveying attitudes of medical workers.
comment in response to
post
Oh great, thanks so much! I'll check it out later when I'm free.
comment in response to
post
I'm tech-illiterate so I guess I'm basically asking what you mean by semantic embeddings, in this context....
comment in response to
post
So is the idea that you get a visual of the LLM's aggregated amount of associations of a prompt with various words (based on how often the two were statistically correlated in its training material),such that you can compare the degrees of correlation visually)? Or does it go deeper than that?
comment in response to
post
Do you have any specific examples in mind? Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference between inspiring and secretly depressing.
comment in response to
post
So you disagree with him on that duty, then? I need to check out that lecture. My bias is to say that any extra responsibility comes not as a public intellectual (or scientist), but having more power & influence, period. Trying to influence specifically as a public intellectual can backfire, too!
comment in response to
post
I'm inclined to say scientists have responsibility to speak truth-to-power where this is compromising facts & science itself, but can only critique *authoritatively* as experts for facts/positions directly pertaining to stuff they research & know. Otherwise, standard citizen responsibility.
comment in response to
post
That's an interesting question. I suppose it would depend on context. If powerful forces from above are sabotaging the ability to even pursue science freely (as in the U.S. currently), maybe truth-to-power is harder to separate? Or maybe this political move becomes a fact-based position to critique.
comment in response to
post
I always thought of truth to power as just one (more political) form of critique out of many, whereas critique could mean any systematic, detailed scrutiny of a position or situation or text with evaluative intent.
comment in response to
post
I wonder how your electricity and water usage compares to one Jared-size unit of ChatGPT.
comment in response to
post
I like How To Be A Fascist better than How to Not Be A Fascist (less on-the-nose with a touch of irony, speaks to its being a process), but that title appears to be taken. How about Fascist Architecture? That gets at the metaphysical beliefs, plus it's the title of a great Bruce Cockburn song.
comment in response to
post
Yes, I have found his takes problematic. A shame, since he probably shares most of my political values. But such an attitude can't be easily reasoned or argued away, any more than those he villifies. It's a conscious philosophy of "know your enemy" and never kid yourself otherwise. And many agree.
comment in response to
post
Very true - so much variation in how someone could respond to an experience or situation. My friend & I were talking the other day about Van der Kolk's "Body Keeps the Score" and how this framework reduces so much that is interpretive, social, cultural & developmental to body and neuro stuff.
comment in response to
post
The show The Leftovers does an interesting spin on this idea.
comment in response to
post
Don't rule out Theory & Psychology! It's an excellent journal. (They're about to change editors so I don't know how that affects things).
comment in response to
post
The "not alone" is possibly the most important piece for me, in all of this. It has to be more than a noble exercise, or yelling into the wind. It isn't yelling at all. But it also can't just be preaching to the converted (only to your ingroup, as an ingroup). Your audience is open & indeterminate.
comment in response to
post
Absolutely. The problem I think is how to make those norms & values more popular, familiar and acceptable at large. In many ways I think the issue isn't even one of strategy (though of course yours is correct), but rather how people like to use social media & what their goals are in the first place.
comment in response to
post
I agree, but 2 caveats: 1) if your own people behave badly enough that you must criticize them, it's quite possible this criticism will relabel you as outgroup, so < influence; 2) 2nd image above presupposes people can distinguish good/bad *things* from groups they already see doing more bad stuff.