Thursday, October 10, 2013

Empathy, Emotion and the Supramarginal Gyrus

Egoism and narcissism appear to be on the rise in our society, while empathy is on the decline. And yet, the ability to put ourselves in other people’s shoes is extremely important for our coexistence. A research team headed by Tania Singer from the Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences has discovered that our own feelings can distort our capacity for empathy. This emotionally driven egocentricity is recognized and corrected by the brain. When, however, the right supramarginal gyrus doesn’t function properly or when we have to make particularly quick decisions, our empathy is severely limited.
When assessing the world around us and our fellow humans, we use ourselves as a yardstick and tend to project our own emotional state onto others. While cognition research has already studied this phenomenon in detail, nothing is known about how it works on an emotional level. It was assumed that our own emotional state can distort our understanding of other people’s emotions, in particular if these are completely different to our own. But this emotional egocentricity had not been measured before now.
This is precisely what the Max Planck researchers have accomplished in a complex marathon of experiments and tests. They also discovered the area of the brain responsible for this function, which helps us to distinguish our own emotional state from that of other people. The area in question is the supramarginal gyrus, a convolution of the cerebral cortex which is approximately located at the junction of the parietal, temporal and frontal lobe. “This was unexpected, as we had the temporo-parietal junction in our sights. This is located more towards the front of the brain,” explains Claus Lamm, one of the publication’s authors.
On the empathy trail with toy slime and synthetic fur
Using a perception experiment, the researchers began by showing that our own feelings actually do influence our capacity for empathy, and that this egocentricity can also be measured. The participants, who worked in teams of two, were exposed to either pleasant or unpleasant simultaneous visual and tactile stimuli.
While participant 1, for example, could see a picture of maggots and feel slime with her hand, participant 2 saw a picture of a puppy and could feel soft, fleecy fur on her skin. “It was important to combine the two stimuli. Without the tactile stimulus, the participants would only have evaluated the situation ‘with their heads’ and their feelings would have been excluded,” explains Claus Lamm. The participants could also see the stimulus to which their team partners were exposed at the same time.
The two participants were then asked to evaluate either their own emotions or those of their partners. As long as both participants were exposed to the same type of positive or negative stimuli, they found it easy to assess their partner’s emotions. The participant who was confronted with a stinkbug could easily imagine how unpleasant the sight and feeling of a spider must be for her partner.
Differences only arose during the test runs in which one partner was confronted with pleasant stimuli and the other with unpleasant ones. Their capacity for empathy suddenly plummeted. The participants’ own emotions distorted their assessment of the other person’s feelings. The participants who were feeling good themselves assessed their partners’ negative experiences as less severe than they actually were. In contrast, those who had just had an unpleasant experience assessed their partners’ good experiences less positively.
Particularly quick decisions cause a decline in empathy
The researchers pinpointed the area of the brain responsible for this phenomenon with the help of functional magnetic resonance imaging, generally referred to as a brain scanning. The right supramarginal gyrus ensures that we can decouple our perception of ourselves from that of others. When the neurons in this part of the brain were disrupted in the course of this task, the participants found it difficult not to project their own feelings onto others. The participants’ assessments were also less accurate when they were forced to make particularly quick decisions.
Up to now, the social neuroscience models have assumed that we mainly draw on our own emotions as a reference for empathy. This only works, however, if we are in a neutral state or the same state as our counterpart – otherwise, the brain must counteract and correct.

Ashamed And Embarrassed

On October 1, 2013, the United States federal government entered a government shutdown, forcing furloughs of 800,000 workers and suspension of services not exempted by the Antideficiency Act. Because Congress did not enact regular appropriations or a continuing resolution for the 2014 fiscal year, appropriations have lapsed and about 800,000 federal employees were indefinitely furloughed without pay, while another 1.3 million were required to report to work without pay until an appropriations bill is passed or their function is no longer excepted. The most recent previous U.S. federal government shutdown was in 1995–96.
A "funding gap" was created when the two chambers of Congress failed to agree to a compromise continuing resolution. The Republican-led House of Representatives offered several continuing resolutions with language delaying or defunding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (commonly known as "Obamacare"). The Democratic-led Senate, offered several "clean" continuing resolutions. Political fights on this and other issues between the GOP House on one side and President Barack Obama and the Senate on the other have led to a budget impasse which threatens massive disruption.
The fight centered on the Continuing Appropriations Resolution of 2014 which was passed by the House of Representatives on September 20, 2013.The Senate stripped the bill of the measures related to the Affordable Care Act, and passed it in revised form on Friday, September 27, 2013. The House put the measures back and passed it again in the early morning hours on Sunday, September 29. The Senate refused to pass the bill while it still had measures to delay the Affordable Care Act, and the two sides could not develop a compromise bill by midnight on Monday, September 30, 2013, causing the federal government to shut down due to a lack of appropriated funds.
The first day of the 2014 federal fiscal year, October 1, 2013, was also when many of the Affordable Care Act's measures took effect.The health insurance exchanges created by the Affordable Care Act launched as scheduled on October 1.
A fiery Sen. John McCain urged fellow lawmakers to resolve the shutdown crisis during a passionate speech Tuesday on the Senate floor, saying they should all be “ashamed” over denying military death benefits.
“Shouldn’t we as a body –Republican or Democrat–shouldn’t we be embarrassed? Ashamed? What do American people think when they see that death benefit for those who served and sacrifice- they’re not eligible?” He added, “I’m ashamed! I’m embarrassed. All of us should be.”
The so-called “death gratuity,” which the government sends to families of active duty service members within three days of their death, has been suspended as a result of the ongoing government shutdown. These payments help cover the immediate cost of funeral services, travel expenses to meet the coffins and give families some financial cushioning before life benefits kick into effect.
The Arizona Republican spread the blame across party lines, but took a specific dig at members of his own party for refusing to fund the government over President Obama’s health care reform law. “Somehow to think that we were going to repeal Obamacare was false and did people a great disservice!"

You know what? I'm ashamed and embarrassed of you, Mister John McCain. I'm ashamed and embarrassed  of ALL of you. I'm to the point where I think it would be okay if we took everybody out of their respective positions and put someone else in. Somebody who can see that ObamaCare is is a faux pa, but that the DEBT CEILING IS QUICKLY APPROACHING! Get that figured out, and then carry on with your temper tantrum, you moronic toddlers. ObamaCare is NOT what you think it is. Obamacare’s employer mandate incentivizes smaller companies to shift their workers to part-time status because employers are not required to provide health coverage to part-time workers.

According to a study completed by the Association of American Medical Colleges, America is projected to have a shortage of 91,500 doctors by the year 2020 due in part to an overwhelming negative view that many of them have on Obamacare. In fact, a survey completed by The Doctors Company, found that 60% of doctors feel that the pressure to reduce costs, increase volume, and improve quality will have a negative effect on patient care, causing 43% of physicians to also contemplate early retirement.

Obamacare is really happening. According to a Kaiser Family Foundation Health Tracking Poll, 42% of Americans in general are unaware that the law is being implemented, while 51% of Americans ages 18-29 are unaware that the bill was signed into law in March 2010. The most commonly cited sources of information about the law were from friends and family (named by 40%), “newspapers, radio or other online news” (36%), and cable news (30%). About 10% of Americans report getting any information from a health insurance company, their doctor, an employer, or a non-profit, and few name any of these as their most important source of information about the law or how the exchanges will affect their health plans. The public remains divided on how they view the overall goals of Obamacare, with 35% reporting a favorable view, 40% an unfavorable view, and a full 24% reporting they have no opinion on the law.

Tuesday, October 1, 2013

Rape Culture

This is what rape culture is like:

Imagine you have a Rolex watch. Nice fancy Rolex, you bought it because you like the way it looks and you wanted to treat yourself. And then you get beaten and mugged and your Rolex is stolen. So you go to the police. Only, instead of investigating the crime, the police want to know why you were wearing a Rolex instead of a regular watch. Have you ever given a Rolex to anyone else? Is it possible you wanted to be mugged? Why didn’t you wear long sleeves to cover up the Rolex if you didn’t want to be mugged?

And then after that, everywhere you go, there are constant jokes about stealing your Rolex. People you don’t even know whistle at your Rolex and make jokes about cutting your hand off to get it. The media doesn’t help either; it portrays people who wear Rolexes as flamboyant assholes who secretly just want someone to come along and take that Rolex off their hands. When damn, all you wanted was to wear a nice watch without getting harassed for it. When you complain that you are starting to feel unsafe, people laugh you off and say that you are too uptight. Never mind you got violently attacked for the crime of wearing a friggin time piece.

Imagining all that? It sucks, doesn’t it.

Now imagine you could never take the Rolex off.

Murder Or Relieving Someone Of Suffering: Where Do We Draw The Line?

Euthanasia is the practice of intentionally ending a life in order to relieve pain and suffering.
There are different euthanasia laws in each country. The British House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics defines euthanasia as "a deliberate intervention undertaken with the express intention of ending a life, to relieve intractable suffering". In the Netherlands, euthanasia is understood as "termination of life by a doctor at the request of a patient".
Euthanasia is categorized in different ways, which include voluntary, non-voluntary, or involuntary. Assisted-suicide is legal in several jurisdictions, including Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Switzerland and four American states (Oregon, Washington, Vermont and Montana).Non-voluntary euthanasia is illegal in all countries. Involuntary euthanasia is usually considered murder.
So hopefully we all know who Jack Kevorkian is, "Dr. Death" is pretty famous I'd say. His work is the very reason I wonder where we draw the line of murder, and the right to die. Rebecca Badger, a patient of Kevorkian's and a mentally troubled drug abuser, had been mistakenly diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. The report also stated that Janet Adkins, Kevorkian's first patient, had been chosen without Kevorkian ever speaking to her, only with her husband, and that when Kevorkian first met Adkins two days before her assisted suicide he "made no real effort to discover whether Ms. Adkins wished to end her life," as the Michigan Court of Appeals put it in a 1995 ruling upholding an order against Kevorkian's activity.According to The Economist: "Studies of those who sought out Dr. Kevorkian, however, suggest that though many had a worsening illness ... it was not usually terminal. Autopsies showed five people had no disease at all. ... Little over a third were in pain. Some presumably suffered from no more than hypochondria or depression."
"What difference does it make if someone is terminal? We are all terminal." Jack claimed. Well yes I suppose, but why exactly do we need help committing suicide? I'm more than sure that people are capable of committing suicide on their own. For instance, Oregon requires a physician to prescribe medication but it must be self-administered. What happens when your patient can barely remember how to hold a spoon let alone remember what the hell you said five minutes ago? Even if they do consent, what if they don't remember it?? I just have this feeling that there are too many variables to somehow make this okay

He Speaks, But Is He Really Saying Anything?

For generations, homosexuality has largely been a taboo topic for the Vatican, ignored altogether or treated as “an intrinsic moral evil,” in the words of the previous pope.In that context, brief remarks by Pope Francis suggesting that he would not judge priests for their sexual orientation, made aboard the papal airplane on the way back from his first foreign trip, to Brazil, resonated through the church. Never veering from church doctrine opposing homosexuality, Francis did strike a more compassionate tone than that of his predecessors, some of whom had largely avoided even saying the more colloquial “gay.”

“If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?” Francis told reporters, speaking in Italian but using the English word “gay.”

Francis’s words could not have been more different from those of Benedict XVI, who in 2005 wrote that homosexuality was “a strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil,” and an “objective disorder.” The church document said men with “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” should not become priests.

Vatican experts were quick to point out that Francis was not suggesting that the priests or anyone else should act on their homosexual tendencies, which the church considers a sin. But the fact that he made such comments — and used the word “gay” — was nevertheless revolutionary, and likely to generate significant discussion in local dioceses, where bishops are divided over whether to accept priests who are gay but celibate.

Yeah okay great. Does anybody realize that the Pope is not actually saying anything. "Gays are okay" yes obviously. So being labelled as gay is okay, but if you engage in homosexual acts that's not okay apparently. So essentially we are back to square one. That's like saying it's okay to be called Christian, but it's not okay to participate in something trivial like going to church. Way to not actually say anything Mr. Pope.