Disabilities, Super-Abilities, and “Normal”

Tim Howard (Wikipedia)

A recent ABC News report asks whether Tourette’s syndrome can give athletes an advantage. Two examples given in the report are soccer player, Tim Howard, and swimmer, Anthony Ervin. Goal-keeper, Tim Howard, made history in the recent United States versus Belgium World Cup game in which he blocked a record-breaking sixteen goals.  This is the latest in several career successes for Howard, who believes his Tourette’s gives him an advantage on the field. Olympic gold-medalist, swimmer, Anthony Ervin believes that his tics, caused by Tourette’s syndrome, help him with speed by channeling his nervousness.

Studies indicate that athletes with Tourette’s do not have a noticeably faster response time or move faster than athletes without Tourette’s, but there may be other factors that contribute to an advantage on the field, or in the pool. It may be that Howard and Ervin’s mental and physical discipline needed to manage their Tourette’s works to their advantage.

Another recent study, reported in Scientific American, looked at how people with dyslexia can identify visual cues better than those without dyslexia. Apparently, people with dyslexia can look at pictures of impossible figures, like the three-dimensional impossible figures in an Escher print, and pick out the problem more quickly than other people.  This ability can translate to the real world. Often people with dyslexia can look at room and find what looks out-of-place.

Waterfall, 1961 (Wikipedia)

Scientists are not entirely sure why this happens, but they speculate that it may have to do with the brain changes that occur in people who read a lot versus people who do not read as often or read slowly. People who read less tend to have a more holistic perspective of a particular setting rather than focusing on one thing and tuning out the rest of their surroundings. This coincides with studies on entrepreneurs with dyslexia. In the United States, about 35% of entrepreneurs have dyslexia. Many of these entrepreneurs say that dealing with their dyslexia has helped them to become very good at sifting information and grasping the “big picture” better than other people.

Both of these studies demonstrate perceived advantages from something that is labeled as a disability or abnormality. It may be that while abilities in one area are diminished, abilities in another area are enhanced. David Epstein in his book, The Sports Gene, says that most of the people we celebrate as great athletes and examples of human achievement, have attributes that fall outside of the norm. One of his many examples is that of elite-level basketball players. Most people have an arm span that is the same as their height, but most professional basketball players have a longer arm span than height, which would serve as an advantage on the court. Longer arm span is not necessarily considered a disability, although in some cases, it can be and indicator of Marfan syndrome. This is just one of many examples in Epstein’s book where an “abnormality” leads to an athletic advantage.

One article on the OCD Foundation’s website on Tourette’s syndrome points out that metaphors are everything, and a child who is told his Tourette’s is like driving a Ferrari while everyone else is driving a Toyota will grow up thinking quite differently about himself and his abilities than a child who believes he is limited due to a disability. Additionally, several of the entrepreneurs with dyslexia said that they had supportive parents and mentors who helped them see their abilities rather than their disabilities. Perhaps in our eagerness to “cure” abnormalities and diseases with advances in medical technologies and enhancement therapies, we lose sight of the gifts and creativity that these people bring.

Mortifying Reality TV

Ever since COPS aired in 1989, the reality TV professional niche genre has found a willing following. Even among the television connoisseurs, reality TV shows that follow a particular profession seem a bit more high-brow than makeovers, contests, match-making, or group living situations. You are able to see what it is like for those who work in a particular profession, and often viewers gain a greater respect for the particular difficulties that those professions face.

Notable professional reality TV shows are New York Med, which is a recent addition to professional reality TV that has received positive reviews. Ace of Cakes was a Food Network success that ran for ten seasons, documenting what it is like to work in the high-pressure world of the novelty cake business. Deadliest Catch documented the exciting life of crab catchers and ran for ten seasons on the Discovery Channel.

One profession that has garnered some interest in the reality TV world is the mortuary business. Lifetime announced that it would be airing a new reality TV show called “Good Grief” which follows twin brothers and one of their wives as they run the Johnson Family Mortuary in Ft. Worth. Other shows about the mortuary business include A&E’s “Family Plots” about Poway Bernardo Mortuary in California and TLC’s “Best Funeral Ever” about the Golden Gate Funeral Home in Dallas.

“Good Grief” was scheduled to air on July 23 with the TV description:

Take a step deep into the heart of Texas with the Johnson Family Mortuary! You’ve never seen a family funeral business like this one – full of spice and soul. Rachel runs the family business alongside her husband Dondre and his twin Derrick, together known as the “Undertaker Twins,” who bring the life to the business of death. Working with family is never easy with drama, fights and forgiveness, but with the Johnsons, death has never been so lively.

Such a description may seem a little creepily flippant about a somber subject, and may say something about our culture that even death and funeral arrangements can become fodder for prime time TV. However, lest we judge what our culture has come to too hastily, the reason why the show was cancelled is even more disturbing.

“Good Grief” was set to air on July 23. Lifetime dropped the show after the owners were evicted from the building where the mortuary was run, and authorities found eight decaying bodies inside. Dondre and Rachel were charged with seven counts of abuse of a corpse. Derrick claims that he had severed ties with the mortuary, and was not involved in the negligence. The details of what the police uncovered can be found here, but brace yourself because it is not for the faint of heart.

If art says something about a culture, then what does it say about our culture that Good Grief would have been a third reality TV show about the mortuary business but it was canceled because the family that Lifetime chose to follow was engaging in negligent behavior?

The Social Media Experiments and You

Google, Yahoo!, Target, and Facebook all engage in marketing research. They analyze metrics in order to provide targeted ads for its customers. For example, after a summer of attending multiple baby showers and buying items on registries, I started getting free samples of baby formula in the mail. Or, after using my preferred customer card at the grocery store, I received coupons for items that I am likely to buy. Similarly, Facebook filters the posts displayed in your News Feed based on interests, number of comments, and frequency of interaction and they select ads based on your activity.

Recently, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences published a research paper authored by Adam Kramer of Facebook, Inc. and Jamie Guillory and Jeffrey Hancock of Cornell University (the paper was edited by Susan Fiske of Princeton). They investigated the emotional response of 689,003 randomly selected Facebook users by changing what is displayed in their News Feeds. Using word counting and analysis software, they filtered out “negative” posts in one set of users, and filtered out “positive” posts in another set, so each user set was looking at predominantly negative posts or predominantly positive posts. They then had two control groups to account for the statistical differences between negative and positive posts. One control had neutral posts that contained neither distinctly positive nor negative content. They looked at the experimental groups during the prior week to ensure that they did not differ in emotional expression. This experiment took place during the week of January 11-18, 2012.

Their results showed a small, but significant correlation between the emotional content in the News Feed and the experimental groups’ posts. People who viewed fewer negative messages tended to have more positive words in their status updates, and those who viewed fewer positive messages tended to have more negative words in their status updates. Interestingly, people who were in the group that viewed emotionally neutral posts used fewer emotive words in their status updates and wrote fewer words, overall.

Based on a particular interpretation of Facebook’s Terms of Use, this experiment was perfectly legal. But many people believe that even though it may be legal, it is not ethical. Others say that Facebook was just engaging in marketing research?

I talked with a marketing expert from a large digital agency to understand the business ethics perspective. Digital agencies use metrics and data to make better products for their clients, but, as I learned, they are very careful with their data and place a high priority on customer expectations.

He said that marketing research is typically done through surveys or focus groups, in which case people agree to participate. It is true that from the technical side, they can look at trends in user activity, but the key is to not manipulate the user in any way because 1) it skews their data, and 2) it is deceptive. When companies like Google, for example, conduct research analyses, they do not want to change their algorithm because that changes the kind of data they are collecting. Google indicates which search items are paid to appear at the top of the list and they filter “bad” content, such as child pornography.

From a business ethics perspective, the important point is customer (or user) expectations. Facebook users know that the News Feed is filtered and the ads are targeted based on user response, searches, and interest. Facebook crossed a line when it manipulated the end product without the users knowing because Faceboook was no longer providing the expected service.

Let’s take an example from another widely-used, free service. People set up a Gmail account with the expectation that Gmail functions to send and receive emails. Gmail recently started filtering inbox mail by categories such as “Primary”, “Social” and “Promotions”. What if, for one week, Gmail decides to only show mail in your “Primary” tab that is “positive” or “negative” to see how that affects your emotional responses in your correspondences? Your mail is still being sent to your Gmail account, but only certain mail is showing up in the “Primary” tab. Gmail has decided to change how it filters your email without your knowledge and for the purpose of seeing whether it changes your output. Since this may change the content of the emails the user sends out, this could be considered tampering with email correspondence.

Let’s look at a second example. There is a certain trust that customers place in a product, whether you paid for the product or not. Customers trust that the promoted benefit of the product is what it will actually do. If you download a free weather application, you expect it to give you weather information. You don’t expect the app to access other data on your phone and transmit it to someone else without your knowledge. The promoted use of the app was for weather, but its behind-the-scenes use was for something different. Usually this kind of thing is referred as “spyware.”

As the ethical inquiries continue, an important question will be whether Facebook’s experiment is analogous to the hypothetical Gmail example or the spyware example or if it is analogous to marketing research.

From the new issue of Salvo – An interview with Robert P. George

An Interview with Robert P. George
by Marcia Segelstein
An excerpt from the interview:

 

Won’t there be huge ripple effects—for example, in terms of what’s normalized and taught in public schools?

Oh, sure. Of course, in many places public schools are already teaching a message about marriage and sexual morality that is profoundly contrary to the traditional teachings affirmed by Jews as well as Christians of all denominations. Institutions are coming under pressure in their hiring practices, for example, to conform to liberal ideology about marriage and sexuality.

Supporters of redefining marriage have made their argument in the form of an analogy with racial segregation and racial injustice, attempting to stigmatize, marginalize, and demonize Jews, Christians, Muslims, and others who believe in the traditional definition of marriage. And it’s been a very effective strategy despite the fact that it is intellectually bankrupt. The consequences of that strategy will play themselves out as people who oppose the teaching of the Abrahamic faiths and other faiths on sexuality and marriage depict those who seek to honor their convictions about marriage as bigots.

So, for example, anti-discrimination laws will be used to force churches to hire people who lead lives contrary to the Church’s teachings in their schools, in their social services, their soup kitchens, their drug rehab centers, and so on. This will have a terrible effect on the Church’s ministries because the success of those ministries hinges on those participating as providers sharing the faith-based convictions that inform the enterprise. Some—perhaps many—ministries, in order to protect their own consciences, will have to fold up. The same will be true for the teachings of Christian schools and probably Jewish and Muslim schools. Their accreditation would be placed in jeopardy. So there will be many grave consequences for freedom and for conscience.

And Salvo executive editor James Kushiner posted this elsewhere, from the interview. Also some enlightening answers here:

Salvo: One conservative Christian recently wrote that in the battle for traditional marriage, “Christians too often chose intolerance over charity when it came to how they treated gays.” Have we, as Christians, demonstrated a lack of love for gay people?

Robert George: No, we’ve been falsely accused of showing a lack of charity and a lack of love because that was very convenient to the arguments of the other side, a very effective tool. In fact, the overwhelming majority of people of all faiths who’ve been involved in the protection of marriage have gone out of their way, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church goes out of its way, to proclaim the truth that all men and woman are precious. Human beings have a profound and inherent dignity, an equal dignity, as creatures made in the very image and likeness of the Divine Creator and Ruler of the Universe.

This has never been something hidden. It has been frequently affirmed and re-affirmed, yet there are those who wish to refuse to hear it because it’s politically useful to their cause to depict Christians as mean-spirited or bigoted or hostile to people just because they don’t like something about them. It’s a slander. And for us to pretend that the slander is true is itself a sin against the truth. I’m all for confessing error and wrongdoing where error and wrongdoing have been committed. But I see no point in confessing sins that one has not committed, especially when doing so is the precise objective of those who wish unfairly to tar people or a movement as bigoted or hostile.

What’s So Appealing about Comic Book Movies?

X-Men: Days of Future Past, directed by Bryan Singer, as of this writing, surpassed its franchise predecessors and grossed over $500 million, which is not far behind 2012’s blockbuster, Avengers, directed by Joss Whedon.  Avengers grossed over $600 million. As long as comic book movies keep winning in the box office, Hollywood is happy to indulge. Indeed, Avengers 2: Age of Ultron is set to come out in theaters in May 2015, and X-Men: Apocalypse will come out sometime in 2016. What is it about comic book movies that have such mass appeal?

1)      The Obvious: Over-the-top fight-scenes using high-tech graphics all done by super-fit people in tight-fitting outfits (or in the case of Mystique, no outfit)

More than mere eye-candy, there is something to the visual component of all of the recent comic book movies. Comics have always been about visual as well as verbal communication, but now the visual is accomplished with striking effects. Consider the high-budget fight scene guaranteed to appear in every comic book movie. The viewer not only sees or reads about the fight, but is able to experience it through the use of camera angles, lighting, and choreography. <Minor Spoiler Alert> For example, in X-Men: Days of Future Past, the scenes in which the future mutants are fighting the sentinels intentionally uses lighting and backdrop to convey despair, while the fight scene between the past mutants and the sentinels, is well-lit and hopeful.

2)      The Just: The good guys beat up on the bad guys

Human beings have an innate desire to see justice done. The protagonist(s) winning over the antagonist(s) satisfies some deep yearning for cosmic justice. One major theme in comic books is good versus evil. Stan Lee originally wrote Tony Stark (Ironman) to be an unlikable protagonist in the comic books. But, the appeal of the Ironman movies, particularly the first movie, is his redemption and subsequent fight against evil to make things right.

3)      The Alien: Mutants are weird, but not too weird

One literary device that writers often employ is the “alien” or the “savage”. This character is an outsider to the world as we know it that causes us to look beyond ourselves. It introduces the other. One classic example is the noble savage in Huxley’s Brave New World. He serves to question the infrastructure of the world that all of the other characters find completely normal, and in questioning the fictional world, he is questioning those similar elements in our world. Marvel’s mutants are not aliens, but serve the same purpose of representing the other. A theme in several of the X-Men movies is  prejudice and dehumanization.

4)      The Myth: Superheroes as modern-day gods

It is no secret that there are many parallels between comic book heroes and pagan gods, the writers even going so far as to borrow gods, such as Thor and Loki. Comic book heroes are inhumanly powerful, but with human flaws, making them both relatable and god-like. And, like pagan gods, they can be intimate with humans (Wolverine, The Wolverine), they can hate humans (Magneto), and they can have compassion on humanity (Professor X).

Comic book movies appeal to a mass audience because they touch on timeless elements, including, but not limited to its visual appeal. It’s the old story retold in modern trappings.

Related:

See “X-Men Ethics Class” from Salvo 18

The Language of Morality

When it comes to making moral decisions, is it better to have emotional distance or to have compassion?

An ethics professor once told me that ethics is not about choosing between right and wrong because you should always choose what’s right. Ethics is typically about choosing between two wrongs. Certainly, if two people are approaching a decision from differing moral foundations, they may disagree on the “right” decision, but what the professor meant was that they are still trying to decide the “right” decision in a difficult situation in which there are “wrongs” that must be weighed on both sides of the issue. When people disagree, they are often prioritizing the wrongs differently.

Let’s take a typical example from ethics class: if a train is running out of control, and one track has one person tied to it and another track with five people tied to it and you have control of the switch that will direct the train to either of these two tracks, which one do you pick?

More than merely a macabre puzzle game, these improbable scenarios are meant to illuminate how one makes ethical decisions. Often, in the train example, people will kill the one person to save the five people. The next bit is to change the scenario slightly to see if the same kind of utilitarian calculation applies. For example, the one person on the train track is your father, and the five people on the other track are strangers. You still have control of the switch, what do you choose to do? Or, another way to change the scenario is to change the demographics of the victims. What if the one person is a child, while the five people are escaped prisoners? Or, the one person is a woman and the five people are men?

Thankfully, we rarely find ourselves in such troubling situations. However, what influences our answer to these questions becomes much more important when we move out the realm of imaginary trains and into real situations. One example of this is in medicine. Bioethicists often debate how to determine who receives scarce medical resources.

Take the train example, and whether your answers changed when we changed the demographic of the people tied to the rail. This is quite similar to the questions ethicists ask when it comes to deciding who should receive an organ from an organ donor. There are more people waiting for an organ transplant than there are available organs, so we have a situation in which the ethicist must decide how to choose the person who lives in a fair and just way. This is a case of weighing out the “wrongs” because no matter what the ethicist chooses, someone will likely die.

People make decisions based on many factors, but an article in The Economist indicates one unforeseen factor. A study in which some participants were asked two variations of the train scenario in their native language while other participants were asked these scenarios in a different language showed a difference when asked in a different language. Participants were not fluent in the other language, and were tested to ensure they were able to understand the question. In one scenario, the train will hit five people who are lying on the track, and the only way to save them is to push a fat man onto the track in front of the train. You cannot jump in front of the train; the only way to save them is to shove the fat man in the path of the train. The other scenario is the switch and two tracks mentioned above.

The switch scenario emotionally distances the person from the violent act. When given the switch scenario, most people opt to kill the one person in order to save five. This was the case whether the question was asked in a person’s native language or in a different language. However, when the person must push the fat man onto the track, about 20% of people would push the fat man onto the track when asked in their native language (This was also the same for people fluent in a particular language), but when asked in a different language, the percentage was 33%.

After several tests and analyses to account for factors such as cultural mores and randomness, the study confirmed that when people are asked about the fat man scenario in a different language, they were more likely to push him onto the track compared to when they are asked in their native language or a language in which they have fluency. It seems that the different language provides emotional distance similar to the way the switch provided emotional distance.

We live in a globalized world in which many people communicate and make decisions in a different language. Based on this study, it seems that language barriers also create emotional distance that is not necessarily there if the person is making the decision in his or her native language. In the area of medicine, this may have implications for patients who are asked to make a decision while living in a different country that does not speak his or her language. Additionally, this may have implications for patients who are unfamiliar with technical medical jargon, in which the use of jargon may be similar to hearing a problem in a different language. This may prompt a patient to make a more emotionally distanced decision.