Difference between revisions of "MAR 1"

From Alfino
Jump to navigationJump to search
m
m
 
Line 1: Line 1:
==15: MAR 1. Unit Three: Two Theories of Moral and Political Difference==
+
==12. MAR 1==
  
===Assigned===
+
===Assigned Work===
  
:*Haidt, Chapter 6, "Taste Buds of the Righteous Mind" (27)
+
:*Kessler, The End of Overeating, Chs 1-3  (p. 3-17) (14)
 +
:*Gordon Shepherd, ''Neurogastronomy'' Chapters 11, 18, and 19 (24)
  
===In-class===
+
===In-Class===
  
===Lecture Note on Philosophical Method: "Hitting Rock Bottom"===
+
:*Review of resources for SW2: Assessing Industrial Food Systems
  
:*Today and Tuesday (after Spring Break) we hit "Rock Bottom" in the course. Here what that means in terms of philosophical method.
+
===Kessler, The End of Overeating, Chs 1-7 pp. 3-45===
  
:*Direction of philosophical inquiry: toward "first principles".  
+
:*Some comments about approaching "unhealthy eating patterns" (expand list), some [https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/health-statistics/overweight-obesity baseline data], and Kessler's basic theory.   
::*In Classical Greece, a model for first principles comes from math and geometry. Also, Essences.
 
::*In a Post-scientific revolution world, with evolution on board, the idea of essences looks different.   
 
  
:*Rock bottom means: Hitting a limit to the inquiry, ideally getting to a basic level of understanding and explanation that makes sense of the phenomena, here, our moral behaviors and rational thought about values. That mix of intuition and reason that has evolved in our big brained species. Morality works by using the "machinery" provided by evolution to teach, pass on, and monitor moral culture and behavior (maybe the conservative side, though we all contribute to preserving culture).  It also, of course, involves the criticism of current practices and proposals for new practices (maybe the liberal side, though we all contribute to criticizing culture). 
+
C1
  
:*Where we are in our investigation. "Rock Bottom" theories for each "frame" we have been studying:
+
:*obesity trend of the 1980s. by late 80s 1/3 of pop bt. 20 and 74 overweight(2017: 42.4% obese (note: not just overweight).   J
::*Individual Frame - Haidt's Moral Foundations TheoryC F L A S
 
::*Group/Political Frame - Hibbing et al. "Bedrock Social Dilemmas"
 
::*Cultural Frame - Henrich (in Sapolsky) on cultural evolution - Mental adaptations that culture makes and sustains.
 
  
:*What comes after "rock bottom"? The way up! Using the point of view we have developed to look at our experience in new ways.
+
:*Historic comparisons: 1960-2000, average weight of women in their 20s goes from 128 to 157.  Also other deciles. Data also revealed that some people were gaining a lot more than the average. In other words, the distribution was changing.  Overweight people became disproportionately overweight.  More outliers.
::*Example of SW2. How do you locate and negotiate fairness in the context of actual differences in perception and judgement? How do I bring fairness concepts and an understanding of a contract (rider) into line with my intuitions about this case (elephant). What does my culture tell me about fairness in contracts?
 
  
===Haidt, Chapter 6, "Taste Buds of the Righteous Mind"===
+
C2
  
:*Analogy of moral sense to taste sense. '''"the righteous mind is like a tongue with six taste receptors"'''
+
:*obesity is the result of eating too much foodConfusing to separate metabolism, etc.  People underreport consumption. Studies to support claimsP.8 [Note some criticisms here: microbiome effectsOthers argue that metabolic changes do occur to make significant weight reduction difficult.]
::*Unpacking the metaphor:
 
:::*Places where our sensitivities to underlying value perception have depth from evolution, but have flexibility or plasticity from the "big brain", which allows for shaping within culture and retriggering.   
 
:::*Morality is rich, not reducible to one taste.  A way of perceiving the world.  against '''moral monism'''
 
:::*Like cuisines, there is variation, but within a range.
 
:*Mentions Enlightenment approaches, again:  argument against the reductive project of philosophical ethics 113-114.  ethics more like taste than science. 
 
::*Hume's three way battle: Enlightenment thinkers united in rejecting revelation as basis of morality, but divided between an transcendent view of reason as the basis (Kant) or the view that morality is part of our nature (Hume, Darwin, etc.)Hume's empiricism. also for him, morality is like taste
 
:*Autism argument: Bentham (utlitarianism), Kant (deontology).    Think about the person who can push the fat guy.
 
::*Bentham told us to use arithmetic, Kant logic, to resolve moral problemsNote Bentham image and eccentric ideasBaron-Cohen article on Bentham as having Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism range).  Kant also a solitary.  Just saying. clarify point of analysis.  not ad hominem.  part of Enlightenment philosophy's rationalism -- a retreat from observation.   
 
::*The x/y axis on page 117 shows a kind of "personality space" that could be used to locate Enlightenment rationalists. (Note that Haidt is looking at the psychology of the philosopher for clues about the type of theory they might have!)
 
  
:*Major global religious and ethical culture identifies virtues that seem to respond to similar basic problems of social life.
+
:*Homeostasis:  tendency of body systems to maintain bodily states within a particular range of variation.  Communication occurs throughout the body to this end.  But homeostasis can’t explain weight gain. Homeostasic system can be overwhelmed by the “reward system”.  Anticipations of reward motivate exertion.
  
:*Avoiding bad evolutionary theory or evolutionary psychology: "just so stories" -- range of virtues suggested "receptors", but for what? the virtue? some underlying response to a problem-type?
+
:*Some animal studies show direct stimulation of reward seeking behavior. Stimulate the far-lateral hypothalamus” and animals overeat. Even to cross electrified floor.  [Note basic explanation here.]
  
::*Moral taste receptors found in history of long standing '''challenges and advantages of social life'''.  The "moral foundations" in Haidt's theory just are the evolved psychological centers of evaluation that make up moral consciousness for humans. 
+
:*Can some kinds of food stimulate us to keep eating?
  
:*Modularity in evolutionary psychology, centers of focus, like perceptual vs. language systems.  Sperber and Hirshfield: "snake detector"  - note on deception/detection in biology/nature. responses to red, Hyperactive agency detection. 
+
C3
  
:*See chart, from shared folder: '''C F L A S''': Care/Harm, Fairness/Cheating, Loyalty/Betrayal, Authority/Subversion, Sanctity/Degradation
+
:*Palatability - def. a food with an agreeable taste, but in food science - a food that motivates more consumption.   
::*Work through chart. Note how the "adaptive challenges" are some of the things we have been reading research on.
 
:*Original vs. current triggers, 123 Reason/Intuition  
 
  
:*'''Small group discussion''': Try to find examples from everyday life of events do or would trigger each of these foundationsConsider either real cases of people you know and the things they say or examples from general knowledge, or even hypothetical examplesFor example:
+
:*Palatable foods engage sugar, salt, and fat, but also sensory cues. Research (13) on combined effects of sugar and fat (Drewnowski).  Underlies many palatable features of foodCombinations of fat and sugar chosen over other mixes.  Can make food hyperpalatable[https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/11/191105104436.htm Example] of "hyper-palatability" in industry and as a research concept in food science.
  
::*You and your friends all worry about COVID cases, but some more than others. Might be observing the Care/Harm trigger, or Sanctity/Degradation.
+
:*15: Research (rat study) showing that consumption of SFS optimized foods increases further consumptionBoth obesity prone and obesity resistant rats over ate high SF foods.   
::*You and your friends all occasionally enjoy risqué humor, but you are uncomfortable listening to people talk about intimate things like sex casually.  Maybe you have a different sanctity trigger.
 
::*You hear someone talk uncharitably about someone who sees them as a good friend.  You are triggered for disloyalty.
 
::*You and a co-worker agree that your boss is a bit full of himselfYou find yourself pushing back, but your co-worker just ignores his boorish behaviorYou have different triggers for authority and subversion.
 
::*You like Tucker Carlson, but then you see that one of his pro-Putin shows is being run on Russian TV along with Trump’s and Pompeo’s praise for the warmongering dictator. It feels like betrayal.
 
  
:*Focus on both ways that we are all triggered and ways that we are differentially triggered.
+
:*Sclafani research. Neat fruit-loop lab detail.  Just chillin' with his rats.:  feeding rats a supermarket sample of palatable food makes them obese. 
  
===SW2: Review and Small Group Discussion===
+
:*Some palatability research not in the reading:
 +
::*[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5332909/ Can the Palatability of Healthy, Satiety-Promoting Foods Increase with Repeated Exposure during Weight Loss?]
 +
::*
  
:*Review of concepts and principles for fair contract writing:
+
C4
  
:*Conditions for entering contracts: non-coercion, equal standing (understanding and knowledge)
+
:*Food industry experts corroborate Kessler’s point about SFS foods and overeatingIt’s their strategy.   
:*Values in contract interpretation:
 
::*fairness,
 
::*respect for autonomy,
 
::*consent (agreement) and implied consent.
 
::*reliance
 
::*Autonomy - respect for persons as rational agents, reason giving.
 
::*Reciprocity - the "quid pro quo" of a contractBenefits and Obligations.
 
::*Background assumptions about the kind of contract and cultural assumptions about dispute resolution and negotiation
 
::*Ambiguities, failures of clarification, but also implicit understandings.
 
::*Background understandings of "reasonableness"  
 
::*Duties that attach to each parties' roles.
 
::*Obligations can also be affected by the relative knowledge and power of the parties.
 
  
:*Small group discussion of the case.
+
:*”'''Layering'''” SFS: examples of foods that layer S F and S. (Gordy's lemon chicken, much like p. 20 "Chicken Pot Stickers").  List: White Chocolate Mocha Frapp, Bloomin’ Onions, Salads with high SFS dressings (“fat with a little lettuce”). [Remember, restaurants don’t have to provide nutritional information.]
  
:*Questions on assignment
+
C5
 +
 
 +
:*Critical of “set point theory” more interested in version he calls “'''settling point'''” theory.  A kind of equilibrium between appetite (which both a drive to eat and capacity to be satisfied and expenditure - physical work and body that burns calories effectively.  Constant access to highly palatable foods drives up '''settling point'''.    (Kind of acknowledges that there is wide variation in the hold (capture) of high SFS foods. 
 +
 
 +
:*p. 25: Discussion with other people who find weight control challenging.  note descriptions.  Sight of favorite SFS foods causes salivation and tingling sensations.  Important qualification: Food cravings are not unique to overweight people. 
 +
 
 +
C6
 +
 
 +
:*More theory: '''Reinforcing foods'''
 +
::*Rewarding foods are reinforcing.  Reinforcing measured by willingness to work for substance and whether other stimuli can become associated with it.  (Shepard’s account helps show how this works.)
 +
:*SFS Foods can be an effective reward even in the absence of hunger.  Animal studies to show this.  Research: rats will press levers to get SFS foods.  A lot. P. 30.  Confirms the idea that combinations of fat and sugar increase willingness to work for reward. Approaches reward structure of cocaine.
 +
 
 +
:*“'''Conditioned place paradigm'''”. — tendency to prefer the location in which a reward was experienced.  Party food at sport viewing events, for example.  Rat study involving more and less preferred spaces.  High SFS foods can override location preference. 
 +
 
 +
:*Other influences:  portion, concentration of rewarding ingredients, variety. 
 +
 
 +
C7
 +
 
 +
:*Neural account of high SFS / palatable foods.  Neuron encodes when it fires more often from a stimuli.  Complex patterns can be encoded from food experience. 
 +
 
 +
:* Taste is predominant.  “'''Orosensory self-stimulation'''”.  Opioid circuitry stimulated by food.  P. 37: mechanisms of the reward system.  Imp of nucleus accumbens - a neural structure that governs reward. 
 +
 
 +
:*Claims there is a mutually reinforcing effect between highly palatable foods and opioid circuits. Explains how emotional eating can reduce the pain associated with stress and depression. 
 +
 
 +
:* Some evidence (Wooley p. 38) that highly palatable foods interfere with or override '''taste specific satiety''' tendency to get sated by a single taste. SFS combinations can override taste specific satiety.  Stimulation of the opioid circuits in animals overrode boredom with single taste.

Latest revision as of 18:42, 1 March 2023

12. MAR 1

Assigned Work

  • Kessler, The End of Overeating, Chs 1-3 (p. 3-17) (14)
  • Gordon Shepherd, Neurogastronomy Chapters 11, 18, and 19 (24)

In-Class

  • Review of resources for SW2: Assessing Industrial Food Systems

Kessler, The End of Overeating, Chs 1-7 pp. 3-45

  • Some comments about approaching "unhealthy eating patterns" (expand list), some baseline data, and Kessler's basic theory.

C1

  • obesity trend of the 1980s. by late 80s 1/3 of pop bt. 20 and 74 overweight. (2017: 42.4% obese (note: not just overweight). J
  • Historic comparisons: 1960-2000, average weight of women in their 20s goes from 128 to 157. Also other deciles. Data also revealed that some people were gaining a lot more than the average. In other words, the distribution was changing. Overweight people became disproportionately overweight. More outliers.

C2

  • obesity is the result of eating too much food. Confusing to separate metabolism, etc. People underreport consumption. Studies to support claims. P.8 [Note some criticisms here: microbiome effects. Others argue that metabolic changes do occur to make significant weight reduction difficult.]
  • Homeostasis: tendency of body systems to maintain bodily states within a particular range of variation. Communication occurs throughout the body to this end. But homeostasis can’t explain weight gain. Homeostasic system can be overwhelmed by the “reward system”. Anticipations of reward motivate exertion.
  • Some animal studies show direct stimulation of reward seeking behavior. Stimulate the far-lateral hypothalamus” and animals overeat. Even to cross electrified floor. [Note basic explanation here.]
  • Can some kinds of food stimulate us to keep eating?

C3

  • Palatability - def. a food with an agreeable taste, but in food science - a food that motivates more consumption.
  • Palatable foods engage sugar, salt, and fat, but also sensory cues. Research (13) on combined effects of sugar and fat (Drewnowski). Underlies many palatable features of food. Combinations of fat and sugar chosen over other mixes. Can make food hyperpalatable. Example of "hyper-palatability" in industry and as a research concept in food science.
  • 15: Research (rat study) showing that consumption of SFS optimized foods increases further consumption. Both obesity prone and obesity resistant rats over ate high SF foods.
  • Sclafani research. Neat fruit-loop lab detail. Just chillin' with his rats.: feeding rats a supermarket sample of palatable food makes them obese.
  • Some palatability research not in the reading:

C4

  • Food industry experts corroborate Kessler’s point about SFS foods and overeating. It’s their strategy.
  • Layering” SFS: examples of foods that layer S F and S. (Gordy's lemon chicken, much like p. 20 "Chicken Pot Stickers"). List: White Chocolate Mocha Frapp, Bloomin’ Onions, Salads with high SFS dressings (“fat with a little lettuce”). [Remember, restaurants don’t have to provide nutritional information.]

C5

  • Critical of “set point theory” more interested in version he calls “settling point” theory. A kind of equilibrium between appetite (which both a drive to eat and capacity to be satisfied and expenditure - physical work and body that burns calories effectively. Constant access to highly palatable foods drives up settling point. (Kind of acknowledges that there is wide variation in the hold (capture) of high SFS foods.
  • p. 25: Discussion with other people who find weight control challenging. note descriptions. Sight of favorite SFS foods causes salivation and tingling sensations. Important qualification: Food cravings are not unique to overweight people.

C6

  • More theory: Reinforcing foods
  • Rewarding foods are reinforcing. Reinforcing measured by willingness to work for substance and whether other stimuli can become associated with it. (Shepard’s account helps show how this works.)
  • SFS Foods can be an effective reward even in the absence of hunger. Animal studies to show this. Research: rats will press levers to get SFS foods. A lot. P. 30. Confirms the idea that combinations of fat and sugar increase willingness to work for reward. Approaches reward structure of cocaine.
  • Conditioned place paradigm”. — tendency to prefer the location in which a reward was experienced. Party food at sport viewing events, for example. Rat study involving more and less preferred spaces. High SFS foods can override location preference.
  • Other influences: portion, concentration of rewarding ingredients, variety.

C7

  • Neural account of high SFS / palatable foods. Neuron encodes when it fires more often from a stimuli. Complex patterns can be encoded from food experience.
  • Taste is predominant. “Orosensory self-stimulation”. Opioid circuitry stimulated by food. P. 37: mechanisms of the reward system. Imp of nucleus accumbens - a neural structure that governs reward.
  • Claims there is a mutually reinforcing effect between highly palatable foods and opioid circuits. Explains how emotional eating can reduce the pain associated with stress and depression.
  • Some evidence (Wooley p. 38) that highly palatable foods interfere with or override taste specific satiety tendency to get sated by a single taste. SFS combinations can override taste specific satiety. Stimulation of the opioid circuits in animals overrode boredom with single taste.