REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Biological basis for dittoheads ?

POSTED BY: RUE
UPDATED: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 19:58
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 16036
PAGE 3 of 4

Monday, March 8, 2010 7:32 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:


I don't consider killing a person self-defense, though I might make exceptions in the event of attempted murder (but only during the act, not after the fact) and cases of rape.

Okay, I can't stop anyone from committing suicide- a large (like 250 lb) perp starts hitting my Son or Wife, he's committed suicide by forcing me to take him out with deadly moves ( at 160 lbs, I'm not going to be able to just *push* him away), dong ma?




The laughing Chrisisall

"I only do it to to remind you that I'm right and that deep down, you know I'm right, you want me to be right, you need me to be right." - The Imperial Hero Strikes Back, 2010

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 8, 2010 7:39 AM

BYTEMITE


That would fall under the pre-emption of escalating violence case I mentioned. It's practical. Ethical? Murky. But the action is understandable and even sympathetic.

Now, if the guy was telling your wife and kids that he was "gonna KILL you little shits" or something similar, now you're cracking (necks and spines). That would fall definitively under self-defense.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 8, 2010 7:48 AM

CHRISISALL


BUT, this has always been my motto, if I started having a motto:
Learn more ways to preserve rather than destroy. Avoid rather than check. Check rather than hurt. Hurt rather than maim. Maim rather than kill. For all life is precious nor can any be replaced.


The laughing Chrisisall

"I only do it to to remind you that I'm right and that deep down, you know I'm right, you want me to be right, you need me to be right." - The Imperial Hero Strikes Back, 2010

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 8, 2010 12:13 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by kpo:
I'm a person generally in favour of calling human life 'sacred'.
Heads should roll
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Clearly.



Chris, all I'm saying is that there has to come a point for everyone when logic has to take over from this otherwise beneficial, paralysing instinct. If not when there are 5 people in the path of the (figurative) trolley, then how about 10? 50? 100? 1,000,000?

The scientists decided that 5 was enough to create a solution that was logical (but still difficult). Anyone who doesn't like that could just think of 50 or 500 men in front of the trolley instead of 5.

Quote:

If Mal had to kill two people on Serenity in a life or death situation to keep the others alive, who would he choose?


I think if the scientific study was based on the idea of killing 2 members of your family to save the others I would be just as sick about it as you. That's another level of sacrilege to me.

I do respect your moral purity about not killing innocents though btw, and I suppose maybe it would be a shame to talk you out of it.

I'll get back to you on other points later...

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 8, 2010 12:31 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Well, if pushing one fat guy in front of the trolley would save 5, then I have no worries for the 50 or 500, 'cause that trolley will never get all of them. :)






"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 8, 2010 12:35 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Depends how fat the fat guy is

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 8, 2010 1:38 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by kpo:
Depends how fat the fat guy is

Heads should roll



Gotta be a helluva lot fatter than Kevin Smith. Silent Bob can't stop a trolley, but CAN stop an airliner from taking off. :)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/19/AR2010
021905151.html





"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 8, 2010 2:29 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Well... If there weren't any mentions in the article of "higher memory" and not so much in favour of "overriding strong emotions in favour of thoughtful deliberation and reasoning" then I might agree with you, but without any context or definitions, the most likely case here is that "thoughtful deliberation" is what Kpo represents, and the rest of us represent the "strong emotion response" side.

And I'd even be okay with THAT... If one method wasn't being represented as distinctly better than the other method. And if the bias didn't make me question the motivation for the study. The study seems to have an agenda. And it only tests for one kind of thoughtfulness and rationality because of the false dilemma and only offering two options, the logical "5 lives is better have 1 life" response, or the "I can't push the man off, it would be wrong" emotional response. The article doesn't say subjects were permitted an "other" option, it says they had to chose between only what was offered, so already it was skewed towards proving a specific point. And that bias bleeds through into the article, unless the article is not representative of the study.


I don't see it that way at all. I think they chose a stupid scenario, but my understanding was they were trying to elicit an emotional response. The point of the study was to see whether people could rationalise decisons in an emotional/stressful situation. It wasn't about the ethics of the situation. I'd assume that the decision that was reached would not matter so much as how it was reached.

It would be =

Q how did you decide what to do?
A - I don't know, I pushed the fat guy in a panic
A_- I pushed the fat guy because I decided the life of of the many outweighed the life of a few
A- I didn't push the fat guy because I assessed that I couldn't sacrifice one life for the sake of many
A- I didn't push the fat guy because I froze

You can make a variety of choices, some of which might be morally reprehensible for some of us, but that isn't the point. The point is whether they were able to rationalise their decision or they reacted instinctively.

Reacting rationally in no way equates to reacting ethically. Many of the most horrific decisions in history had perfectly logical rationale, they were just ethically abhorrent.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 8, 2010 2:45 PM

BYTEMITE


Hmm, I'm not sure how they could express the "I froze" and the "I panicked." I'm not sure how many people would outright say "well, I would probably panic" when they're being asked a moral dilemma and under no other sources of stress. Being asked what you would do in a moral dilemma is different from being in one.

I just see a bias toward the "logical" answer represented in the article, and a generalization of the non-push answer as emotional. The article presents the moral dilemmas in the study as "either/or" situations.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 8, 2010 3:36 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Many of the most horrific decisions in history had perfectly logical rationale, they were just ethically abhorrent.

Exactly.
Logic is the BEGINNING of wisdom. Not the be all and end all.


The laughing Chrisisall

"I only do it to to remind you that I'm right and that deep down, you know I'm right, you want me to be right, you need me to be right." - The Imperial Hero Strikes Back, 2010

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 8, 2010 3:37 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Hmm, I'm not sure how they could express the "I froze" and the "I panicked." I'm not sure how many people would outright say "well, I would probably panic" when they're being asked a moral dilemma and under no other sources of stress. Being asked what you would do in a moral dilemma is different from being in one.

I just see a bias toward the "logical" answer represented in the article, and a generalization of the non-push answer as emotional. The article presents the moral dilemmas in the study as "either/or" situations.


You're probably right. I just reread the article and I think the way they present it is misreading the point of the research.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 8, 2010 4:09 PM

BYTEMITE


Definitely could just be the article. :)

Though if it's the study... ISSUES.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 9, 2010 5:31 AM

HKCAVALIER


Quote:

Originally posted by kpo:
Chris, all I'm saying is that there has to come a point for everyone when logic has to take over from this otherwise beneficial, paralysing instinct. If not when there are 5 people in the path of the (figurative) trolley, then how about 10? 50? 100? 1,000,000?
The scientists decided that 5 was enough to create a solution that was logical (but still difficult). Anyone who doesn't like that could just think of 50 or 500 men in front of the trolley instead of 5.


One's reasoning ability is only as good as one's grasp of the context, the given circumstances. If you assume facts not in evidence, or proceed from faulty premises, your logic will suffer accordingly and may be effectively nullified despite your gifts. The trolley scenario is fundamentally flawed because it presumes you have an absolute knowledge of the physics of the situation. One would have to be an engineering genius to know for certain that a man weighing at most maybe 300 lbs (the text only says "heavy") would represent sufficient mass to slow and even stop the trolley before it killed the five workmen. And even an engineering genius might very well be wrong in such an unpredictable situation. I mean, what if the genius is wrong and she personally throws a total stranger to his death and the other five die anyway? If we're to grant this absurd situation any reality, surely we have to take into account human error.

On top of that, I really doubt the efficacy of throwing a 300 lb. sack of mostly water and some bone in front of a train to stop it. I admit I have only a very casual understanding of physics and such, but it certainly seems to me that pushing the "heavy man" in front of the trolley would prolly be about as effective as trying to stop a bicycle with a melon or even a large water balloon.

And while we're on the subject of this "heavy man," allow me to unpack that a bit here. The question is really made ridiculous by the simple inclusion of the word "heavy." First, it implies that you have sufficient mass to topple the "heavy man," so smaller people would be s.o.l. (a lot of women, for instance) and therefore, in your assessment, forced to be less logical (hmmm, 3 guesses as to the gender of the person who came up with this asinine question...).

Or let's go the other way: what if you, too, are "heavy?" What if you're, in fact, heavier than the "heavy man?" Would it still be ethical to push the merely heavy man in front of the train? Oh, yeah, one's ability to reason is affected by one's body weight--lighter people are inherently more logical than fat ones! Oops, unless you're TOO light, of course!

But this brings us to the far more honest, but equally absurd question: what if YOU are the heavy man? Is it better, more logical, for you to throw YOURSELF in front of the trolley to save five, or to be so...selfish and illogical...that you let them die? If your logic is sound, then there should be no distinction between throwing this conveniently disposable stranger and throwing your own impeccably logical self before the trolley.

But, you, with all your logic and a couple days to think this through now, STILL insist that it's acceptable to throw a total stranger to his doom on the mere EXPECTATION that his certain death will save five people. And what if one or more of the five were able to duck, or jump out of the way and survive? (Such things have been known to happen.) Does your astonishingly hubristic decision to kill the fat man become a problem if he only really saves 3 people, or even say, 2, or just one? What number of other human lives dose NOT justify killing him to save them? I can't imagine a court in any land acquitting you for his murder, even if the 5 workmen were saved by your victim's death.

Leaving ethics entirely out if it for the moment, the fundamental problem with all this is that there are simply FAR too many variables for a reasonable person to calculate the result with any reliable accuracy. Reason demands that a person take this indeterminacy into account in making any life and death decisions.

Your ability, KPO, to submit to the utter illogic of the scenario on the face of it, and smugly proclaim the unasailability of your logic like some later-day King Solomon really, REALLY casts your ethics in a bad light. And, I gotta say, it betrays a troubling willingness to submit to unreasonable authority--in this case, the scientist who came up with this ugly little fantasy all in the service of determining how reasonable you or I can be in a tough situation. In the most immediate situation here, seems to me the most logical thing to do is tell the scientist his question is full of shit and ask him why he hates fat people so much.

Ethically, of course, the question is even more unworkable. What possible right do you have to decide that some random stranger in a crowd should die, anyway? Who the hell does a thing like that, really???

Look here: the workmen have made a choice, a choice to work on trolley tracks and a choice to be on the tracks at that moment. Surely they know the dangers of such an occupation. Surely they would have every reason to proceed with the utmost caution. Why the heck wouldn't a "HEY, WATCH OUT! THERE'S A TROLLEY COMING!!!" be far more effective than offing the heavy man? Your "heavy man" has made no such choices, has absolutely no reason to imagine that some crazy man in the crowd is gonna throw him in front of the train to save anyone. He did not sign up for that. His fundamental rights are violated if you kill him. The workmen, yes, they signed up for their dangerous job. The right to self-determination really has to trump your heroic fantasies, doesn't it? Doesn't it? You wanna jump in front of a train to save 5 people? Go ahead, no one's stopping you. You wanna throw an innocent bystander in front of a train? You are committing an act of evil no matter how many people you could possibly save by condemning this man to death (for being fat, remember).

That said, your submarine scenario is vastly superior in every conceivable way. First of all, the crewmen have signed up for the hazardous duty. They knew going in that the submarine was sinking. Your captain giving the order is no more ethically questionable than you telling the heavy man, "Hey, if you jumped in front of that trolley right now, those five workmen wouldn't die." The captain gives the order, but the crewmen can say no--might get 'em in some trouble, but they're in charge of their own actions. Getting thrown in front of a trolley, not so much. Also, closing off the section of your sub where the hull is breached is a far more reasonable action than attempting to use a man's mere girth to stop a trolley.

Sorry to come down on you like this, KPO, but you've been utterly relentless in your defense of this silly logical positivism of "the greatest good for the greatest number" guff. And ultimately, it means pretty much squat. In the actual event of a trolley menacing 5 workmen while a mysterious fat man walks by, who knows what you'd do? For all your imagined cold-blooded logic, you might very well find a more ethical and effective solution in the moment.

Here's hoping!

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 9, 2010 6:41 AM

MAL4PREZ


Quote:

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Sorry to come down on you like this, KPO, but you've been utterly relentless in your defense of this silly logical positivism of "the greatest good for the greatest number" guff. And ultimately, it means pretty much squat. In the actual event of a trolley menacing 5 workmen while a mysterious fat man walks by, who knows what you'd do? For all your imagined cold-blooded logic, you might very well find a more ethical and effective solution in the moment.



I haven't read the details of the study, but it seems that too much importance is being placed on this one example, and it's specific assumptions. I can't think that the study means to say: people in emergency situations need to be able to sacrifice at the drop of a hat. I also don't see the sacrifice of the heavy guy as the "correct answer". Do they really suggest that? Or are they more interested in seeing how people react to imagining such a situation?

I can see many kinds of reactions: 1) get emotional, freeze up, and do nothing. 2) have one possible solution told to you, freeze out your emotions, and jump in and make the sacrifice without further thought as to whether it makes sense. 3) Get logical, realize that in this situation sacrificing the one person in no way ensures the survival of the five, and think fast to find another solution.

Certainly there are situations where the sacrifice of one is the best way. (You go Spock!) But those are mostly fictional. In real life, there are always many options. I think both logic and emotion are important to listen to, as long as one voice doesn't shout out the other.

I say that for a reason. I had a recent experience sort of related. I was in NYC a few months ago and saw a man getting run over. It was on the far corner of the intersection. The driver clearly didn't understand that the obstacle she was trying to get the back wheels of her SUV over was a human being. It was pretty horrific.

So, in a matter of seconds I saw the man getting run over, a group of people on the sidewalk running into the street yelling at the car to stop, and other cars honking. There was nothing I could add to the situation.

My reaction? I turned away and put my hands over my ears. I can't handle seeing videos of things like that on TV. Seeing it happen live? No way. So I protected myself as much as I could. (I was a mess all night anyway)

OK, not real heroic. But hell - I'm as logical as a person can be, and I know that had I been closer, and had no one else been acting, I might have done different. I like to think that if I'd been the closest I'd have been running out in front of the car, getting the woman to stop. If I had medical expertise, I'd have gone over there afterward. But the logical part of my brain saw other people on the scene, knew I wouldn't be helpful, then bailed out and let the emotional part take over. The emotional part went for self-protection.

So what's my point? Well, other than sharing the story, it's to say that emotions are there for a reason. And I say this as a person whose first impulse is to clamp down on emotion in favor of logic.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 9, 2010 6:45 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


There are many REAL LIFE similar situations.

Here is one without the immediate time constraints:

A pair of twins is born conjoined at the head. One is fully developed but smaller, with a smaller, weaker heart. The other fully developed one is larger and has the heart that is pumping blood for both of them. If you do nothing, the larger one's heart will fail and they both will die. If you separate them, the smaller one will die. What do you do ?


ETA:
You are the first EMT to arrive on the scene of a horrible accident. You can save one dying person if you devote your entire time to doing CPR. But that will leave three other people to bleed to death - something you could stop by devoting your time to applying pressure bandages. What do you do ?


You are on a lifeboat in freezing waters. Your boat is already dangerously close to being swamped. The gunwales are only two inches above the water, and every wave sloshes more water into the boat. People in the water are trying to climb on board. You have the choice of beating them off with your oars, or letting them all climb on board and swamp the boat. What do you do ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 9, 2010 6:58 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by mal4prez:
OK, not real heroic. But hell - I'm as logical as a person can be, and I know that had I been closer, and had no one else been acting, I might have done different. I like to think that if I'd been the closest I'd have been running out in front of the car, getting the woman to stop. If I had medical expertise, I'd have gone over there afterward. But the logical part of my brain saw other people on the scene, knew I wouldn't be helpful, then bailed out and let the emotional part take over. The emotional part went for self-protection.



I think others are right that we don't know exactly what this study is actually studying... it seems flawed in so many ways that maybe that's what it's studying! Who will call bullsh*t on the study!

But if it's just a bad study on the topic of who reacts how, then I think one of the other assumptions that it fails to consider is how the same person may react differently on any given day, maybe any given hour. Did they get enough sleep? Did they just come from a coffee shop where they had a double espresso? How close are they to the incident? M4P, you may have reacted completely different if you had just been given good news... to suggest that a person will ALWAYS react one way is pretty simple, like they need to have manageable conclusions in nice little boxes or the test will seem like a failure.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 9, 2010 7:11 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


I wasn't able to get the full paper on the study.

And I understand the objections to the logic, b/c it has been used (most recently by the Bush administration) to justify torture. But the objections to torture have been REAL LIFE objections, primarily that it doesn't work, and, as such, there are more effective ways to gather information.

In regards to this study REAL LIFE doesn't always present us with a third way. I think enough REAL LIFE situations have been posted to illustrate that sometimes you DO face these exact type of dilemmas.

People may argue that the study was flawed - and it's hard to say. But I don't think people can object to the idea THAT such a study is a proper research subject.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 9, 2010 10:26 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:

People may argue that the study was flawed - and it's hard to say.


I think the example cited in the article is probably the most outrageous and controversial one they could take from the study - and indeed it's one I remember being cited a couple of years ago in a BBC article similar to Rue's one:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4954856.stm

And can people please stop changing, or triumphantly poking holes in the hypotheticals? Answer them or don't, don't rewrite them to make them easier. The scenarios are constructed not to be especially likely, but rather to leave 2 clear choices, whose outcome is certain. You can play along and answer the question, or you can duck the question. But giving yourself extra, nicer options or changing the outcomes clearly defined in the scenario and then sharing this with the thread is just wasting everyone's time!

Unless you are arguing that moral dilemmas don't really exist in real life? And that nobody should attempt to invent them for scientific study because that is just being needlessly macabre?

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 9, 2010 10:55 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:

Sorry to come down on you like this, KPO

No, say what you feel. "You cannot make me angry", haha.

I do think there is a logic in saving 5 people over 1, but I have also stated that in some cases, eg. ones involving family members, logic is not enough. We're talking of crimes against humanity here, of different sizes - murder of an innocent is a crime against humanity, but murder of a member of your family is perhaps a much bigger crime against humanity.

Some of you draw the line of when to introduce logic later than I do - perhaps only when there are 100 or 1000 people in the path of the trolley. But you have to admit logic has to take over at some point.

Quote:

this silly logical positivism of "the greatest good for the greatest number"

You think so?

Quote:

And ultimately, it means pretty much squat. In the actual event of...

No, you're missing the point, this isn't about 'preparing' for the real thing.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 9, 2010 2:03 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Unless you are arguing that moral dilemmas don't really exist in real life? And that nobody should attempt to invent them for scientific study because that is just being needlessly macabre?


No and no. I actually enjoy moral dilemmas, except when I think answers given are being used to support a position I find unethical in of itself. And to me, the study seems to be trying to support a position of logic in a moral dilemma being a superior method of problem solving than emotions. And like I said before, that troubles me because of how the results of such a study could be used in schools and the armed forces. I'd like to know who funded the study and why.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 9, 2010 2:46 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:

I actually enjoy moral dilemmas, except when I think answers given are being used to support a position I find unethical in of itself. And to me, the study seems to be trying to support a position of logic in a moral dilemma being a superior method of problem solving than emotions.


I agree that this is somewhat controversial - as logic for the family members example can not really be called a 'higher way of thinking'. I guess some people are reconciled to the idea that sometimes it can be morally ok to (reluctantly) take innocent life if it's in the course of a noble, grander cause that will quantifiably benefit humanity. Like WW2. To those people, the study is not reprehensible. To pacifists it is undoubtedly a slap in the face, as the premise appears to completely discount your worldview. The same for religious people.

I've tried to argue all along that the dilemma is innocent though, and not some sinister concoction - does the fact that it is a reasonably well known philosophical tool(according to the BBC article) that pre-dates the study, clear it of suspicion?

One last thing to possibly assuage the suspicions, from the BBC article:

"These "thought experiments" help philosophers clarify their understanding of certain concepts and intuitions. In the field of ethics, thought experimenters typically present a dilemma, examine the most popular "intuitive" response and then show the implications for real-world issues.

But such experiments are rarely tested on large numbers of people."

So the dilemmas themselves are fairly innocent philosophy puzzles, and don't appear to be being used in large-scale indoctrination programs.

ETA:

One last thing, I would like to retrospectively alter my earlier algebra for this kind of problem to:

5x - C > x ??

Where 'C' represents 'Crime against humanity' of the particular case, which is the moral abhorrence of the thing, and has to be quantified in human lives (x)... 'C' is different in example 1, killing the fat man, and example 2 killing family members - C(2) > C(1) for me - I don't think many of us will want to 'do the math' for example 2.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 9, 2010 3:00 PM

BYTEMITE


I've said this already. It's not the moral dilemma I have a problem with. I LIKE moral dilemmas. Why do you keep trying to frame my arguments as such?

I have been very clear, I feel like a broken record. It's how the bloody study bloody uses the bloody moral dilemmas that I have a bloody problem with. Okay? Please take me at face value when I say this, because it is very frustrating that you keep trying to assign some sort of ulterior motive to my disapproval here. My point here really is what I'm saying it is. I'm not saying my emotional/pacifistic approach is BETTER. I'm saying that the study is FLAWED because it is BIASED towards a particular response, and that CONCERNS me.

Quote:

"These "thought experiments" help philosophers clarify their understanding of certain concepts and intuitions. In the field of ethics, thought experimenters typically present a dilemma, examine the most popular "intuitive" response and then show the implications for real-world issues.

But such experiments are rarely tested on large numbers of people."



I'm afraid you didn't include the context of this quote in regards to the study in question. "Such experiments are rarely tested on large numbers of people." Okay, so is this study one of them, or isn't it? Does the size of the initial study have any result on its later use as an indoctrinization tool, or on effectiveness as such? No, I don't think so.

The moral dilemmas are innocent, the problem is that because the tool is innocent, you're also seeing the tool users as innocent here, or at least without guile. I don't think they are, any more than a murderer is innocent because his gun is just a tool.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 9, 2010 4:56 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Byte

I have to go now, but I hope tomorrow you will elucidate this: "And like I said before, that troubles me because of how the results of such a study could be used in schools and the armed forces."

As I see it, these dilemmas are painful to even consider - at least, I find them to be - b/c of the human trait of empathy. Unless and until that trait can be eliminated in a large number of people - something this study doesn't even come close to doing - it will always be a check on trying to teach people to callously making pre-determined choices.

So for me, I don't see how it could be used. Perhaps it's my lack of imagination. And that's what I hope you'll expound on - how you see that it could be used.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 9, 2010 5:00 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by kpo:
But you have to admit logic has to take over at some point.


So, Spock IS alive by a mistake made by his friends...?


The laughing Chrisisall

"I only do it to to remind you that I'm right and that deep down, you know I'm right, you want me to be right, you need me to be right." - The Imperial Hero Strikes Back, 2010

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 9, 2010 5:25 PM

BYTEMITE


All right. The most immediate example I can think of single psychological studies creating mass indoctrinization is parenting. Parents tend to be very susceptible to pop culture psychology, especially new parents, who are always looking for advice and trying to understand their new baby and how best to raise them.

Mass movement swinging back and forth between violent and non-violent kinds of parenting can effect entire generations of children. I think we've discussed this enough for you to be familiar with all the fine points, Frem knows them better than I do anyway.

So, specifically for this study, using my previous example of a school program attempting to teach leadership and logic in problem solving influenced by this study, you have teachers (an authority figure) students (impressionable children) and an encouragement to use and accept violence as an acceptable means of problem solving.

And we are going to say... This is not indoctrination?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoctrination

(I have been spelling it wrong. I feel silly)

I mean, heck, everywhere in this thread I've seen references to sergeants, submarine captains. Military training in many ways is a form of indoctrination as well. You are taught a certain way of problem solving. How EASY it would be if the military didn't have to break recruits down first to teach them the ways of thinking particular to their idiom. If it were already programmed into them socially.

The program might not work on every student, but influence enough, and look, you might have a brand new influx of ready made military recruits.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 9, 2010 5:44 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:

it is very frustrating that you keep trying to assign some sort of ulterior motive to my disapproval here.

It was patronising of me to call the dilemma a 'slap in the face' to pacifists, I shouldn't have typed that and I'm sorry for it.

Quote:

I'm not saying my emotional/pacifistic approach is BETTER. I'm saying that the study is FLAWED because it is BIASED towards a particular response, and that CONCERNS me.

And I agreed that the study was controversial, for these reasons - in my defence.

Quote:

The moral dilemmas are innocent

Yep, forget about my 'innocent' argument - of course that's not quite true if the study is favouring one particular answer. That was off, sorry.

Although, looking at the article's description of the study again, I'm not so sure it is giving merit to one response over another, but perhaps just looking for some evidence (through brainwave monitoring?) that the subjects had thought through all possible consequences, and that their decisions were *consistent*. So I think Magonsdaughter had a point, and perhaps you might have 'passed' the study Byte by virtue of thinking things through and being consistent with your decisions, like:

"Yes, I know more people will die if I don't act, but even at this cost I still don't think it's right to take the life of that man against his will..."

It's not really fair to call this an 'emotional' response, and the other logical. Both these responses are empathetic *and* logical - they just place a different price on the moral abhorration that is murder.

So maybe a few of us have been arguing over a bit of a red herring... but I have some algebra to take out of it so I'm happy.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 9, 2010 5:44 PM

CHRISISALL


Do not question authority.
Submit.
No free thought.
This is your God.

I'm all outta bubblegum, Byte.


The laughing Chrisisall

"I only do it to to remind you that I'm right and that deep down, you know I'm right, you want me to be right, you need me to be right." - The Imperial Hero Strikes Back, 2010

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 9, 2010 6:01 PM

BYTEMITE


It could be, Kpo, but then WHY does the article (or the study, we still don't know if the article is representative) specifically call out this point:

Quote:

moral dilemmas can evoke strong emotions in people and tend to override thoughtful deliberation and reasoning.


Quote:

sometimes people are capable of voluntarily suppressing these emotional reactions, allowing for decisions based on reasoning and careful deliberation of the consequences of one’s actions.


Quote:

“This suggests that emotional reactions to moral issues can drive our judgments and motivate action but can also blind us to the consequences of our decisions in some cases,” write the authors.


When you decide that you would push the man, would you say you associated that with a particularly emotional response? Of the two options, which response is most likely to be elicited from an immediate visceral emotional response, and which is likely to be a reasoned, carefully thought through and well substantiated response?

I mean, of the response that you describe as logical, 100% of the people involved would fall under the distinction here of having reasoned through the decision, wouldn't they? Whereas the other group would be split by a percentage of those who can reason through their response to the dilemma, and those who respond "Oh, God! No! That's wrong!"

So which group is more likely to be considered the logical responders? Which group is more likely to allow their emotions to get the best of them and so not think through the consequences of their actions - say, five people dying as a result of their inaction?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 9, 2010 8:11 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Do not question authority.
Submit.
No free thought.
This is your God.

I'm all outta bubblegum, Byte.


The laughing Chrisisall

"I only do it to to remind you that I'm right and that deep down, you know I'm right, you want me to be right, you need me to be right." - The Imperial Hero Strikes Back, 2010








NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 10, 2010 5:21 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"This is not indoctrination?"

And you don't think we are already HEAVILY indoctrinated ? What do you think TV is ? And I don't mean just the commercials, or the just the commericals and 'entertainment' shows, I mean everything up to and including your local weather. The purpose of TV is to bring a mass audience to the commercials and to make it (us) pliant for the commercial message.

So, do you think a study like this is really necessary for indoctrination ? Do you think NOT doing a study like this is going to stop it ?

And what do you think is a better choice ? To teach people NOT to think through painful moral dilemmas ? To pretend that they don't exist ? I'd be curious as to your alternative.

"everywhere in this thread I've seen references to sergeants, submarine captains"

You've also seen REAL WORLD reference to medical personnel, to parents, to ordinary people having to make terrible choices. Do you have a problem with that too ?

*********************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 10, 2010 5:45 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Mass movement swinging back and forth between violent and non-violent kinds of parenting can effect entire generations of children. I think we've discussed this enough for you to be familiar with all the fine points, Frem knows them better than I do anyway.


Oh indeed, don't even get me started on that monster Dobson, Ezzo and the various enablers, who's organizations have funded and carried out set-up "studies" to justify that bullshit...

Dr. Charles Everett Koop (former surgeon general, and after the fact admittedly insane while still in office) was somewhat notorious for "studies" of this type in his day - many of which are STILL used as precedent or supporting evidence despite it being now KNOWN that he issued the result he wanted, and his flunkies built and structured the "study" to produce it, and be damned to the facts.

So yeah, the important part of such things is knowing WHO funded and structured the study, and WHY - cause once you know those two things, often as not the bias becomes pretty clear - I mean, would YOU trust a study by Exxon that purported that burning gasoline was good for the environment ?

And yes, this "study" does have the reek of being loaded, or the article does, either way, there's definitely an aroma of rodent all over it.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 10, 2010 5:49 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
And you don't think we are already HEAVILY indoctrinated ? What do you think TV is ? And I don't mean just the commercials, or the just the commericals and 'entertainment' shows, I mean everything up to and including your local weather. The purpose of TV is to bring a mass audience to the commercials and to make it (us) pliant for the commercial message.


Yanno, I don't watch TV, other than Firefly, haven't since the OJ Simpson circus convinced me it was a waste of time - and any time I even see one on these days I am pointedly reminded that this was a good idea, cause in under five minutes I can point out half a dozen psych-manipulation tricks, it's gotten so bad that anyone not immersed in it on a regular basis will be *DRIVEN FROM THE ROOM* by the mere act of turning one on for a couple a minutes, in sheer reflexive defense from the deluge.

What's worse, is that once you learn to see such things, you cannot NOT see them, and their constant presence is a severe irritation - ignorance may not be bliss, but awareness ain't no friggin picnic neither.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 10, 2010 6:12 AM

BYTEMITE


Just because indoctrination is everywhere I should ignore it when I see it (like here in this study)? That is a bad argument.

Quote:

So, do you think a study like this is really necessary for indoctrination ? Do you think NOT doing a study like this is going to stop it ?


I have nothing against scientific progress, OR these moral dilemmas. As I've already said multiple times.

The point of this debate, the reason I brought it up and am CURRENTLY arguing this, and why I haven't just dropped it yet, is because I feel the need to point out the apparent bias and also the possible motive for indoctrination here. Studies like this are potentially useful for indoctrination in that they can alter popular opinion (through bias/ biased results and through the spread of an idea that might otherwise not be accepted) and also because they can be used as an influence in education or training areas.

So, no, psychological studies are not the ONLY method of indoctrination, but they ARE a useful tool. And no, simply not doing these studies doesn't stop indoctrination, I can think of many examples of unfounded bad science/reasoning and superstitions that have been used to enact policy and teachings that become accepted by the public, despite not being in their best interest. Certain religions, certain unquestioned foundations of economic theory, etc.

But there have been actual studies performed in the field of science and psychology and wrapped in the illusion of fair and unbiased that have ALSO been used to set bad policy and influence immoral human behaviour for the benefit of the people who funded the study. Only by being aware of the possible use of that tool can you prevent it's being used dishonestly, unethically, or to manipulate.

In my opinion, no person should ever just accept a scientific study or psychological study without first a healthy dose of skepticism (which science is founded on), and part of that skepticism is some critical thinking in regards to whether there is any potential bias in the article, and if so, why. If that why could be that potentially the people who did the study have some kind of agenda, that should and must be questioned.

I notice that nowhere in your response did you refute that my hypothetical was not a possibility.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 10, 2010 7:54 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"I feel the need to point out the apparent bias and also the possible motive for indoctrination here"

You know who is the BEST example of someone who decided moral dilemmas with thought ? Ghandi. Granted, his dilemmas were long term, as were his solutions. But there is no rational to reject logic as the basis for decision. What logic requires is not an outcome, b/c the desirability of an outcome is a moral choice for which there can be no rationale. Non-action is a moral choice. What logic requires is a process of consistency and proportion.

Using logic and thought would make people MORE resistant to manipulation, LESS subject to emotional hot-buttons.

I have no problem with that.

"I notice that nowhere in your response did you refute that my hypothetical was not a possibility."

There is no data to either support or refute it with. As Frem had no data to support his. And you have no data to support yours. You are asking me to make assumptions as you have done.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 10, 2010 8:49 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

As I see it, these dilemmas are painful to even consider - at least, I find them to be - b/c of the human trait of empathy. Unless and until that trait can be eliminated in a large number of people - something this study doesn't even come close to doing - it will always be a check on trying to teach people to callously making pre-determined choices.


"Empathy is good."

Quote:

But there is no rational to reject logic as the basis for decision. What logic requires is not an outcome, b/c the desirability of an outcome is a moral choice for which there can be no rationale. Non-action is a moral choice. What logic requires is a process of consistency and proportion.

Using logic and thought would make people MORE resistant to manipulation, LESS subject to emotional hot-buttons.

I have no problem with that.



"Logic is better. People should use logic more."

And, again, I have no problem with people using logic as a solution to problem solving.

Do I need to start QUOTING myself? Here, since no one seems to believe me, and I keep hearing the same argument over and over, which I have refuted, REPEATEDLY.

To Kpo (and his logical answer):
Quote:

I wasn't attacking your answer, I was attacking the point of the study.


Quote:

This study's conclusion is about making the justification that this way of thinking (logical) is preferable to the alternative mode of thinking (emotional) and trying to put one as better than the other. In reality, both proposed scenarios have drawbacks, and neither scenario is really the best solution within the frame of the problem. There are other options besides killing someone.


Quote:

In fact, I would go so far as to say this study, and this entire thread, has been a veritable collision of three types of thinking and problem solving.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheSpock
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheMcCoy
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheKirk

Note that despite the names of the tropes, no one character type is a better problem solver or leader or has a better method than the others.



Quote:

I already told you my issue here is NOT with your answer. You don't have to defend it.


Quote:

But I'm making no judgments about which approach is right and which isn't. My issue here is with the USE of these moral dilemmas, and for what purpose.


Quote:

Well... If there weren't any mentions in the article of "higher memory" and not so much in favour of "overriding strong emotions in favour of thoughtful deliberation and reasoning" then I might agree with you, but without any context or definitions, the most likely case here is that "thoughtful deliberation" is what Kpo represents, and the rest of us represent the "strong emotion response" side.

And I'd even be okay with THAT... If one method wasn't being represented as distinctly better than the other method. And if the bias didn't make me question the motivation for the study. The study seems to have an agenda. And it only tests for one kind of thoughtfulness and rationality because of the false dilemma and only offering two options, the logical "5 lives is better have 1 life" response, or the "I can't push the man off, it would be wrong" emotional response. The article doesn't say subjects were permitted an "other" option, it says they had to chose between only what was offered, so already it was skewed towards proving a specific point. And that bias bleeds through into the article, unless the article is not representative of the study.



Quote:

No and no. I actually enjoy moral dilemmas, except when I think answers given are being used to support a position I find unethical in of itself. And to me, the study seems to be trying to support a position of logic in a moral dilemma being a superior method of problem solving than emotions. And like I said before, that troubles me because of how the results of such a study could be used in schools and the armed forces. I'd like to know who funded the study and why.


Quote:

I've said this already. It's not the moral dilemma I have a problem with. I LIKE moral dilemmas. Why do you keep trying to frame my arguments as such?

I have been very clear, I feel like a broken record. It's how the bloody study bloody uses the bloody moral dilemmas that I have a bloody problem with. Okay? Please take me at face value when I say this, because it is very frustrating that you keep trying to assign some sort of ulterior motive to my disapproval here. My point here really is what I'm saying it is. I'm not saying my emotional/pacifistic approach is BETTER. I'm saying that the study is FLAWED because it is BIASED towards a particular response, and that CONCERNS me.



And now you're attacking me on the same points, points that I think I've already addressed.

I'm starting to think it's intentional, and so I think the purpose here is no longer to debate the issue, but rather to deny and discredit me by creating arguments I have NOT made.

But I will say one more thing, if a study can influence pop-culture, and pop-culture can influence parenting and teaching styles, and parenting and education has an effct on the formation and emotional/intellectual development of children, then THIS study could theoretically be used to encourage people to use "logic" to override the "emotional, empathic" response to making or accepting callous moral decisions. As such, this study could be a tool to "eliminate the trait of empathy" in a large number of people, and if not the instrument itself, this study could be part of an ongoing process.

Decreased human empathy would be justification for a military state, and conveniently provide citizens custom made for the military.

You don't have to have DATA to make an inference. Just a basic premise. The inference is valid or invalid based on the degree of probability, or lack thereof.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inference
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inference

Is my inference valid? I say yes, no one else seems to even want to discuss it. I must suppose this is not where you wanted your thread to go, and that I hijacked it with this argument. As such, there is no reason for me to stay and continue arguing when the argument is unwanted and not even recognized.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 10, 2010 9:15 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Well, we may be talking past each other unintentionally.

B/c I THOUGHT I addressed your concerns, but didn't, then I truly don't understand your point.

You seem to be saying that the study is favoring an outcome. I don't see it that way. What it seems to be favoring is a process. Those two are different.


Here's an example of emotional rather than rational (ratio, to proportion) response:

ABORTION IS BAD ! It's killing innocent life ! God made life sacred and only god can take it away !

KILL THE EVIL RAG-HEADS !

FRY THE SUCKER ! He did the deed, now he's gotta' pay !


We have examples of people like that here, and while these may not be their exact arguments, it is their self-contradictory pattern.

The study was looking to see which areas of the brain are activated during the decision making process. Now, if I were doing the study, what I would want to do is ask the participants what their rationale was for each decision. I would want to see if they were consistent in their rationale, and if the use of a consistent rationale matched their brain waves.

Not having the study to look at, we don't know enough to see if that's what they did.

That's what I mean about not making assumptions. FOR ALL YOU KNOW - respondants who had sound reasons to NOT sacrifice a soldier, or a fat man, were judged to be JUST AS rational as respondants who did have sound reasons to sacrifice them. And people who had no rationale to sacrifice the soldier or the fat man were judged to be just as irrational as respondants who had no reason to save them.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 10, 2010 9:56 AM

BYTEMITE


That's another point I argued with Kpo.

Quote:

It could be, Kpo, but then WHY does the article (or the study, we still don't know if the article is representative) specifically call out this point:

Quote:
moral dilemmas can evoke strong emotions in people and tend to override thoughtful deliberation and reasoning.



Quote:
sometimes people are capable of voluntarily suppressing these emotional reactions, allowing for decisions based on reasoning and careful deliberation of the consequences of one’s actions.



Quote:
“This suggests that emotional reactions to moral issues can drive our judgments and motivate action but can also blind us to the consequences of our decisions in some cases,” write the authors.



When you decide that you would push the man, would you say you associated that with a particularly emotional response? Of the two options, which response is most likely to be elicited from an immediate visceral emotional response, and which is likely to be a reasoned, carefully thought through and well substantiated response?

I mean, of the response that you describe as logical, 100% of the people involved would fall under the distinction here of having reasoned through the decision, wouldn't they? Whereas the other group would be split by a percentage of those who can reason through their response to the dilemma, and those who respond "Oh, God! No! That's wrong!"

So which group is more likely to be considered the logical responders?



I'm also not entirely sure that inconsistency is necessarily an indicator of poor logic. It could be that case by case, a different conclusion may be necessary even if the cases are similar.

You'll notice that when Kpo spoke about how he could not apply his same logic to his own family, I didn't accuse him of being wrong. His being inconsistent does not invalidate his logic on a case by case level. Although I do disagree with his logic, and I said as much.

This is SORT of an article that applies, how much, I'm not sure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 10, 2010 10:08 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"I mean, of the response that you describe as logical, 100% of the people involved would fall under the distinction here of having reasoned through the decision, wouldn't they? Whereas the other group would be split by a percentage of those who can reason through their response to the dilemma, and those who respond "Oh, God! No! That's wrong!"

So which group is more likely to be considered the logical responders?"


This is a completely unfounded assumption, as I have implicitly and explicitly stated many times. An assumption you seem to be stuck making over and over.

ONE rationale might be "the greatest good for the greatest number" (or "the needs of the many outweight the needs of the few, or the one").

ANOTHER RATIONALE might be wu wei - deliberate inaction.

I bring these two up b/c they give completely different results, for completely different reasons, and NEITHER one is at its core logically justifiable.

As for your link, it is a logical fallacy (rhetorical device) used to disredit a PERSON as a way of discrediting their argument and isn't applicable to this discussion.

The basis of logic IS consistency with the primary assumption.

***************************************************************

I have to go. I hope we can continue this discussion some other time.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 10, 2010 10:34 AM

BYTEMITE


But you used inconsistency before as an example of people who are illogical. It could be that for each case, they have good logic for that particular argument.

Similarly, if what you said previously is true, then this study uses consistency over several cases and scenarios to determine whether a person was being logical or not. Which seems flawed to me, based on that logical fallacy.

Quote:

This is a completely unfounded assumption, as I have implicitly and explicitly stated many times. An assumption you seem to be stuck making over and over.


Well, actually it seems to me that we only started making this argument right this moment. And I have only argued it with you once in this thread (now). It certainly seems new to me, and I must conclude I missed it, and I apologize. I didn't mean to ignore you.

Anyway, to the point.

I'm trying to understand what you're saying here. You are saying that there are multiple moral frames in which the study might be conducted to determine whether a response to a moral dilemma is logical. You mentioned the frame that I believe they're using, and then also described another frame, wu wei, that they might be using. I can't say I understand how wu wei applies, I suppose it might but I'd need further explanation.

I might be wrong about which moral frame they're using, but if there is even a moral frame, isn't that a bias?

And all right, it may be an assumption to say that the studiers are likely using a frame that most of us are familiar with and which is very common, but is that an UNWARRANTED assumption? Some assumptions are warranted! Especially when no such reference of no such special frame is given in the article or title of the study!

Quote:

In logic, more specifically in the context of natural deduction systems, an assumption is a proposition that may be used to prove further propositions, in the expectation that the assumption will be discharged in due course by proving it via a separate argument.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assumption

Lastly, this still does not address my inference of possibility. Changing the frame might change what the motive of the studiers might be, they might not be encouraging the greater good method after all, but this still does not address the idea that the study could be used as an influence or indoctrination tool.

If the frame were Chinese wu wei, the study could be used to create an American population that is "selflessly inactive" (wikipedia) were the Chinese government to take over.

The argument I am making, as ever, is about bias, the influence of studies on popular culture, and how a study can fulfill an agenda.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 10, 2010 10:53 AM

BYTEMITE


Ultimately, the problem is that the article is not detailed enough to give us any insight on the particular definitions that the study was operating under.

But I still think my concern is valid.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 10, 2010 2:08 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"Well, actually it seems to me that we only started making this argument right this moment."
I'm not sure who you mean by ** we **. If you scroll up you'll see ** I ** have NOT been here for quite a while.


When you just today, during the course of our discussion, re-focused off of unknown evil intent and onto bias as your concern I responded with

this

>> What logic requires is not an outcome, b/c the desirability of an outcome is a moral choice for which there can be no rationale. Non-action is a moral choice. What logic requires is a process of consistency and proportion.

and this

>> FOR ALL YOU KNOW - respondents who had sound reasons to NOT sacrifice a soldier, or a fat man, were judged to be JUST AS rational as respondents who did have sound reasons to sacrifice them. And people who had no rationale to sacrifice the soldier or the fat man were judged to be just as irrational as respondents who had no reason to save them.

Both of them pointed to opposite logical decisions being arrived at from different initial positions. You went past this point in your replies. And that is why I again addressed my point with

this

>> This is a completely unfounded assumption, as I have implicitly and explicitly stated many times. An assumption you seem to be stuck making over and over.

Perhaps you now see why I brought it up again with the above post. I was reading, understanding and DIRECTLY responding to your point about bias. I was saying that we can't know if the study is biased or not, b/c there are details we don't know. I was in fact engaged in discussing your point.

Do you accept that I have read, understood and directly addressed your point about bias ? Do you accept my argument that there are differing initial positions from which one could derive differing logical decisions ? Do you accept that we don't know if the study is biased on the basis that we don't know it they accepted other initial positions ?

If you don't accept that I have either specifically addressed your point about bias, or have shown that we can't know if it is biased, do you have an argument not based entirely on assumptions ?


"Some assumptions are warranted!"

That's true, but not the assumptions one makes in proving a point. In your posts they lead to a circular quality which goes like this: I assume evil intent therefore I assume bias, and since I assume bias it means there is evil intent.
Additionally, one does not follow the other. There may be no evil intent even if there is bias, and no bias even if there is evil intent.
And even if there is both evil intent and associated bias, this study is not necessary to evil's fulfillment, since the exact same evil has been historically done and is being currently done QUITE EASILY through other well known means.
Finally, assumptions are warranted only as far as they will be addressed later. This is from your quote: "...in the expectation that the assumption will be discharged in due course by proving it via a separate argument." I don't see you addressing the further challenges of proving your several assumptions.

So, while you may have suspicions of bias and/ or evil intent, both fact and logic weaken the likelihood that your suspicions are linked and both true.


***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 10, 2010 2:54 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

When you just today, during the course of our discussion, re-focused off of unknown evil intent and onto bias as your concern I responded with


What? Considering bias is part of the critical thinking process I go to whenever some sort of study or article is put in front of me. If I find something that looks like bias, I then try to find a reason why the bias might be there. Often, yes, that goes to a question about the source of the study, motivations, and agenda.

I didn't suddenly switch what the point of my argument is. It's part and parcel.

I don't really like your suggestion that I'm being dishonest here, either.

Quote:

What logic requires is not an outcome, b/c the desirability of an outcome is a moral choice for which there can be no rationale. Non-action is a moral choice. What logic requires is a process of consistency and proportion.


Right, and then I responded with that thing I said to Kpo, because it applied. Then apparently I did miss this:

Quote:

FOR ALL YOU KNOW - respondents who had sound reasons to NOT sacrifice a soldier, or a fat man, were judged to be JUST AS rational as respondents who did have sound reasons to sacrifice them. And people who had no rationale to sacrifice the soldier or the fat man were judged to be just as irrational as respondents who had no reason to save them.


Which doesn't make sense to me. Why would someone have no rationale for killing someone, when the morale dilemma is about killing someone for the greater good? The rationale is bound up in the decision.

Maybe this is another assumption, I'm ASSUMING that the study used average people, not a bunch of psychopathic serial killers who don't feel they NEED to give a reason to intentionally kill someone in a hypothetical scenario. If a significant proportion of the average population is already inclined to kill people for no reason in a moral dilemma, which is what would have to be the case for your scenario to make sense, then I'm a dead woman. ^_^'

Quote:

This is a completely unfounded assumption, as I have implicitly and explicitly stated many times. An assumption you seem to be stuck making over and over.


Which I still don't think is so, being that the moral dilemmas being used suggest the very framework I've been describing. All of the examples in the article, in some way or another, seem to revolve around the issue "what would you do for the greater good?"

Quote:

Do you accept that I have read, understood and directly addressed your point about bias ? Do you accept that we don't know if the study is biased on the basis that we don't know it they accepted other initial positions ?


Sort of... You did offer alternatives. But I just don't think the offered alternatives would explain what the article suggests about the study. Plus your alternatives THEMSELVES would have been moral framework, and therefore, in my opinion, a source of bias.

I'll grant you that this would be a whole lot easier if the article came right out and SAID what was what, which it doesn't do, which does make a lot of this argument nebulous and mostly based on perspective, background, etc.

And that's not even getting into your argument about logical consistency, which is interesting, and a whole 'nother take on the study, but which is STILL likely flawed. If it means anything to you, if this is the CORRECT interpretation of the study, this version I would not consider to have any inherent bias, and therefore no motivations or agenda. I would just think it's flawed, but that they still managed to find something interesting about memory function.

Quote:

That's true, but not the assumptions one makes in proving a point. In your posts they lead to a circular quality which goes like this: I assume evil intent therefore I assume bias, and since I assume bias it means there is evil intent.
Additionally, one does not follow the other. There may be no evil intent even if there is bias, and no bias even if there is evil intent.



Um, no. See above. I saw bias FIRST then began wondering about intent. It wasn't my basic assumption, which was about the framework, which you noted.

Quote:

Additionally, one does not follow the other. There may be no evil intent even if there is bias, and no bias even if there is evil intent.


Oh, true, but in this case I think there is BOTH, because as I see it this study seems to come out very in favour of encouraging people to take the kill option.

Quote:

And even if there is both evil intent and associated bias, this study is not necessary to evil's fulfillment, since the exact same evil has been historically done and is being currently done QUITE EASILY through other well known means.


DOESN'T mean that it can't and won't be used that way. And studies have been used this way historically, as you so noted.

Quote:

Finally, assumptions are warranted only as far as they will be addressed later. This is from your quote: "...in the expectation that the assumption will be discharged in due course by proving it via a separate argument." I don't see you addressing the further challenges of proving your several assumptions.


I did address it. 1) Inclusion of moral framework introduces bias. 2) Moral dilemmas and common issue between the sample dilemmas presented suggest a moral frame work "Would you do this for the greater good." 3) No reference of special moral framework is made in the article, which is either very flawed or is a 35,000 foot overlook of the study, which then does NOT appear to have a special framework beyond the one suggested by the moral dilemmas used.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 10, 2010 4:26 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


I have time for only a sort answer to one thing and then I will be out of the loop perhaps till next week.

"Why would someone have no rationale for killing someone, when the morale dilemma is about killing someone for the greater good? The rationale is bound up in the decision."

The rationale is YOUR ASSUMPTION ... YOUR ASSUMPTION ... YOUR ASSUMPTION ... YOUR ASSUMPTION. Got that now ? The decision - to kill or not - for the greater good or not - is not necessarily predetermined. WE CAN'T KNOW IF IT IS WITH THE DATA ON HAND ! WE DON'T KNOW HOW THEY RATED THEIR DATA. Miss that point much ? I've made it implicitly and explicitly 5 times. They may not have rated ANY decision good OR bad - but rated only if it was consistent with A rationale or with other decisions.

As to why "would someone have no rationale for killing someone" ... perhaps it's because they went with their gut, and at that time and place that's what it told them to do. HElloooo ...

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 10, 2010 4:35 PM

CHRISISALL


Kill no one unless you are forced to by defense of self or innocents against aggressor humans or animals.
Accidents happen.
Really, this is the end of the argument, unless semantics is the first priority.


The laughing Chrisisall

"I only do it to to remind you that I'm right and that deep down, you know I'm right, you want me to be right, you need me to be right." - The Imperial Hero Strikes Back, 2010

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 10, 2010 4:38 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:

Why would someone have no rationale for killing someone

This is where inconsistency might come in. Did you notice from my BBC link that the moral dilemma in Rue's article is the second of a pair of very similar (arguably equivalent) moral dilemmas? In the parallel dilemma instead of murdering the fat man you have the option of flicking a switch to divert the trolley to a second track, where 1 man is working instead of 5. Either way you have the option to play God and save 5 men instead of 1 - but I suspect some subjects opted to flick the switch *unthinkingly*, and then when it came to pushing the fat man said "Oh no, I can't do that." Meanwhile their brain wave patterns might reveal this inconsistency - that they failed to think about the similar problems in the same way, because the emotional aspect in one of the dilemmas was bigger, and more confronting.

Quote:

the morale dilemma is about killing someone for the greater good?

Who said that? Do you mean the dilemma or the study?

Quote:

as I see it this study seems to come out very in favour of encouraging people to take the kill option.

I still see this as a BIG leap, the article certainly talks about rational *process*, and consistency (which Rue and I have attempted to explain) - it doesn't explicitly talk about a 'logical' or 'correct' *decision*.

Quote:

You'll notice that when Kpo spoke about how he could not apply his same logic to his own family, I didn't accuse him of being wrong. His being inconsistent...

For the record kpo does not think his decisions were inconsistent. Both apply the same logic of:

Play God if:

5x - C > x

Where 'C' is the scale of the moral abhorrence (or 'crime against humanity') of the action, and is bigger in the second case with family members than the first, in my view. Hence, same logic --> possibly different outcomes.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 10, 2010 5:52 PM

BYTEMITE


Clearly this is making you upset, which I why I wanted to get out of this argument a while ago. To be honest, this discussion has been making me somewhat depressed myself, because it seems like there is something just not clicking, some way in which you and I and Kpo are just not seeing eye to eye here. Which is somewhat frustrating for all involved I think.

I'm afraid we just differ in opinion in how much we can determine based on the information given in the article, and how we interpret that information. As we have discussed this, the more supporting arguments I've found for my assumption of the moral frame, which yes, I STILL think is reasonable. The more I think about how the article is presented, the more convinced I am, that is, again, if the article is a good representation of the study.

But it is your feeling that my reasons are not good enough to validate my claims, and so you still see them as an UNFOUNDED assumption. It is clear I can't change your perception of this, and I really can't be convinced this study has no inherent bias based on my interpretation of the information provided.

I'm going to be out of the office most of tomorrow, so I won't be able to continue the argument anyway. Hope to see you next week, although perhaps it would be better if seeing you were in a different capacity than this thread.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 10, 2010 6:11 PM

BYTEMITE


Oh, and BTW, I finally went and looked up the article.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/120086983/abstract

Quote:

ABSTRACT—Recent findings suggest that exerting executive control influences responses to moral dilemmas. In our study, subjects judged how morally appropriate it would be for them to kill one person to save others. They made these judgments in 24 dilemmas that systematically varied physical directness of killing, personal risk to the subject, inevitability of the death, and intentionality of the action. All four of these variables demonstrated main effects. Executive control was indexed by scores on working-memory-capacity (WMC) tasks. People with higher WMC found certain types of killing more appropriate than did those with lower WMC and were more consistent in their judgments. We also report interactions between manipulated variables that implicate complex emotion-cognition integration processes not captured by current dual-process views of moral judgment.


Now if only I understood psychology jargon. Incomprehensible gibberish!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 11, 2010 6:03 PM

HKCAVALIER


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
People may argue that the study was flawed - and it's hard to say. But I don't think people can object to the idea THAT such a study is a proper research subject.

HK reluctantly, but resignedly raises his hand...

Now, I don't like suggesting that any line of inquiry is wrong or should not be followed to its conclusion, logical or otherwise, but I really have to object to the fundamental premise of this kind of study.

I don't see the benefit of perpetuating the false dichotomy of logic vs. emotion, and I see tremendous harm in doing so. I see it as a profound distortion of how healthy humans function, and specifically *IRONY ALERT* derailing one's ability to make good split-second decisions under stress!

The key to handling such situations well is emotional integration, self-acceptance and what the Buddhists call "mindfulness," none of which arise from a process of strictly logical deliberation. On the contrary, the ability to access logic when the shit hits the fan, to be calm and available to the largest context of a crisis, is greatly improved by emotional integration--not the emotional disintegration of "suppressing" or attempting to "control" one's emotions. Emotional suppression and control SPECIFICALLY result in the kind of bipolar pressure-cooker emotional process you're talking about, Rue.

Sadly, the simple, dismaying fact that you, Rue, and this guy, KPO--to say nothing of the larger scientific establishment!--accept this dichotomy; that both of you have bought into this wholly destructive distrust of emotion as something needing to be "suppressed" in favor of "more consistent" logic, sorta kinda nudges you in the direction of the hopeless case category when it comes to being able to perceive the INHERENT bias of such a study.

Furthermore, this sort of study where people are enjoined to "play god" and decide who lives or dies is simply inviting--conditioning, grooming--people to think as sociopaths. Seriously, take a look at this trolley crap again: there is NO WAY that a sane human being who is actually on the scene as the trolley speeds toward the 5 workmen is going to even THINK of throwing another living person in the path of that trolley! It just isn't on a sane person's list of options in the event. No one, but the most grandiose sociopath, is going to consider throwing a stranger in front of a speeding trolley as a good idea under any circumstances! Not in reality. It is a dilemma that exists solely in the imagination of a person who is already emotionally repressed and alienated from reality!

I personally would not participate in such a study, anymore than I would consent to administer a small electric shock to someone in the next room because some guy in a white coat told me it was "for the good of science." So, these kinds of studies of human nature fail because self-respecting, empathetic people will self-select OUT of the study. So the results are necessarily skewed (biased???) in favor of shut-down, alienated, submissive subjects, giving a skewed notion of human psychology upon which future science, future child rearing practices, future social engineering, and ultimately, future "common sense thinking" will be based.

To further alienate the subject from reality you pretend that the kind of cold, disengaged deliberation possible when answering a questionnaire is in any way related to the kind of emotionally charged split-second decision-making humans engage in when survival is at stake.

Upon further reading, thanks to KPO, it appears that these questions all concern killing people, with a greater or lesser subjective experience of agency. So, really, the questionnaire is all about testing a subject's willingness to KILL OTHER PEOPLE. And you don't find this sort of thing disturbing???

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 11, 2010 7:59 PM

FREMDFIRMA



Thanks once again, HKCav, for managing to successfully carry the concept I was tryin to earlier - understanding the concept and bein able to express it to folk ain't exactly related in my case, alas.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 12, 2010 5:25 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:

both of you have bought into this wholly destructive distrust of emotion as something needing to be "suppressed" in favor of "more consistent" logic

We've not talked about cutting off emotions completely - just being able to access logic in despite of them. Which was exactly what the article talked about (juggling both mental processes).

Also you've completely misunderstood the point about testing for consistency. There's no reason to think the study will criticise consistent, fully-rationalised pacificism.

Quote:

Upon further reading, thanks to KPO, it appears that these questions all concern killing people

First of all, you're welcome. Second no, you get to choose if you kill anyone or not - that's kind of the point. What you can't choose are the *consequences* of your decisions, which are outlined for you by circumstance.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Fri, March 29, 2024 06:20 - 6156 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Fri, March 29, 2024 06:18 - 57 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Fri, March 29, 2024 02:54 - 3414 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Fri, March 29, 2024 02:49 - 11 posts
Elections; 2024
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:33 - 2075 posts
Long List of Celebrities that are Still Here
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:00 - 1 posts
China
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:10 - 447 posts
Biden
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:03 - 853 posts
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Thu, March 28, 2024 12:44 - 1 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL