Biological basis for dittoheads ? by rue

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Biological basis for dittoheads ?

POSTED BY: RUE
UPDATED: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 19:58
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 16547
PAGE 4 of 4

Friday, March 12, 2010 6:39 AM

The testing for consistency the study mentions is distinctly NOT consistency for refusing to kill anyone. In fact, the abstract says with higher working memory function (more consistency), the consistency was in finding "certain types of killing more appropriate."

Quote:
People with higher WMC found certain types of killing more appropriate than did those with lower WMC and were more consistent in their judgments.

HKCavalier is right, people who would refuse to kill anyone would become increasingly more troubled by the questions of the study and eventually self-select out.

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

Monday, March 15, 2010 1:32 PM

KPO

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

Quote:
In fact, the abstract says with higher working memory function (more consistency),

I don't think that's what WMC means... From the article:

Quote:
measuring individuals’ working memory capacity -- essentially their ability to mentally juggle multiple pieces of information.

So it's kind of like brain power (or a type of). And yes, that leads to consistency - and opting to kill in some circumstances, according to the study.

Quote:
HKCavalier is right, people who would refuse to kill anyone would become increasingly more troubled by the questions of the study and eventually self-select out.

I don't buy it, but sure, the argument makes sense - if you're already convinced of the unscrupulousness of the study.

Quote:
be honest, this discussion has been making me somewhat depressed myself,

Listen, I'm sorry to hear that. I can debate on these boards and argue my worldview long and hard, you may have noticed - but if the other person is getting distressed by it then there's no fun in it for me. There's no obligation to defend your position to the death here, so don't be afraid to bow out of a discussion you're not enjoying, that's my advice.

Heads should roll

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

Monday, March 15, 2010 1:59 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:

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!

THANK YOU!!!!!
Let's not legitimize lunacy here, folks.

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 16, 2010 9:59 AM

RUE

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

Wow. This thread has seen some action since I was last here. It'll take some time for me to catch up.

(This is a bump for me as a reminder.)

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

Silence is consent.

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

Tuesday, March 16, 2010 10:05 AM

RUE

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

Working my way up ...

"... 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!"

"Let's not legitimize lunacy here, folks."

Would a sane person ever think of letting someone die of hypothermia by not letting them onto the lifeboat ?

Would a sane person make someone walk point ?

Would a sane person let one victim die in order to save a larger number of victims ?

Would a sane person consider separating conjoined twins so that one may live instead of having them both die ?

Maybe this has been hashed out at length and I'll find it further up. But I'd like to point out yet again that life doesn't always present us with good choices. In some fashion we DO decide these things. Even if it is not doing anything and letting circumstances take over.

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

Silence is consent.

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

Tuesday, March 16, 2010 10:13 AM

RUE

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

"People with higher WMC found certain types of killing more appropriate than did those with lower WMC and were more consistent in their judgments.I think I'd rather deal with someone who was consistent in their judgements ..."

I'd rather have thoughtful people who are consistent rather than people who make judgements ad hoc out of prejudices (save the fetus but kill the criminal and the raghead). Though I'd rather be dealing with people who are consistent about their refusal to kill than people who are consistent in their decision to do so.

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

Silence is consent.

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

Tuesday, March 16, 2010 10:25 AM

RUE

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

"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."

I am curious if you've ever needed to make this kind of decision.

Without getting too specific, I have had the sad opportunity to do so, and following my gut led to one good decision (decreased pain and suffering) and one bad one (increased pain and suffering). I have also been in a situation where one person walked away from the results their decision led to, leaving me to take care of the person at the receiving end.

If I had been logical about the outcomes, I would have seen the forgone conclusions, and instead of acting out of fear and hope would have been better prepared to act differently.

I realize this is cryptic, it's intentional.

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

Silence is consent.

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

Tuesday, March 16, 2010 10:48 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

I am curious if you've ever needed to make this kind of decision.

I was at the roller skating rink, and a little kid fell in front of me while everyone was going pretty fast- I estimated imminent contact between my right skate & his outstretched fingers, so I intentionally fell with my feet in the air as I reasoned my back pain would be less than his finger pain. The emotion in the situation was inherent, but not over-riding.

Okay, like, SMALL example I guess...

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

Tuesday, March 16, 2010 12:44 PM

KPO

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

Ok but once again choosing a 'self-sacrifice' option is morally easy. I think Rue is talking about more difficult cases where you don't have any kind of 'noble' option.

Heads should roll

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

Tuesday, March 16, 2010 1:34 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Ok but once again choosing a 'self-sacrifice' option is morally easy. I think Rue is talking about more difficult cases where you don't have any kind of 'noble' option.

I do not have the right to choose to kill anyone no matter what the situation. I *could* choose one individual or group to SAVE over another, but I am no God. I could choose NOT to help, but I cannot choose who to kill peeps if they are not endangering innocents. I leave such action to NeoCons.

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

Tuesday, March 16, 2010 1:37 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"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.

Absolutely.

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

Tuesday, March 16, 2010 1:53 PM

RUE

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

That is one of the variables - whether you choose to kill so that more may live, or choose to help more than fewer.

I suspect your answers would have been consistent, divided along the lines of active killing v letting people die. It seems to me that you have a well-thought out rationale for what you would choose.

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

Silence is consent.

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

Tuesday, March 16, 2010 2:02 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
It seems to me that you have a well-thought out rationale for what you would choose.

Thought out? I guess. But fluid as well- for instance, I would have kicked Crow into the engine also (not in my youth though, back then I was intoxicated with the Vader-turns-good thing). I am a literalist, and when someone who has attempted to kill you tells you he'll never stop, that's all she wrote. That is not in conflict with my belief that all life is sacred, nor that self defense trumps altruistic regard for other's life.

The strange Buddhist 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 16, 2010 5:14 PM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Working my way up ...

"... 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!"

"Let's not legitimize lunacy here, folks."

Would a sane person ever think of letting someone die of hypothermia by not letting them onto the lifeboat ?

Would a sane person make someone walk point ?

Would a sane person let one victim die in order to save a larger number of victims ?

Would a sane person consider separating conjoined twins so that one may live instead of having them both die ?

Maybe this has been hashed out at length and I'll find it further up. But I'd like to point out yet again that life doesn't always present us with good choices. In some fashion we DO decide these things. Even if it is not doing anything and letting circumstances take over.

Hey Rue. When I talk about "a sane human being" I'm not using cryptic definitions. I'm trying to speak as generally as possible, in terms that we can all agree on. No sane person would throw a total stranger who represented no threat to them personally in front of bus. I think that's definitive, don't you?

And I question the validity of asking people to imagine what they would do when the only options given demand that they step outside of human psychological reality and just, y'know, make shit up. It's coercion, first of all--people tend to feel obligated to answer questions when asked and the researcher is exploiting this common psychological trait. They're exploiting their power in the situation. It's either unethical or incompetent. Takes a lot of guts to tell the researcher, "Your study is hopelessly flawed, good day." You know, instead of sneaking in off color sexual inquiries, he asks you how easy it would be for you to kill a stranger. Would you kill someone this way? How about this way? But what about THIS way? That the researcher doesn't believe he's doing anything wrong really doesn't improve the situation from where I sit.

The questions you pose above mostly come down to a matter of triage--a number of suffering people, not all can survive, who do you save? All kinds of sane people have to perform triage, you know, for a living. I've known a few. No decision is the right one under those conditions. You just do the best you can. And folks who actually live through this kind of thing mostly use hindsight to torture themselves, not to rationally determine how to act in the future. You did the best you could, right? That's all anyone can do.

But I'll give you my personal answer to each one, 'cause I see you've asked a few of them before and I don't know that anyone has really answered you, in favor of dissecting the wretched WMC study.

Quote:
Would a sane person ever think of letting someone die of hypothermia by not letting them onto the lifeboat?

Sure, a sane person would do that and prolly play "what if" for the rest of her life, but a sane person might also let 'em on, and they might all drown. Neither option is definitively more sane than the other, and sanity alone will not guarantee that you make the best choice. NOTHING, short of time travel, will guarantee that you make the best choice. You can only make YOUR best choice. It depends on some very particular details of your situation, don'it?

It's my contention that you need to be emotionally present, calm and lucid to perceive the real situation facing you, any real danger this person poses to your survival if you let them onboard. We're talking about some of the most horrific circumstances in life.

Even though you're not a doctor, it's still triage--only with this twist: you're one of patients. You have two people in a critical situation, one or both could die. So you make the most horrible decision of your life. If you don't let them on, you're haunted by what-ifs. If you do let them on and the boat can't hold you all, then you both die, lost at sea.

It is my contention that you do not have the leisure to use the scientific method in deciding how to proceed.

You gotta go with your gut, and to effectively go with your gut, you have to be FAMILIAR with your gut--you've gotta be ON GOOD TERMS with your gut. You need, as I stated before, "emotional integration, self-acceptance and mindfulness." You need, in other words, to have a well tuned intuition. I don't care how fond of logic and reason you are at a moment like that, emotion is far, FAR too powerful an engine to deal with unless you are INTIMATE with that power. I'm sorry, but when I've been in dangerous situations, the logic-junkie in the group is the last one I ask for advice.

Chris says logic is the beginning of wisdom. But these situations are not for beginners. Somewhere along the line you need to understand the LIMITS of logic.

Quote:
Would a sane person make someone walk point?

The operative word in this question is "make." There are sane people who don't really understand what "make" means. They don't recognize the issues of force and coercion and control implied in "make." Such folk prolly don't know what "free will" means, either. Such people live in a fog and are anywhere from slightly to catastrophically dangerous people. But if you know what "make" means, and you're sane, you would never arrogate the authority to make another person risk her life.

You're prolly talking about a military situation, a chain of command. But, as I understand such things, an officer doesn't "make" a soldier walk point. It's an agreement between them, a contract voluntarily entered into by both participants. The soldier can refuse, plenty of 'em do. They deal with the consequences, but no one makes them walk point. If you're trained to walk point, if you've signed up to walk point, and your CO tells you to walk point, you're participating and no one can make you participate.

Quote:
Would a sane person let one victim die in order to save a larger number of victims?

Even with a question as open ended as this, the answer is obvious. This is simply triage. Everyone in the question is a victim already, already with their lives at risk. You're not ADDING anyone to the list of victims--unlike in the WMC study where at least two of the questions ask if you would put an innocent stranger in jeopardy to save the folk who are already in danger. It would be like a doctor who had a man who needed a kidney transplant, a second who needed a liver transplant, and a third who needed bone marrow, abducting someone off the street to kill and harvest the various organs. No sane person does that. But decide who they can save and who they cannot? Happens every day.

Quote:
Would a sane person consider separating conjoined twins so that one may live instead of having them both die?

Happens, doesn't it? And sometimes they don't separate them and they live as long as they can together. This is kind of a family matter at that point, right? The doctor gives her best estimate of survivability and the loved ones make the most painful decision of their lives. I'm sure some sane people have made one decision and some sane people have made the other. I'm sure some of the former regret their decision and some of the latter also regret what they decided to do.

Implicit in all your questions is the idea that there's a right answer in any of these cases. I know there are better answers than others. I know there are foolish decisions and wise decisions. I know that some would seem logical and some would seem utterly arbitrary, but none of us who judge these questions are there making the call. And when you find yourself in the midst of such excruciating decisions, I still believe that, more than anything else, you're gonna need to know how to forgive yourself.

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 16, 2010 7:58 PM

FREMDFIRMA

If only it was so easy, to forgive oneself over such a thing...

I wasn't gonna say it, not till HK brought it up, but yanno in what I do I've done a *damned* lot of triage, and while given that mosta the folks we've dealt with were so bad off they'd already been written off as beyond all hope, our success rate is larger than it has any right to be...

But didja think we save em all ?
That many of em don't go and off themselves, or spiral down into catatonia or irrevocable madness ?

And all the time you think, maybe, just maybe... what if ?
Oh the hell of those words I pray you *never* know.

The way they come back at you in the wee hours of the night when all the world goes quiet and they fucking HAUNT you, torture you with what might have been, coulda-shoulda-woulda... but wasn't.

How you think I got so cold blooded about some things ?
When you got that many ghosts haunting you in the dark, what's a couple more ?

Hell, that's why I turned down the other alternative when drivin a cab fell through - my redneck heritage and taxi experience would have been a big plus driving an ambulance, but I turned it down, cause sooner or later I'd find out one of my passengers didn't make it, and that'd be just one more ghost I didn't need, and it might negatively affect my vehicular risk assessment in ways I might not even be aware of.

When things go ugly, all you can do, is all you can do - you do the best you can with what you got, and then live with the decisions you made.

And it's *never* just that goddamned easy, never.

And all the theoreticals in the world are meaningless until it's right there in front of you, and YOU have to decide, no theoretical will prepare you, no training will help you, and nothing but your own humanity is of any assistance in making a decision like that, if you have any left.

-Frem

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

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE