REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Biological basis for dittoheads ?

POSTED BY: RUE
UPDATED: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 19:58
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 16030
PAGE 1 of 4

Wednesday, March 3, 2010 4:02 PM

RUE

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


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080609115219.htm

Who Shalt Not Kill? Brain Power Leads To Level-Headedness When Faced With Moral Dilemmas

ScienceDaily (June 11, 2008) — Should a sergeant sacrifice a wounded private on the battlefield in order to save the rest of his troops? Is euthanasia acceptable if it prevents needless suffering? Many of us will have to face some sort of extreme moral choice such as these at least once in our life. And we are also surrounded by less dramatic moral choices everyday: Do I buy the hybrid? Do I vote for a particular presidential candidate? Unfortunately, very little is known beyond philosophical speculation about how people understand morality and make decisions on moral issues.

Past research suggests that moral dilemmas can evoke strong emotions in people and tend to override thoughtful deliberation and reasoning. However, more recent neuroimaging research has discovered that 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.

A new study appearing in the June issue of Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, appears to support this neuroimaging evidence. Adam Moore of Princeton University and his colleagues Brian Clark and Michael Kane of the University of North Carolina at Greensboro tested this notion by measuring individuals’ working memory capacity -- essentially their ability to mentally juggle multiple pieces of information. The idea was that people who could best juggle information would be able to control their emotion and engage in “deliberative processing.”

The researchers then asked participants to make decisions in emotionally provocative situations. One example:

“A runaway trolley hurtles toward five unaware workmen; the only way to save them is to push a heavy man (standing nearby on a footbridge) onto the track where he will die in stopping the trolley.”

In these emotion laden scenarios, people with high working memory capacity were not only more consistent in their judgments but their answers indicated that they were considering the consequences of their choices in a way that the other participants were not.

“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. Ultimately, people with higher working memory can be relied upon to make more consistent decisions and are able to more deeply consider consequences in these highly charged instances.



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

Silence is consent.

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

Wednesday, March 3, 2010 4:12 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:

“A runaway trolley hurtles toward five unaware workmen; the only way to save them is to push a heavy man (standing nearby on a footbridge) onto the track where he will die in stopping the trolley.”


Oh that is such crap- how would a (say) 250 lb dude stop a three ton trolley?
Puuuuleeeze.


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 3, 2010 4:17 PM

RUE

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




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

Just sayin' ...

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

Wednesday, March 3, 2010 4:22 PM

CHRISISALL


LOL! that'd do it.

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

Wednesday, March 3, 2010 4:44 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)


Apparently Superman's faster than a speeding ice cream truck, too!




"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  

Wednesday, March 3, 2010 5:17 PM

BYTEMITE


For the proposed scenario, I've never understood why you can't convince someone to sacrifice their car and ditch at the last second. Or yourself, if you have a car.

If a trolley is even an issue, there are ROADS where you're at.

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

Wednesday, March 3, 2010 5:34 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080609115219.htm

Who Shalt Not Kill? Brain Power Leads To Level-Headedness When Faced With Moral Dilemmas

ScienceDaily (June 11, 2008) — Should a sergeant sacrifice a wounded private on the battlefield in order to save the rest of his troops? Is euthanasia acceptable if it prevents needless suffering? Many of us will have to face some sort of extreme moral choice such as these at least once in our life. And we are also surrounded by less dramatic moral choices everyday: Do I buy the hybrid? Do I vote for a particular presidential candidate? Unfortunately, very little is known beyond philosophical speculation about how people understand morality and make decisions on moral issues.

Past research suggests that moral dilemmas can evoke strong emotions in people and tend to override thoughtful deliberation and reasoning. However, more recent neuroimaging research has discovered that 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.

A new study appearing in the June issue of Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, appears to support this neuroimaging evidence. Adam Moore of Princeton University and his colleagues Brian Clark and Michael Kane of the University of North Carolina at Greensboro tested this notion by measuring individuals’ working memory capacity -- essentially their ability to mentally juggle multiple pieces of information. The idea was that people who could best juggle information would be able to control their emotion and engage in “deliberative processing.”

The researchers then asked participants to make decisions in emotionally provocative situations. One example:

“A runaway trolley hurtles toward five unaware workmen; the only way to save them is to push a heavy man (standing nearby on a footbridge) onto the track where he will die in stopping the trolley.”

In these emotion laden scenarios, people with high working memory capacity were not only more consistent in their judgments but their answers indicated that they were considering the consequences of their choices in a way that the other participants were not.

“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. Ultimately, people with higher working memory can be relied upon to make more consistent decisions and are able to more deeply consider consequences in these highly charged instances.



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

Silence is consent.



is the heavy man Rappy ?

/pushes and smiles






Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

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

Wednesday, March 3, 2010 6:02 PM

FREMDFIRMA



Rue: 1 Keyboard: 0
*mopping up coffee*

Oh man, hehehe.

Seriously though, one of the great things about being an ITSP gearhead is that I could prolly figure a way to stop the damn thing without anyone having die, and quick enough to put it into action - who cares if you snap an axle or blow the gearing all to hell, it's just stuff, and people are more important than stuff, IMHO.

-F

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

Wednesday, March 3, 2010 6:08 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 Fremdfirma:

Rue: 1 Keyboard: 0
*mopping up coffee*

Oh man, hehehe.

Seriously though, one of the great things about being an ITSP gearhead is that I could prolly figure a way to stop the damn thing without anyone having die, and quick enough to put it into action - who cares if you snap an axle or blow the gearing all to hell, it's just stuff, and people are more important than stuff, IMHO.

-F




Careful - You're liable to get called a "commie". ;)




"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  

Wednesday, March 3, 2010 6:10 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 Bytemite:
For the proposed scenario, I've never understood why you can't convince someone to sacrifice their car and ditch at the last second. Or yourself, if you have a car.

If a trolley is even an issue, there are ROADS where you're at.



Bingo. Hey, I love my cars, but they're just cars, and I'd sacrifice one in a heartbeat to save even my dog's life, not to mention a group of people! Park the car and bail out, or aim the car and roll out. No biggie.




"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  

Wednesday, March 3, 2010 6:47 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Careful - You're liable to get called a "commie". ;)


Not by anyone with half a brain.

Any anarchist worth the name generally holds a grudge over Catalonia and hates the communists as much as the damn fascists.

Most folk don't understand why, since *as expressed* the platforms seem so similar, but when the rubber met the road and blood started to spill, both the socialists and the communists sold out their principles to the very fascists who were supposed to be the diametric opposite of all they believed.

And those bastards were shooting at US.

We ain't forgettin that, not EVER.

-Frem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_Catalonia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barcelona_May_Days

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

Thursday, March 4, 2010 7:42 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


But: The scenario makes for only one choice, that's the idea. So what would be your choice, and why?

You can't change the parameters by saying you'd sacrifice a car, the test is IF the only way were to... So we can't change the parameters.

Me, I'd scream at the workmen to move, but THAT's not allowed either, since it says "the only way..." It's a strange scenario, given the way it's visualized; if the only way is to push the guy off the bridge, then there's time to holler at them to scatter; a big man couldn't stop a trolley; there should be other options, etc. But that IS the scenario proposed. Hmmm...

(Thanx for the first giggle of my morning, Gino. Wasn't good enough to spill anything, but made me giggle)


"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

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

Thursday, March 4, 2010 8:21 AM

RUE

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


I only see one logical solution. But I think the scenarios are meant to push emotional hot buttons.

I think we have a real life example of someone whose working memory gets so crowded out by emotional responses, that logic, inconsistencies between values, and real world facts can't even be brought to bear.

FWIW, in real life people make different judgment calls when there is a long amount of time to ponder (women and children first, 2.5+ hours, the Titanic) versus a short amount of time (healthy strong ones for themselves and the devil take the hindmost, 18 minutes, the Lusitania).


http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1969142,00.html?xid=rss
-topstories


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

Silence is consent.

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

Thursday, March 4, 2010 8:36 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


But if one didn't let their emotional hot buttons be pushed, and instead focused on logic, what would the answer be? I don't see a reasonable answer either way, so it seems to me someone working from logic would be forced to come up with an alternative solution or find the fallacies in the problem, as those here have done. ???


"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

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

Thursday, March 4, 2010 8:55 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:

“A runaway trolley hurtles toward five unaware workmen; the only way to save them is to push a heavy man (standing nearby on a footbridge) onto the track where he will die in stopping the trolley.”


Real answer? It's not my place to play God.
Best of luck to 'em.


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  

Thursday, March 4, 2010 9:01 AM

KPO

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


Murder the fat man.

Perform the act that will have the most positive net effect on human happiness - ie. save 5 human lives instead of 1. Of course it could turn out that the fat man is a brilliant scientist destined to cure cancer or something - but really you've got to just play the odds.

I think the narrative of this elaborate hypothetical could be better constructed with the use of a fiendish contraption of an evil comic book villain. Or something.

Heads should roll

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

Thursday, March 4, 2010 9:07 AM

CHRISISALL


Maybe the five guys beat their wives...
Maybe it would be upsetting God's plan & cheating the Devil out of new human waste...

The scenario is just dumb.


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  

Thursday, March 4, 2010 9:09 AM

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 Niki2:
But: The scenario makes for only one choice, that's the idea. So what would be your choice, and why?

You can't change the parameters by saying you'd sacrifice a car, the test is IF the only way were to... So we can't change the parameters.

Me, I'd scream at the workmen to move, but THAT's not allowed either, since it says "the only way..." It's a strange scenario, given the way it's visualized; if the only way is to push the guy off the bridge, then there's time to holler at them to scatter; a big man couldn't stop a trolley; there should be other options, etc. But that IS the scenario proposed. Hmmm...

(Thanx for the first giggle of my morning, Gino. Wasn't good enough to spill anything, but made me giggle)


"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10




It's the Kobayashi Maru, but I don't believe in the no-win situation. If the rules don't allow it, change the rules. :)




"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  

Thursday, March 4, 2010 9:11 AM

BYTEMITE


Technically if you do that he's not destined for anything but becoming a big red blotch.

You can't force logic into this; the question is already logically flawed being presented as a false dilemma. There's always more than two options. Always. And neither option presented would allow the best case scenario or the most morally sound ethical action.

Lives aren't odds or statistics. There's no such thing as a "greater good," an argument for the "greater good" is merely a justification.

And I'm wondering WHY the people above are using a moral dilemma like this. What choice do they argue is the right choice? Do they have an agenda for encouraging one choice over another?

The whole thing seems sociopathic to me. Which is why I refused to play the game and cheated.

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

Thursday, March 4, 2010 9:12 AM

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 chrisisall:
Maybe the five guys beat their wives...
Maybe it would be upsetting God's plan & cheating the Devil out of new human waste...



You're not "upsetting god's plan", at least not if you believe in an all-knowing, all-powerful god. You're carrying out that plan. Otherwise you'd fail. :) Whatever you do, is how it was ordained.




"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  

Thursday, March 4, 2010 9:14 AM

GINOBIFFARONI


I'd throw Rappy under a bus to save a hamster


“This suggests that emotional reactions to moral issues can drive our judgments and motivate action"


or maybe I just likes Hamsters















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

Thursday, March 4, 2010 9:16 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Mike, I thought of the Kobiashi Maru at the time, but figured someone else would mention it, so I'd let them have the fun.

yte: You got it. That's why I was wondering if anyone would bite at deciding which choice to take; it's so flawed it doesn't MAKE for an "intelligent" solution. I wondered too why the choice of this scenario, as it doesn't (to me) HAVE an answer, is flawed, and indicated making a choice between lives. That's not like the other things mentioned (i.e., Titanic). So kuddos for nailing it.


"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

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

Thursday, March 4, 2010 9:19 AM

CHRISISALL




Gino, yer killin' me!!!


The O M G 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  

Thursday, March 4, 2010 9:26 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
I'd throw Rappy under a bus to save a hamster






The STILL 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  

Thursday, March 4, 2010 9:32 AM

BYTEMITE


Heh, that is kinda funny... Hamsters.

But isn't saying that you'd throw AURaptor under a bus kind of a life assessment/judgment too?

You know what else bugs me here, is that they use a large guy, 250 lbs (which might not necessarily be fat, depending on muscle mass) and we are to ASSUME his life is not worth as much because... He's not healthy? He hasn't taken care of himself?

What about a thin muscular guy smoking a cigarette? What if it's a gay guy with AIDs? What about a homeless guy who's malnourished and therefore unhealthy? What about someone who's just plain poor, same reason? What if it's someone of colour who lives in a ghetto? What if it's someone of colour? As sensitivity decreases about needing to kill someone to make for a better outcome, can that be manipulated?

I mean, nothing ABOUT that question makes it better or more sensical, and the attempt to try to "lessen the blow" for the forced choice is MINDBOGGLING. Seriously, what ARE they trying to accomplish/encourage here?

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

Thursday, March 4, 2010 9:59 AM

RUE

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


Well - I can't defend their question as reported. Although, b/c I think we can ALL come up with better scenarios that would propose the dilemma better - for example, shooting through a hostage to kill a man about to blow up a crowd of people - I suspect that the question they reported was not one of the real questions but a dummy one.

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

Silence is consent.

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

Thursday, March 4, 2010 10:04 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


I think the sniper thing wouldn't work--the answer IS possible, tho' it may not be "morally right" or something. Using an innocent makes it more of a moral dilemma. I also think the using of a big person is a way to say "his body could stop the trolley", not any particular bigotry.

I can't figure out the purpose of the dilemma either; if they're saying people who think before acting are being tested, the proposed scenario is nonsensical, I agree.

ETA: Oh gawd, I luuuuuuve the hamster!


"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

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

Thursday, March 4, 2010 10:32 AM

GINOBIFFARONI


They likes hamsters too






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

Thursday, March 4, 2010 10:38 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


EXCELLENT, Gino. Made me smile.


"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

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

Thursday, March 4, 2010 11:02 AM

GINOBIFFARONI


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Heh, that is kinda funny... Hamsters.

But isn't saying that you'd throw AURaptor under a bus kind of a life assessment/judgment too?




Yes, that would be correct


AURaptor = Oxygen Stealer



Definition : Oxygen Stealer

Closely related to the Fuckwit family, a person who is a complete waste of O2 and would do the world a favour by not breathing it. Usually can be replaced by a half dozen trees to do the world some good and further the advancement of the Human Gene pool by not existing.

"He was a real cock sucker,fuckwit.what an Oxygen Stealer"

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

Thursday, March 4, 2010 11:07 AM

CHRISISALL


Gino's trying to dehydrate me... *wipes tears*




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  

Thursday, March 4, 2010 11:31 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


In actuality, when making emotional decisions, we tend to save those who are cute.

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

Thursday, March 4, 2010 11:40 AM

CHRISISALL


Guys on the track work there- occupational hazard. Other guy- unrelated.


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  

Thursday, March 4, 2010 2:54 PM

KPO

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


Quote:

Do they have an agenda for encouraging one choice over another?

Is this some kind of hyper-suspicion, of anyone/anything in authority? It wouldn't be the first time people have used this kind of cynicism to duck a difficult question - some anti-war types come to mind.

Quote:

There's always more than two options. Always. And neither option presented would allow the best case scenario or the most morally sound ethical action.

In Hollywood there are always enough options for there to be a convenient, happy solution. Firefly is beautiful when it subverts this though, like Mal throwing the man off the hovercraft to the mercy of the reavers, or shooting the horse in the pilot. I say this not because I dislike horses - no. Why would the universe contrive to always produce a happy, 'morally sound' option in real life?

Mal would've thrown the man in front of the trolley - except if it was one of his crew. Maybe Jayne.

Heads should roll

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

Thursday, March 4, 2010 7:11 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 Bytemite:
Heh, that is kinda funny... Hamsters.

But isn't saying that you'd throw AURaptor under a bus kind of a life assessment/judgment too?

You know what else bugs me here, is that they use a large guy, 250 lbs (which might not necessarily be fat, depending on muscle mass) and we are to ASSUME his life is not worth as much because... He's not healthy? He hasn't taken care of himself?

What about a thin muscular guy smoking a cigarette? What if it's a gay guy with AIDs? What about a homeless guy who's malnourished and therefore unhealthy? What about someone who's just plain poor, same reason? What if it's someone of colour who lives in a ghetto? What if it's someone of colour? As sensitivity decreases about needing to kill someone to make for a better outcome, can that be manipulated?

I mean, nothing ABOUT that question makes it better or more sensical, and the attempt to try to "lessen the blow" for the forced choice is MINDBOGGLING. Seriously, what ARE they trying to accomplish/encourage here?




Try it this way, Byte:

A trolley is out of control, and it's going to kill or maim 5 people a short distance away who are unaware of impending doom, and you can't warn them in any way. Would you throw YOURSELF in front of the trolley to save these 5 peoples' lives?

Is that more acceptable?




"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  

Thursday, March 4, 2010 7:16 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:


Is this some kind of hyper-suspicion, of anyone/anything in authority? It wouldn't be the first time people have used this kind of cynicism to duck a difficult question - some anti-war types come to mind.



An awful lot of pro-war types use it to duck difficult questions, too.




"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  

Thursday, March 4, 2010 7:34 PM

BYTEMITE


Well, it's also leading, because who's going to say no?

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

Thursday, March 4, 2010 7:45 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 Bytemite:
Well, it's also leading, because who's going to say no?




Oh, lots of people might say no. Jump in front of a trolley? Sacrifice your life? To save people you don't even know?

Who's going to say YES to such a proposition? THAT is the real question.

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

Thursday, March 4, 2010 7:49 PM

BYTEMITE


Well, but who's going to say no when being asked?

There's certain social expectations. I mean, someone who doesn't say, yes, dammit, I would sacrifice my life to save those people, what does someone else think about them? And even if they WOULDN'T sacrifice themselves in that situation, they still know what to say to appease the questioner. So it's leading.

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

Friday, March 5, 2010 4:14 AM

KPO

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


Quote:

Try it this way, Byte:

A trolley is out of control, and it's going to kill or maim 5 people a short distance away who are unaware of impending doom, and you can't warn them in any way. Would you throw YOURSELF in front of the trolley to save these 5 peoples' lives?

Is that more acceptable?



Yes, and so completely misses the point of the exercise...

Heads should roll

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

Friday, March 5, 2010 4:21 AM

KPO

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


Quote:

An awful lot of pro-war types use it to duck difficult questions, too.


Cynicism? Of those in authority...?

You could say UN weapons inspectors I guess. Not sure if you meant that though, or if you got lucky.

Heads should roll

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

Friday, March 5, 2010 7:35 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

Closely related to the Fuckwit family, a person who is a complete waste of O2 and would do the world a favour by not breathing it. Usually can be replaced by a half dozen trees to do the world some good and further the advancement of the Human Gene pool by not existing.
MOST excellent, Gino, well-made argument as well. Thanx!


"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

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

Friday, March 5, 2010 8:05 AM

FREMDFIRMA



What Miss Byte is talking about, is the way folks knowingly or otherwise pre-load studies of human behavor as a result of assumptions about human behavior that rather than being backed by actual evidence, are instead based upon OTHER peoples contaminated studies or asinine assumptions like a chain of pass the message, and THAT shit goes all the way back to that cocksucker Plato shilling for "the man" of the time, right along with the idiotic "born better/born bad" theories which don't hold an ounce of water in any impartial scientific examination of them.

And these bullshit "studies" always seem to come up with the same result, because they are set up TO acheive it - that being that "people are evil, and need to be controlled (by whomever sponsored the study, OF COURSE) "for their own good"...

And then go one citing other contaminated, set-up "studies" (milgram, stanford, etc) as precedent/supporting evidence in one big circle jerk aimed at coming to a very specific conclusion for downright nefarious reasons, not the least of which is "justifying" more repressive legal and social measures which are, in fact, and rather than human nature, the root *cause* of those behaviors - so their "conclusion" is naught more than a bit of gamesmanship, a dodge to allow them to take the problem itself and try to hold it up as a solution...

The same kind of magical doublethink credit card companies use (identity theft) to justify digging more and more information out of you to "verify your identity" when the problem isn't YOUR sloppiness, but THEM selling that fucking info to known thieves and scammers, which gets ever more accurate and thus makes things worse - yet another "cure" which is a problem masquerading as it's own solution.

And yeah, when "push a metal bench onto the tracks, duh!" gets pitched cause they keep hemming the study in to achieve a very specific result, that being someone *has* to die for their study to get where they need to force it to go (which is the REASON for those "you can't do that!" guardrails) sure as hell imma call bullshit on their scientific method - you asked for my answer, you don't like it cause it doesn't fit where you WANT the study to go, evidence notwithstanding, and wish to discard a viable result for that reason ?

Oh hell no, that's not science, it's something else, something foul, something vile, and I'll have no part of supporting it.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Railroading

It's one thing in a game - yet another when folks are allowed to make POLICY on bullshit self-serving assumptions based on other assumptions and tenatively supported by laughable science, and if you'll buy THIS bolus of crap so easily...

I have a creation myth for sale, cheap.

-Frem
In the moment when I truly understand my enemy, understand him well enough to defeat him, then in that very moment I also love him. I think it’s impossible to really understand somebody, what they want, what they believe, and not love them the way they love themselves. And then, in that very moment when I love them... I destroy them. I make it impossible for them to ever hurt me again. I grind them and grind them until they don’t exist.
-Ender Wiggin.

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

Friday, March 5, 2010 8:16 AM

RUE

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


"... that being someone *has* to die for their study ..."

Well, no one actually died. Also, the study was set up specifically to determine the brain function of moral dilemmas. All moral dilemmas involve significant double-bind consequences. I'd also like to point out that in real life there ARE moral dilemmas. Circumstances don't always work out so that there is a neat and tidy solution to everything. And our brains have a capacity to perceive them, and adjudicate them in some way. It is a proper subject to study.

Finally, there was no assumption anywhere about people being basically evil.

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

Silence is consent.

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

Friday, March 5, 2010 9:27 AM

BYTEMITE


When you ask yourself what you feel about the question "should a sergeant sacrifice a wounded soldier to save the rest of his troops" my initial reaction is extreme disturbance and a "no." My understanding is that this sergeant and his soldiers are a unit, they're a social group, clearly this sergeant cares enough about them that he wants to save them, and by extension they likely care about their sergeant in a reciprocal fashion. When you care about people, they care about you.

Killing this soldier without the consent of the soldier because it will save other lives smacks to me of... a horrifying kind of disloyalty to people you supposedly care about enough to SAVE.

But in the basis of this study, the originators of the study appear to be trying to define this as "levelheadedness" and the right conclusion, likely using the same logic kpo used up there. They talk about "higher memory" and valuing "consistency" in their results, and imply this is a good thing. The sergeant is "thinking about more" than the average person, meaning they believe he is thinking logically as opposed to emotionally, and not giving consideration to the emotional connection he may have with the soldier when he makes his decision.

The sergeant is an authority figure for his soldiers, he cares about them, and yet, it is seemingly ENCOURAGED by this that at any moment, he could kill one of the soldiers for the greater good, and that the other soldiers should continue to trust him.

And no one here but me and Frem sees the obvious analogy and the potential uses and motivations someone might have for creating a psychological study about ethics like this? No one?

Put it this way... What if someone were to create a program to for "leadership on the battlefield" that "encourages logical decision-making as opposed to emotional decision-making" with this study as an influence?

What if they put something similar into elementary school, and one of those students finds themselves on a footbridge with a fat man and a rogue trolley rolling underneath?

What then has been created?

Surely the fat man is as unaware of his impending demise as the wounded soldier, and neither he or the five workers go about their day thinking that some guy on a bridge or a rogue trolley could randomly decide to kill them. But in the world created, the ends justify the means, possibly for any moral dilemma a person might find themselves in, for any bit of badly thought out plans or spurious reasoning the person can think of, and this is okay so long as there is the appearance of a benefit/profit. Should people have a reasonable expectation they'll be "allowed" to live from day to day? Does this suddenly become okay if oneself is the pusher, rather than the one being pushed?

That's sociopathy.

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

Friday, March 5, 2010 12:02 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Yes to both of you...that's kinda why I agreed that I wondered about the incentive for posing the question. It's such a weird conundrum I can find no logical explanation...


"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

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

Friday, March 5, 2010 12:27 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:
Quote:

Try it this way, Byte:

A trolley is out of control, and it's going to kill or maim 5 people a short distance away who are unaware of impending doom, and you can't warn them in any way. Would you throw YOURSELF in front of the trolley to save these 5 peoples' lives?

Is that more acceptable?



Yes, and so completely misses the point of the exercise...

Heads should roll




Well, the point of the exercise seemed pretty simple to me: Does the good of the many outweigh the good of the few?

But so many seemed to be getting hung up on the tiniest details.




"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  

Friday, March 5, 2010 12:28 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:
Quote:

An awful lot of pro-war types use it to duck difficult questions, too.


Cynicism? Of those in authority...?

You could say UN weapons inspectors I guess. Not sure if you meant that though, or if you got lucky.

Heads should roll



I could say Republicans, too, and be just as right. It's not "lucky", it's their track record. :)




"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  

Friday, March 5, 2010 12:34 PM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


All that's really being studied is how people take the study. You can't go from those results to "this is how people behave." Real Life has so many more different shades of possibilities.

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

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

Friday, March 5, 2010 12:35 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


Quote:

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
All that's really being studied is how people take the study. You can't go from those results to "this is how people behave." Real Life has so many more different shades of possibilities.

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



there might be hamsters



lol




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

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
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
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 05:27 - 6154 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 02:07 - 3408 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
Elections; 2024
Wed, March 27, 2024 22:19 - 2069 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:45 - 5 posts
RFK Jr. Destroys His Candidacy With VP Pick?
Wed, March 27, 2024 11:59 - 16 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Wed, March 27, 2024 10:57 - 49 posts
Ha. Haha! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!
Tue, March 26, 2024 21:26 - 1 posts
You can't take the sky from me, a tribute to Firefly
Tue, March 26, 2024 16:26 - 293 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL