Free verse № 139939
=, <>, & . . .
. <> . . .
. = end
. . . = etcetera
; <> ./,
; = interrupt
./, = 2.
? <> â
? = open
â = answered
& <> %
& = more to come
% = part
; â & â¦
an internet tradition since June 9, 2001.
Free verse № 139939
60 comments
You laughed, admit it.
For example, it's commonly held that moral responsibility requires free will. If you're forced to kill someone against your will, it's not your fault, right? X-phi researchers decided to test that against real data. They presented the following scenario to two groups:
Bill and his wife are flying home from vacation with their friend Frank, who is having an affair with Bill's wife. Bill knows about this. Kidnappers inject Bill with a drug that forces him to obey orders, then tell him to shoot Frank in the head. He does.
The first group is told that Bill has long wanted Frank dead, on account of the affair, and grieves very little. The second group is told that Bill hates what he's done. According to traditional philosophy, Bill is not responsible for Frank's death; but in the x-phi study, the first group said that Bill DID deserve the blame for the killing; the second group said he didn't.
In another example, UNC-CH students were asked the following questions: If a businessman interested only in profits knowingly harms the environment, should we say he did so intentionally? What if he knowingly HELPS the environment? The students said yes to the first question, no to the second.
In another example having to do with intentionality, a man tries to shoot his aunt, misfires, but somehow gets lucky and hits her anyway. Most people say he killed her intentionally, even though he didn't really have the skill to. It's enough that he wanted to.
The argument against x-phi is that respondents may be deciding based on the language of the questions, rather than the philosophical principles involved. For example, here's a psychology experiment you can try yourself.
1. Imagine that the US is preparing for the outbreak of an unusual Asian disease, which is expected to kill 600 people. Two alternative programs to combat the disease have been proposed. Assume that the exact scientific estimates of the consequences of the programs are as follows:
- If Program A is adopted, 200 people will be saved.
- If Program B is adopted, there is 1/3 probability that 600 people will be saved, and 2/3 probability that no people will be saved.
Which of the two programs would you favor?
2. In the same Asian-disease scenario as the previous question's, two different programs are proposed:
- If Program C is adopted 400 people will die.
- If Program D is adopted there is 1/3 probability that nobody will die, and 2/3 probability that 600 people will die.
Which of THESE two programs would you favor?
Or you, Dovina, could find yourself in an abandoned laboratory. You see two separate glass containers. A note taped nearby says: "These containers can only be opened by a gunshot. Opening the container to the right will release Drug C, which will certainly allow 400 of the 600 people affected by the Asian virus to die but save the other 200. Opening the container to the left will release Drug D, after which there is a proven 1/3 chance that nobody affected by the virus will die, but a 2/3 chance that everybody affected will die." There is a gun lying nearby with only one bullet. You have no other gun with you. Nor, according to a separate, attached note, is there enough time to get one or find other people. Therefore, you have to decide to either shoot the container to the right or the container to the left. You must assume all of this is true.
Certainly, you will agree that this is at least POSSIBLE, and that your comment above is, therefore, bunk.
Program A: out of the 600 affected, 200 will be saved.
Program B: out of the 600 affected, there is 1/3 probability that 600 people will be saved, and 2/3 probability that no people will be saved.
Program C: out of the 600 affected, 400 will die.
Program D: out of the 600 affected, there is a 1/3 possibility that nobody will die, and a 2/3 possibility that everyone will.
How do I know this? Because I can read and you can't. Extraordinary outside conditions didn't occur to anyone else in the study, because the information necessary for the decision is GLARINGLY OBVIOUS to even the simpleminded (even if the "trick" isn't.)
So once again: if you'd had any real clue what was going on, you would have chosen either C or D when first asked. That you didn't, and that you continue to "accuse" me of subject-changing and high-minded self-righteousness, is - well, is simply sad.
Revised condition: âProgram D stands to kill everybody.â This condition is contrary to the wording of Program D.
I matters not how much gogeldygoop you give as introduction. It matters how the statements, A,B,C, and D are worded. Otherwise the questionee can google up any sort of bunk, or dream it up as I did, and call it appropriate.
For one, "Imagine that the US is blah blah blah" is part of the frigging question. It is a condition of all of the following options, or, one, I wouldn't have bothered typing it, and two, the options wouldn't make any fucking sense. You couldn't have even sensibly bothered to pick "1A" if you didn't actually think so, unless you're a clod and just like typing "1A" in response to things. You clearly understood that Asian flu being expected to kill 600 people was a condition of the question then, and now you're just refusing to admit your mistake (which is what you constantly accuse me of doing, except I don't.)
For another, the original wording was and is "If Program D is adopted there is 1/3 probability that nobody will die, and 2/3 probability that 600 people will die." So, yes, Program D stands to kill everybody. That is, there's the possibility that everyone will die if Program D is enacted. That's what "stands" means everywhere except Dovina Nonsense Land.
For another, I didn't even word the question. I typed it directly from a textbook on the study. At the very least, it worked for the study, and worked well enough for the study to become the most famous and highly-regarded example of its kind. I should point out that while you, Dovina, have objections, you are not the most famous or highly-regarded of anything.
For my second answer, I decided to rely on that outside information and to add other outside information, forming another silly answer: âThat depends only upon who gave the most to my campaign fund or who would make me look better. I am an elected leader, else I would not be making the choice.â
The whole thing is about wording, and you have bungled it.
"For example, here's a psychology experiment you can try yourself.
1. Imagine that the US is preparing for the outbreak of an unusual Asian disease, which is expected to kill 600 people. Two alternative programs to combat the disease have been proposed. Assume that the exact scientific estimates of the consequences of the programs are as follows:"
"2. In the same Asian-disease scenario as the previous question's, two different programs are proposed:"
What exactly did you think you WERE talking about, then?
The PSYCHOLOGY experiment was made to test people's uses of LOGIC. Ergo, a psychology experiment that uses logic questions. Um, it happens all the time, because people understand things a lot better than you. Otherwise psychology experiments would be limited to asking people "so, what's your psychology?"
Needless to say, this has nothing to do with any of your previous objections. Can I assume that you've given all those up? Can I assume that you're eventually going to answer some question or point I've made?
That's ludicrous. I don't believe it even of you.
By A do you mean "200 people will be saved, and 400 will die"? Perhaps I'm nitpicking, but suppose I save 600 people with program X. It's still the case that program X saved 200 people (it's just that it saved some more that aren't mentioned). Do you see my point? The same thing holds for C. Presumably it's meant to say "If C is adopted 400 people will die, and 200 will be saved"
Given that natural interpretation, I'd choose A (equivalently C) because A and B have the same expected lives saved, but B has higher volatility. A has 0 volatility. A Gentleman does not play dice with the universe.
Ummm, also, I do feel compelled to point out that Programs A, B, C, and D do not refer to the statements made in the bullet points under scenarios 1 and 2. They are the actual (if theoretical) programs/solutions to the problem (Asian flu)--the goop in the vials--NOT the data provided about the effects of said goop. All the necessary information was provided in the logic problem.
Do carry on. And have nice weekends. ;)
Check out the "Hey Doc..." clip.
http://www.vh1.com/search/search.jhtml?s
In der Dummheit ist eine Zuversicht.
http://www.parkridgecenter.org/Page473.h
A full stop (period) isn't always a real end. As often, something related follows. Ellipses indicate a different type of omission than does etcetera (the latter is "more of the same"; the former just indicates something was taken away). A semicolon is more often used in place of a conjunction than as an interruption; it's a link between two close elements. Dashes don't always indicate answers--sometimes they're interruptions.
Log in to add a comment.