We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Thursday, January 24. 2008
From Overcoming Bias:
Make your decision first, then read about it.
Posted by Bird Dog in The Culture, "Culture," Pop Culture and Recreation at 09:11 | Comments (25) | Trackbacks (0)
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Ok, the risk thing. First forget the raw numbers, they mean nothing. Here's the 411.
You save some very smart people and some so-so smart people. The you save those who would ride on the bedwall of a pickup truck, roofer etc to do the labor. A few gardeners.
But most importantly you save the babes. The 34DD, natural or peroxide blondes, the fiery redheads, and the sultry brunettes, a la Ava Garner or Jane Russell .
The person who wrote the original article was obviously a geek. Crunch the numbers..ha
You must have missed this:
WOULD YOU SAVE ANY BLACK PEOPLE, HABU?
I thought I did ..the roofers. Then only mulattoes.
( You're so absolutely determined to let me continue to pull your chain it's becoming less sport and more akin to work..please stop..ROTFLMAO)
was it in "The Brothers Karamazov" where a character asks "Would you kill a baby to save a village?"
There is a script for psychologists/scientists of human nature to use that involves something like that. One script offers the option of throwing a fat man off a bridge to stop a train that will kill five people. Another script offers the choice of flipping a switch that will kill the switch operator but save five people. It turns out, people, with no hesitation, will flip the switch; but almost none are willing to throw the fat man off the bridge. It's the non-human touch vs. the human touch (fat man). And, yes, the study distinctly uses 'fat' man. The study, if I recall, was to determine something about intrinsic moral traits.
Would you have an Albert Einstein or a Jonas Salk flip the switch to save the five people?
(don't misread this, I'm in no way comparing myself to those giants, I'm simply trying to understand the lengths to which your Meta-Physical psychological assessment maintained clinically uncontaminated data)
Also are any real babes being saved and would someone be around with a defibrillator?
Meta...OK , here's my list of switch flippers who I'd have die, especially if they save babes, moxie babes, dames,broads.
1. O.J. Simpson
2. Charles Manson
* the Writers strike prevents more than two from being mentioned at this time.
If one train leaves NYC with five hot babes on it and another leaves Chicago with five stud Chippendale heterosexual horny guys and the trains are on the same track headed for each other and you have to throw a switch to derail one of the trains, which one do you derail?
Ditch the Chippendales. yuk. Who wants studly dudes in Speedos admiring themselves in mirrors when they should be fetching bon bons and keeping their mouths shut. ew.
I'd save the babes, pimp them out and get even richer than I am right now thanks to this great market.
Well, shit. I used 'should'.
Make that: ' ....with their studded collars on fetching bon bons and vacuuming.'
I ain't hurd about those Brothers but here we'll kill 50 million babies to save for a new car and TV.
OK BD, suitcase #2!
Do I have to read the Whole thing now?
I'll get back to it, after a while.
"I thought I did ..the roofers. Then only mulattoes."
You thought you did? Whyn'cha raise your eyes up an inch to check out what you said.
So the deal is the blacks don't get saved. You'd wipe out the whole race.
Nice. What a guy. I'm glad I'm making you happy. It's my mission to put you on display because you are so very smart.
Meta - Have you ever tried to throw a fat man? - it's not easy.
I think one heaves a fat man. Throwing might work but heaving, now there's something to talk about at dinner.
No. But I threw one for a loop once. In this case, it must be a fat man, you see, because a skinny man would just get squashed by the train. It takes a fat man to stop a train.
I would throw some fried chicken off the bridge and he would leap for it and save five people. I would save some of the fried chicken for my lunch.
The article says this"Ah, but here's the interesting thing. If you present the options this way:
100 people die, with certainty.
90% chance no one dies; 10% chance 500 people die.
Then a majority choose option 2. Even though it's the same gamble.
Am I wrong or is it NOT the same gamble. I think this, because the 1st choice, 100 people die with certainty is not the save as saving 400 with certainty, unless you state in yor scenario that we are starting with 500 people. Without a statement of how many people you are losing you can ont equivocate the two presentations. I think this makes the rest of the analysis much less useful.
I think the true purpose of the senario is to make us think about ourselves as part of the human group and our own prejudices and visceral reactions; not to start name calling.
Please folks....let's be grown-ups.
#1, if it was obvious to all that I would be responsible for the operation.
#2, if Habu was my lieutenant.
If I threw up my fried chicken, would i still be a fat man?
In my experience, Kid Bosco, that is hardly an either/or question.