Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Cold Logic of Drunk People (2014)

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 66 posts

Re: The Cold Logic of Drunk People (2014)

#31

Post by ajuc »

mamon wrote: post #21
mgraczyk wrote: post #2

I doubt that people became more utilitarian as they became more drunk. A simpler explanation is the participants answered the questions using the same altered thinking drunk people use to choose their own behavior; They think far less than normal about the social consequences of their actions. You don't want to flip the trolley switch in part because you feel more likely to be blamed for the outcome, or to be held ac…

More easily explained as: "alcohol shuts down emotions, so the logic is all that remains"

Not my experience.

Re: The Cold Logic of Drunk People (2014)

#33

Post by barrkel »

sokoloff wrote: post #28
nickodell wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can slightly change the context of the problem, and it entirely changes the character of responses: Imagine you're an accountant working for the government. You choose how medical research funds are spent. One day, you notice that there are two equally expensive programs: Program A, which will save one life next year, and Program B, which could save five lives next year. Program A is being funded, but Program B i…

> two equally expensive programs: Program A, which will save one life next year, and Program B, which could save five lives next year. For me, it depends on the chances of "could save five lives" and the cost of the program. If the chance of "could save 5" is under 20%, no, you don't divert the funds. If the total expense of the program is over some threshold per life saved, and there is another opportunity, C, elsew…

I would expect that probability has already been factored into the numbers at this level of decision.

If you're e.g. making a change to road signage, you wouldn't start out with the total number of KSIs, you'd be looking at the potential reduction in KSIs. Similarly, if you're looking at a medical intervention, you'd be measuring a probability-adjusted delta in QALYs (in the UK).

Re: The Cold Logic of Drunk People (2014)

#34

Post by ant6n »

hugh4 wrote: post #9
gajomi wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is, of course, exactly correct and gets at the essence of what always bothered me about the trolley problem. The problem is usually presented with the idea that it offers some insight into how typical human behavior is seemingly at odds with utilitarian concept of the "value" of an individual or groups of human lives. The fact that the switch puller might be subject to some kind of judgement for their actions is…

Not just the social judgment, but also the judgment of your own conscience. Whether it's rational or not, I'm going to spend less time awake at night for the rest of my life worrying about the multiple people I allowed to get run over by a train than I'm gonna spend worrying about the one person I actively caused to get run over by a train. Come to think of it, I suppose that heavily discounting the possibility of fu…

This problem is kinda contrived anyway.

Why would I be sitting in front of that switch? Do I actually know for sure that flipping that switch will have the described outcome? If I'm some sort of passerby who happens to be there, then I certainly wouldn't know that for sure, and I would just be futzing around with railway operations I'm not trained to engage in. I could make matters worse! So it's probably better to leave the switch alone rather than potentially causing even more harm. Try to yell at the people on the tracks to get out of the way, and call it a day.

If you do know operations, and you are at the right place operating machinery you're trained to do; then part of your training may have involved how to deal with this hypothetical situation. So it's probably best to keep on your railway operations hat and defer to your training, rather than putting on your philosopher's hat and think deeply about the implications of your actions.

Re: The Cold Logic of Drunk People (2014)

#35

Post by Lewton »

mamon wrote: post #25
mgraczyk wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think alcohol shuts down emotions. Anecdotally speaking, alcohol seems to enhance feelings of anger and happiness in certain individuals.

Isn't shutting down emotions the main reason why people drink alcohol in the first place? You get dumped by a girl - you drink. You get fired from the job - you go to a bar for a few shots. Your favorite basketball team loses the match - you get a beer or two. That's why the main part of rehab for alcoholics is learning how to deal with emotions without drinking.

You get married - You celebrate with a party and alcohol

You get promoted - You celebrate by going to a bar to have a few shots

Your favorite basketball team wins a match - you celebrate by getting hammered

Re: The Cold Logic of Drunk People (2014)

#36

Post by lm______ »

nickodell wrote: post #19
mgraczyk wrote: post #2

I doubt that people became more utilitarian as they became more drunk. A simpler explanation is the participants answered the questions using the same altered thinking drunk people use to choose their own behavior; They think far less than normal about the social consequences of their actions. You don't want to flip the trolley switch in part because you feel more likely to be blamed for the outcome, or to be held ac…

You can slightly change the context of the problem, and it entirely changes the character of responses: Imagine you're an accountant working for the government. You choose how medical research funds are spent. One day, you notice that there are two equally expensive programs: Program A, which will save one life next year, and Program B, which could save five lives next year. Program A is being funded, but Program B i…

This scenario is slightly different though. It doesn't explicitly preclude the possibility that if funds are diverted to program B, that the one person being saved by program A might also be saved under program B, plus an additional four others.

Re: The Cold Logic of Drunk People (2014)

#37

Post by sokoloff »

barrkel wrote: post #33
sokoloff wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> two equally expensive programs: Program A, which will save one life next year, and Program B, which could save five lives next year. For me, it depends on the chances of "could save five lives" and the cost of the program. If the chance of "could save 5" is under 20%, no, you don't divert the funds. If the total expense of the program is over some threshold per life saved, and there is another opportunity, C, elsew…

I would expect that probability has already been factored into the numbers at this level of decision. If you're e.g. making a change to road signage, you wouldn't start out with the total number of KSIs, you'd be looking at the potential reduction in KSIs. Similarly, if you're looking at a medical intervention, you'd be measuring a probability-adjusted delta in QALYs (in the UK).

Yes, I agree that's how it should be done.

The question specifically used certain language for one branch and uncertain language for the other, so I replied to the question as asked rather than strawmanning an answer to a question that wasn't asked.

Re: The Cold Logic of Drunk People (2014)

#38

Post by gchadwick »

pnt12 wrote: post #17

The train question has always annoyed me. It's a fantasy world where you kill and save people by pulling a lever. And after the you answer, people add more rules, like "you may have to face jail time if you deliberately kill anyone". What about negligence? Call me obtuse, but no one could convince me yet that not pulling the lever is the right option. Does it detach you from the problem? No, you still took an option…

Darkside by Tom Stoppard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darkside_%28radio_play%29) is a short radio play that explores this.

It's set to Dark Side of the Moon by Pink Floyd. It's all a bit silly but I quite enjoyed it. It's available on Spotify.

Re: The Cold Logic of Drunk People (2014)

#39

Post by MatekCopatek »

pnt12 wrote: post #17

The train question has always annoyed me. It's a fantasy world where you kill and save people by pulling a lever. And after the you answer, people add more rules, like "you may have to face jail time if you deliberately kill anyone". What about negligence? Call me obtuse, but no one could convince me yet that not pulling the lever is the right option. Does it detach you from the problem? No, you still took an option…

It's not a fantasy - you kinda had a similar situation on 9/11 with United 93. In that case, the passengers brought it down before a decision could be made, but in case they didn't, the moral question would be nearly identical.

There's a plane full of people that got hijacked and will definitely be used to cause even more casualties. You know that the people on the plane are going to die anyway. Would you really shut it down just like that?

Post reply on HN