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

51–60 of 66 posts

Re: The Cold Logic of Drunk People (2014)

#51

Post by agarden »

MatekCopatek wrote: post #39
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…

If you really know, then yes. On those on flight 93 seemed to know. But the other two planes didn't and they didn't do anything. Totally reasonable.

Where I in the hypothetical train scenario, I would not pull the lever. Because in truth, I don't know that the five people will be killed. One of them may look up in time, shout, and all of them scatter. But the one loner? He may be too absorbed in his task.

The details in these kinds of things really matter. They make or break the morality of the scenario. And the details in the train & lever scenario are implausible. The supposed level of certainty is too high.

Re: The Cold Logic of Drunk People (2014)

#52

Post by angersock »

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.

Some people actually just like the taste of various things.

Some other people enjoy the socialization places like bars and whatnot have.

Re: The Cold Logic of Drunk People (2014)

#53

Post by antimagic »

jmnicolas wrote: post #43
Const-me wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need to be obsessed about legality of your actions. Not wanting to go to jail is good motivation, at least for sober people. French penal code 221-1 says “wilful causing of the death of another person is murder. It is punished with thirty years' criminal imprisonment.” 30 years for touching that railway switch is a lot…

There's the theory (you googling the French penal code and its scary max sentences) and practice (me a French guy with 37 years of seeing (as an outsider) what really happens in French courts). In France you don't go in prison, or not that long, when you were faced with an impossible choice. If the trolley problem happened for real here, whatever your choice, I'm willing to bet you wouldn't go in prison. It's not a 1…

You'd almost certainly lose that wager though. There are a lot of French lawyers out there! OK, I'm being a bit tongue in cheek, you're talking (I think!) about people actually needing a lawyer, but you know what, those lawyers must be doing something, so I'm thinking that people interact with them a lot. Certainly I know that I personally have three separate friends (ie they don't know each other) that are lawyers, and I definately didn't seek lawyers out amongst my friends!

Re: The Cold Logic of Drunk People (2014)

#54

Post by Retra »

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…

There is a clear inefficiency in diverting the funds. It takes effort and money to change an already-active process.

Re: The Cold Logic of Drunk People (2014)

#55

Post by Retra »

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.

It sounds like you've learned about drinking habits from TV and not from real life.

Re: The Cold Logic of Drunk People (2014)

#56

Post by Laaw »

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…

Yeah, your view here is pretty obtuse. The whole point is to explore the differences in decisions between people, and by saying "no one could convince me of a different decision" is to completely ignore the reason the hypothetical is asked.

Re: The Cold Logic of Drunk People (2014)

#57

Post by Laaw »

Theodores wrote: post #5

If you were to ask 102 sober people if they would drive whilst under the influence of alcohol, then you would get 102 definite 'no' answers. Okay, some HN person might have some convoluted 'no' and some bored person might throw in some other silly answer, but, generally, you would get 102 'no' answers to this simple question. Obviously none of this group of 102 would ever drink and then drive whilst under the influen…

You'd be alarmed and surprised to find that not nearly as many as 102 people would say no.

Re: The Cold Logic of Drunk People (2014)

#58

Post by scrumper »

ant6n wrote: post #34
hugh4 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 l…

It's not supposed to be about railway switches or some concrete scenario, it's a model of a problem designed to gain some understanding about how people make moral decisions. By saying all that, you're refusing to engage with it at all.

Re: The Cold Logic of Drunk People (2014)

#60

Post by chc »

sokoloff wrote: post #37
barrkel wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think that's because one was a statement of present reality (the program is currently doing this), whereas the other was a hypothetical (if could do this if we funded it).
Post reply on HN