The Cold Logic of Drunk People (2014) • Hacker News Board

Re: The Cold Logic of Drunk People (2014)

#61

Post by r00fus » Mon, Oct 26, 2015, 6:00 PM UTC

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…

What's the cost of switching? What are the respective probabilities of success? What about the possibility that a switch might lead to both projects failing?

Distilling real-life into utilitarianism scenarios is fraught with reductionism - there are many factors that drive people's decisions and those all add up.

Re: The Cold Logic of Drunk People (2014)

#62

Post by ant6n » Mon, Oct 26, 2015, 6:26 PM UTC

scrumper wrote: post #58

ant6n wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The scenario is given to give our brains some concrete situation to think about, because asking 'would kill one to save five' is not something we can apparently relate to. The problem is that the decision making model in my brain, moral or not, is not trained for dealing with life or death situations. So I cannot relate at all, and in the end this test doesn't measure anything useful.

Re: The Cold Logic of Drunk People (2014)

#63

Post by eli_gottlieb » Mon, Oct 26, 2015, 7:46 PM UTC

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 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 accountable for making the wrong decision. After drinking a bit of alcohol, it is easier to forget about how others will perceive your actions and instead think about the physical consequences of the actions themselves.

That is exactly consequentialist thinking, though. Choosing your actions based on social signalling in life-or-death situations is a really bad idea.

Re: The Cold Logic of Drunk People (2014)

#64

Post by eli_gottlieb » Mon, Oct 26, 2015, 7:50 PM UTC

Lawtonfogle wrote: post #47

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…

You'll see this behavior in government with far less drastic results. A lot of bureaucratic cruff that builds up is recognized by workers as being such. The government workers do realize just how silly and time consuming the policies are. And many have ideas on how to improve them and speed things up. But no one wants to do anything because any wrong that happens will then be blamed on them. So if there are 10 issues…

>To see an even strong example of this behavior, consider some action that is even more offensive to the common sensibilities that killing someone, such as certain forms of child abuse. Now imagine a situation where by doing that to one child, you can stop it being done to N others. (Worry not about the details of how such a situations could occur, I'm sure some creative individual could find a back story.)

Use this thing: http://www.scp-wiki.net/scp-231

Re: The Cold Logic of Drunk People (2014)

#65

Post by sokoloff » Mon, Oct 26, 2015, 11:04 PM UTC

chc wrote: post #60

sokoloff wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ).

Thanks. I now see that as a possible reading. I read it only as a statement of uncertainty.

s/could/would/ would have eliminated the ambiguous reading.

Re: The Cold Logic of Drunk People (2014)

#66

Post by nickodell » Tue, Oct 27, 2015, 11:50 PM UTC

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…

Ack, sorry. The two programs are equally likely to save lives, but one is currently funded, and the other isn't. That's the reason for the would/could distinction.