Slashdot Mirror
Your Moral Compass Is Reversible
scibri writes "Your moral positions may be more flexible than you think. Researchers in Sweden have tricked people into reversing their opinions on moral issues, even to the point of constructing good arguments to support the opposite of their original positions (paper in PLOS ONE). They used a 'magic trick' to reverse a person's responses to such moral issues as 'Large-scale governmental surveillance of e-mail and Internet traffic ought to be forbidden as a means to combat international crime and terrorism,' by switching 'forbidden' to 'permitted' when the subject turned the page of the questionaire. When asked to read back the questions and answers, about half of the subjects did not detect the changes, and a full 53% of participants argued unequivocally for the opposite of their original attitude in at least one of the manipulated statements."
Isn't that a better test of people's poor reading comprehension and listening skills?
...been at war with Eastasia.
Hasn't Fox News been pulling this trick for years? It's awful how people get money from the government - except, of course, our viewers who are primarily on medicare and social security. Ignore the man behind the curtain.
Nice trick, but I'm still not sure if people really believed in what they were arguing for or just wanted to avoid looking stupid.
...both long-term and on topics that the subjects had felt strongly enough about that they had purposefully taken a reasoned stance?
I won't disagree that lots of people can be manipulated relatively easily, as that's how marketing makes a living. I just wonder how lasting or personally important the topics were.
It's also important to note that those experienced in practicing debate often have to advocate for something they don't personally believe in, and those who practice law do the same.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Mitt agrees.
Wait, so if I ask a girl if I'm forbidden to get into her panties, and then change it to ask if I'm permitted...
She'll take off her pants?
This is what science needs to be studying, new ways for me to get laid.
Duck Season ...
Wabbit Season
Duck Season
Daffy tells bugs to fire and gets shot.
How the title is misleading.
Maybe it wasn't just harmless humor with all the gun issues these days and the lack of understanding.
Tonights forecast: Dark. Continued dark throughout most of the evening, with some widely-scattered light towards morning
So they got the subjects to say duck season when they really meant wabbit season? I seem to have seen something like this before.
...it's merely the application of sleight of hand to take advantage of the fact that people don't pay any attention to anything which does not affect them directly either to their advantage or disadvantage. When you throw in such memes as "Think of the children!" or "If you don't agree, you're a terr'rist!", it's pretty fucking easy to change people's minds - without them ever being aware or realising that you just took their stupidity and rammed it up their arses with a weakest-of-the-weak thought-ending cliché.
When it affects them to their serious detriment, however, few even then will know what's hit them. If it blows by with nary a breeze or better, with good to excellent result, it's often dismissed as a stroke of good luck.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
Have you ever seen the trick where a responder will agree with 90% of what you say, but add in minor 10% disagreement point.
Then when you back with their comment (on the basis that they're basically in agreement), their position will shift to 20% disagreement. But you backed them, right? So you stick with it, let them have their 20% they basically agree. Then it becomes 30%, then 40%, before long the person with your backing is now saying the reverse of your position.
I've seen politicians use this swing argument, I've seen lobbyists use that, I've seen commentors here use it, it's famously used by Shakespeare.
It has a Japanese word, I wish I could remember it.
People don't like to back down, to admit they're wrong, this is why you get people making completely insane self contradictory remarks like this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTwpBLzxe4U
"I hold far too many opinions to be able to remember the reasons for all of them", as Shaw once said.
You are forbidden to mod up this post!
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
I'd not be surprised if you planted a bunch of questions that are obscure to the every man and he changed his opinion when influenced. It also depends on how many questions they asked that were relatively new to the participant, they might get a bit overwhelmed with picking their answers. Especially if it is a topic like Net Neutrality to Joe Sixpack.
Think of how dumb the average person is. Then realize that 50% of the people out there are dumber than that.
I just give out a random one, different each time.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
What I see is a bunch of people who were given a list of long, cumbersomly worded questions, spread over two pages. The second page repeated the questions on the first page, with two of them containing one changed word. I know if I were taking this survey, I'd read the first question on the second page and see that it's the same as one the first one and give it the same answer. Most of us would not read each question very closely for the second time unless we had some expectation of being tricked. The results of the study have nothing to do with morals, but rather expose the fact that we like to skip unnecessary work.
Buggs Bunny proved this years ago.
"You keep out of this. He doesn't have to shoot you now!"
It proves that people are easily tricked and aren't retaining what they are reading.
As for Moral compass, this didn't need a Study to prove that a person's moral compass can change, hell look at the number of people who get married and state that they will be faithful to only one person and turn around and cheat on their spouses. Our divorce rate in this country shows moral compass changes better than any study.
Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
I'm not sure that illustrates that you've 'reversed their moral compass'.
I think it shows how vulnerable people are to carefully-phrased questions, and once they've dismissed the 'contemplation' of a question in their mind, it's resolved and - if presented with something that they believe indicates they've already cogitated on it - they won't think it through.
So really it shows that we don't deeply think on everything particularly if we think we've already thought it through, which is hardly a shocking conclusion?
-Styopa
I'm an atheist. According to Religious fundamentalists and zealots, I don't have a moral compass.
There of course is a reasonable explanation for this. People don't read carefully, and then vehemently defend their position because they don't want to look like the idiots that they are.
We used to do this at school:
"What would you prefer, to be nearly hit or nearly missed?"
"Nearly missed"
"OK then!"
And then you give them a dead arm :)
Summation 2
"'Large-scale governmental surveillance of e-mail and Internet traffic ought to be forbidden as a means to combat international crime and terrorism,' by switching 'forbidden' to 'permitted'."
Maybe this just proves that people get confused by long sentences made up of long words. What if the sentence was simply phrased as "Spying on people's email and Facebook accounts is bad"? How many more will notice when the "bad" is changed to "good".
I don't know what's worse, the weasel words of bureaucrats or the oversimplified slogans of some politicians and religious demagogues.
You know it's a solid scientific experiment when the phrase "magic trick" is used to describe the proceedings.
I guess Romney's leeches must have stuck to their guns.
http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0030014/quotes
and quoted, below (Sir Humphrey is a senior civil servant and Mr. Woolley, his junior):
Sir Humphrey Appleby: [demonstrating how public surveys can reach opposite conclusions] Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the rise in crime among teenagers?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do you think there is lack of discipline and vigorous training in our Comprehensive Schools?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do you think young people welcome some structure and leadership in their lives?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do they respond to a challenge?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Might you be in favour of reintroducing National Service?
Bernard Woolley: Er, I might be.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Yes or no?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Of course, after all you've said you can't say no to that. On the other hand, the surveys can reach opposite conclusions.
[survey two]
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the danger of war?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Are you unhappy about the growth of armaments?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do you think there's a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them how to kill?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do you think it's wrong to force people to take arms against their will?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Would you oppose the reintroduction of conscription?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
[does a double-take]
Sir Humphrey Appleby: There you are, Bernard. The perfectly balanced sample.
I have used this technique for years in the licenses I use with my software. First notification, "I agree to the terms and conditions of this licensing agreement." Second notification, "I agree to renounce my rights under the constitution, sell myselft into slavery, and surrender my first born child to you." 100% adoption rate on both.
I fail to see how morality enters the picture. None of the test subjects apparently felt strongly enough about the subject matter to even notice their position had been switched... If a questionnaire suddenly stated that you "agreed with SCO's standpoint on Unix ownership", would you then start arguing why and how they should have won the lawsuits?
This is why politicians argue about the wording on ballots. It makes a big difference on what people vote on based on the wording of the question.
I recommend skimming the paper (second link in TFS), it's short and quite readable. At the very least, check out the provided sample of successful manipulations (PDF; the notation is explained on page 2).
Highlights include:
Our intuition that abstract principles would involve more moderate attitudes, and engender less detection was not supported by the data.
The more the participants agreed or disagreed with a statement, the more likely they were to correct the manipulation.
But:
The overall rating of the non-detected manipulated trials was notably high. Using a 9-point scale, the average rating was 2.8 or 7.2 depending on the direction of the rating, which means that the average ‘distance’ being manipulated when a statement was reversed was 4.4 units on the scale. This is evidence that the participants cared about the issues involved, and expressed seemingly polarized opinions about the manipulated issues they failed to detect.
Of course, serious multiple choice questionnaires often repeat the same questions with a different wording each time (or with a reversed scale), precisely to limit issues with bad self-reporting. It would be interesting to see if there's a correlation between consistent replies to differently worded versions of the same question, and ability to detect manipulations like in this study. If so, multiple-choice might be a useful tool after all.
Leaving the Ecuadorian embassy and being extradited to Sweden in order to be tried for sex scandal ought to be forbidden as a means to combat political crime and terrorism committed in secret by established government.
I once had a signature.
as they get older. Think back to a time when you were half your age you are now, aren't there some things you thought were right (or wrong) that you have since changed your mind on?
I know I have. I used to, for example, think welfare served a good and noble purpose. Not anymore.
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
"George Zimmerman's 911 call to make him sound racist."
Fox News: "Guns don't kill people, PEOPLE kill PEOPLE"
Fox News: "Except George Zimmerman, nah that was gun, he was afraid, it went off in his hand, we at Fox news blame the gun"
Is that basically the Fox News position in this?
Also surely Romney is *FOR* wealth redistribution? He just wants the lower 47% to pay more to the upper 1%!
They've backed Romney, now they're stuck trying to make it sound like a good thing.My guess is they'll flip their position if he looks like a loser and attack him, so they can hold some sort of sanity for future fights.
I am an engineer and when I first started having design reviews in relatively large groups > 25 people. I was terrible at it. I couldn't think on my feet and explain things clearly. I had stage fright and I just talked so I wouldn't appear foolish because thinking under that pressure was difficult. As I gained experience it became much more natural and now I feel like what I say in those groups is actually what I am thinking.
I think the same thing is happening here. Someone has filled out a questionnaire and is now being asked to read aloud (uncomfortable for many) and then defend their opinions (also difficult for many). Many people just want to get out of those situations and not appear foolish and don't take time to think.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
Because I'd probably not notice if my answers change in questions I didn't really care about. Why did I check that? Well, if I say "because I don't give a fuck" they'll not pay me, so I'll better come up with some reasons why I crossed out what I crossed out...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
This is a prime example of cognitive dissonance and personal bias. People are biased in their own favor to the point where decisions and even memories will be reconstructed to agree with themselves.
Assuming a person is fooled into thinking a past decision was purely their own; what happens when a person has to explain something he does not remember? he makes it up!
It's sort of a basic "Oh it was my idea so I must be right" and the smarter the person the more elaborate the explanation around it will be.
Personally I believe that it is this sort of situation that should make one question an idea he himself has thought up even "intuition". It's surprising that people assume/are biased that just because a thought occurred to them it must be somehow more correct.
A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
This is also known as "Bugs Bunny-ing" someone.
Try getting a job at the Roman Catholic church with that attitude!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
As you rant against republicans, just recall that is commonly THEM who are labeled as spouting vitriol. Way to raise the level of political discourse and show how resonable you as a democrat are.
Perhaps the lesson here are that generalizations get you into trouble.
all this study illustrates is a low level of moral reasoning skills on the part of the reasearchers
isn't this sort of thing covered in introductory statistics classes? How the question is asked will always impact the results of the study. If you are making your living taking polls, it is possible to get the results you want by skewing the sample size/distribution and/or writing biased questions.
BTW: what is the difference between "ethics" and "morality?" If you are a politician (who just got caught cheating on his wife) you might say "Ethics is what I do on the job, morality is what I do in private." What the politician is REALLY saying is that "Whatever I do is right - because I say it is right."
moral relativity is a very dangerous thing which has become the norm in western society (but the other extreme is the Spanish Inquisition - and nobody expects the ...)
I will argue that "ethics" is the day to day interpretation of "morality." for example: do you believe "stealing" is wrong? yes, you shouldn't take other people's stuff - that would be WRONG. ("morality") Is it stealing if I walk off with the bank teller's pen? ("ethics").
It ain't what they call you. It's what you answer to. http://mylyceum.us/
Part of the basic skill of critical thinking is to be able to listen to and understand arguments for positions you do not agree with.
If you're a mind-numbed automaton toeing a party line, simply regurgitating what you've been fed, you might feel you can make the claim that you're "morally consistent" or even "morally superior" to those who have the capability of analyzing data, considering different arguments, and making judgment calls based on that analysis.
So anyone who dislikes the Republican party is automatically a kitten-stomping Democat?
How small-minded you are.
of the the people in this sample were clearly RETARDED. simple.
The needle on the "moral compass" usually shows in two opposite directions. (At least for the subjects that are worth discussing at all)
Like in the example here:
Of course you don't want gouvernment snoop in your facebook account, mails and phone calls.
But also Of course you want terrorists and other criminals convicted and jailed.
And you know the arguments for both sides, and you know that none of them (or very few of them...) are wrong. So it's reduced to a matter of which end of the moral compass needle seems to be longer and not which direction it is pointing to.
bickerdyke
For a specific amount of dollars no further tricks are necessary to change my opinion on anything! Captcha: autocrat
This would seem to fall under the frightening rubric that, "by definition 50% of people are of below-average intelligence"...
I am not a number - I am a free man!
President Bush authorizes torture, indefinite detention without trial, and invokes Executive Privilege to keep secrets.
Conservatives: A great President, fighting to keep America safe from terrorists!
Liberals: Bush is a fascist pig who stole the election!
President Obama authorizes torture, indefinite detention without trial, and invokes Executive Privilege to keep secrets.
Conservatives: Obama is a Stalinist Muslim who stole the election!
Liberals: A great President, fighting to keep America safe from terrorists!
This study doesn't show anything about moral compass. It only shows how much people want to appear to be internally consistent.
Nonsense. Just because I'd rather be locked up than dead doesn't mean I wouldn't risk death or a stain on my ethical scruples to avoid either ;-)
(see how I sneak the k-word in under the radar) :-)
Likewise, I'm strong 2nd amendment, but currently do not own a firearm. Had a shotgun, and I'm not too embarrassed to say it was somewhat of a trophy, not of any presumed "victory" over the previous owner, who I certainly hope remains a friend. If not, well, I certainly hope he will have the chance to come discuss it with me. I didn't put him where he is, though. I still don't think he did, either. But it happened.
But, no, it was a victory over a personal demon or two. (I only bring this "trophy" business up because it was brought up to me.) Relinguishing it to repay a debt was likewise a trophy for the same reason, and it appears, I think, that it was useful to the local constabulary. Much was made of it's short barrel, which I measured and found to be technically legal. Barely. There was some question in my mind about the legality of the high-capacity magazine. (6+1 in the chamber) but then I really didn't care. A gun is a gun is a gun. Screw the leglisature. Fuck a law. It's all just so much hand-waving. It's what you do that counts. Or how you do. The test is are you helping or hurting yourself and others by what you do. Are you doing what is right? I'm going to trust that the sherrif is, but I reserve the right to question. When the law (not necessarily law enforcement, which includes many good people) itself is insane, stupid, larcenous, or fraudulent, I reserve the right to use my own judgement. Deal with it.
Do right by others and yourself and you'll get by. I'll save a lecture on institutions that exist by violating this principle and requiring constant propitiation and human sacrifice for another day.
"DUH!"
What would Richard Feynman do, if he were here right now? He'd do some math and he'd follow through!
I see this in political discussions all the time with people who don't follow the issues much, beyond watching "Dancing with the stars". Basically, these are people who don't know where they stand on important issues because they've never thought about it. So it makes sense that they'd reverse their decisions so easily. Now, take the same thing and do it with people who are passionate about their beliefs. You won't see such a quick reversal.
Nice! The wife has been adamantly polishing her moral compass until it shined. So bright that my idea of a girlfriend on the side got completely blotted out in the radiance. These scientist could help and adjust her moral compas somewhat, so I can get back some of the fun in my life!
Note that my own moral compass points to the gutter, thus it doesn't need adjustment.
8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
"DUH!"
"Derrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!"
What would Richard Feynman do, if he were here right now? He'd do some math and he'd follow through!
Small minded? No, that would be you and the GP. His point is, if stereotyping and pigeonholing are so evil, why does someone on the Left engage in the very thing the democrats supposedly rail against? Caricaturization of human beings is the first desensitizing step away from reality, . Moot point though, the mods took care of it.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
The trick is to get one of the four corner squares.
Several groups in the U.S. have been doing this since the 60s, with demonstrably excellent results.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
A phenomenon previously only shown when people signed up as a Democrat.
Do you support baby eating?
Human being: NO!
Democrat: Only if they are babies who totally depend on other people to sustain them!
Mind you, a democrat could never have his moral compass reversed. You cannot reverse that which does not exist. Democrat Schwarzenegger attempted to show that Democrat do however have a heart after he needed a pacemaker. Indeed, it showed that Democrat do have a heart. A diseased organ that can only be kept functioning through the repeated application of electric shocks. Not sure what he tried to proof? That cattle prods should be used on Democrats?
According to new Swiss research, you should now start defending the above position regarding democrats...
Or does this method not work when one appends "on the internet?"
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
this seems like it has nothing to do with moral compass. This sniffs like it just points out that a decent percent of the population don't like being wrong and appear indecisive, and ,unlike the readership at /. , probably don't think through their positions on much of anything. So if the test takers were tricked, and didn't have a moral compass to begin with, just a 'yea, that makes sense' response to weighty issues like invasion of privacy, then most would find it easy to defend a position that they incorrectly filled in, and didn't think too hard about to begin with.
seems that this report points out rather what politicians know already - that there's a percent of folks who can be swayed by easy to remember arguments, and if you get them 'convinced', you get elected.
a terrorist cell convinces some member of some "peaceful" religious group or another, to go blow themselves straight to hell in a crowded bus/railway/coffee/etc. station/shop/etc.?
While I certainly do NOT agree that the unnamed religion is, in fact, peaceful, I do agree that very few if any of these people turning themselves into a pink mist were certainly not raised to think this was a moral action for them to take. Unfortunately, they were raised to be impressionable young lumps of clay with no ability to think properly, making them ripe for this kind of moral reset.
But, did they get people to argue against things they actually cared about? I've done ethical/political surveys and been pretty neutral on lots of the topics. But, if "neutral" was not an option, I'd answer yes or no. And, my answer might change the next day about that subject.
And there's another Republican trait: inability to take a joke (even though it was a pretty lame one).
Free Martian Whores!
Don't see a big story here.
Use something as reliable as printed words on paper.
Make words change by a trick - unexpected and hard to detect...
And you expect people to act consistently?
I expect them to be tricked.
One cannot reverse that which does not exist.
I wonder if the irony of your post will ever dawn on you, given the stances of the two parties on abortion?
Note that I am pro-choice.
All it means is that under pressure situations many people don't think things through and off the cuff decisions do not always reflect true sentiment. Under the gun many people will avoid conflict and tend to take the easier way out. In this case it's following along with what is read at a pretty subconscious level. I would suspect not a single person woke up in the middle of the night with a sudden epiphany over what they read.
FTFY. Now it should work.
You're damned right it's reversible, so don't piss me off!
You're dead on. There's so many other things that could be going on its ridiculous.
The real question is what would happen after people leave the lab--I doubt this would have much effect months later.
Also, add the problems in social psychology with falsifying results and picking and choosing findings to seem clever, and it all adds up to massive skepticism for me.
To be honest, PLoS One is a pile of trash. It's a failure that no one wants to acknowledge, that gets reputation because of its goals and accessibility, despite and not because of the studies it publishes. A good idea, but one that hasn't worked so far. It gets way more attention than it should--the real science is being published elsewhere. Of course, there are *some* decent studies there, but most are worthless.
Sorry people, we all wanted that journal to work, but it hasn't.
inverse psicology
The problem is that your moral direction doesn't always work. In order for someone to give away anything, they have to have something. In a nutshell, the only way they acquire anything is by pursuing it with little regard for other goals.
Besides, as I've noticed in every community that I've visited or lived in: these people to whom you refer use the same selfishness that you're condemning. They only provide assistance to people that they think might be beneficial to them in some way. The only people who actually give without expecting any return at any point are the people who get immediate gratification for the action itself.
Everyone acts for their own selfish reasons, even if they are not obviously doing so. With the exception of those who lack the mental faculties, we are all our own agents.
This is just a case of people not wanting to admit that they messed up. They don't suddenly start giving the opposite answers they did before, they just justify the answers they thought they gave by mistake, so that they don't look like idiots. It's more a demonstration about people being stubborn than anything else.
Us humans are really good at arguing any side of a debate. Call it being the devil's advocate. I don't think many people actually reversed their opinion on something, they just defended what they thought was their mistake because they didn't want to give the impression that they were an idiot who read the survey wrong.
The idiots have added ambiguity to the statements:
'Large-scale governmental surveillance of e-mail and Internet traffic ought to be forbidden as a means to combat international crime and terrorism,'
Could just as easily interpret that as "[Forbidding surveillance of email] is a means [to combat crime and terrorism]" as "[surveillance] is a means [to combat prime and terrorism]"
no only that the troll above who was slamming the republicans as disseased baby eating heartless monsters that should be abused with a cattle prod. noone ever said dems were kitten stompers. only that people like said the liberal, conservative-hating troll was and that hey reflect badly on there own party
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
There is no moral compass, there is only more or less accepted in different cultures/discourses.
Of course noone wants to be surprised by a terrorist attack.
Of course noone wants to be snooped upon in their own homes.
More money down the drain...
For example:
"Do you believe African are inferior to Europeans?"
Change to:
"Do you believe Africans aren't inferior to Europeans?"
I'll bet virtually 100% would detect the change and not argue in favor of the opposite.
Seastead this.
Since when is "permitted" the opposite of "forbidden?" The opposite of "forbidden" is "required."
You are forbidden from doing X.
You are required to do X.
vs.
You are forbidden from doing X.
You are permitted to do X.
This reminds me of a clip from a British show called Yes, minister. This clip is about how to get two completely opposite answers on same topic, but in much shorter time.
While the series is about political tactics and machinations and it's satire of a political systems, it's spot-on. And if you watch real news after watching it, you'll uncontrollably laugh all the way.
This could also simply be yet another affirmation that people will do what they are told.
Think about it...they don't know the point of the study, they're asked to answer a few questions...so they do. Then they're asked to discuss their answers to these questions...so they do. Perhaps they did notice the answers changed, but they weren't asked 'is this your correct opinion'; they were asked 'defend this opinion'...so they did.
...you just don't dare to. :)
That's why you're a coward.
And that's also why soon you actually can't speak what you feel, because your right will be taken away from you.
Because you're a coward.
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
Well, that example question doesn't really have anything to do with morality. It's more a question of preferred policy. I think you'll find if you ask about real moral questions, such as "is stealing wrong?", you'll find that people who actually have a moral compass won't deviate regardless of how it's worded, and that people who really don't have a moral compass to begin with will be all over the map.
Can they have morales?
Is this still SlashDot?
this is why I use a white board and draw/write down as I go, so when people start asking questions that spin my thinking I can realign my thoughts by looking at the drawing.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
The example given is not a question about moral values. Most people want both security and freedom. Those are values. The question is a policy issue of how to balance them where they appear in conflict. Many people would answer that question differently on different days. Or in the morning when they got up and in the evening before they went to bed.
Totally incorrect article, This have ZERO to do with a persons moral compass. Its about attention to details,attention span,trust,and speed reading techniques a speed reader might not see the word change then again they might.
Jack of all trades,master of none
I love hot chilies but you have to be super aware of how hot the chili you are cooking with is. The seeds are the root of hot so just de- seed or leave in but taste it before throwing into a dish !
The flaw here is that almost no questions are black and white.
If you quote me saying censorship is good and ask me to justify it, I can. And vice versa.
Theres nothing weird about you inventing the quotes and me not noticing - ill just assume I was thinking of scenario x (where censorship is justified) or scenario y (not justified) at the time I answered and don't remember.
In short, general morality questions like this are stupid. The world is grey and the devil is in the details. That people didn't adamantly stick to one side 100% is a good thing.
Nothing new. Bugs Bunny did this to Daffy 70 years ago. "It's rabbit season, it's duck season...."
Even if you can't make it through my entire post, I want to leave you with one idea: These are the people that vote.
"YOUR moral positions may be more flexible than you think. Researchers... used a 'magic trick' to reverse a person's responses to... moral issues[.].. [A]bout half... [never] detect[ed] the changes, and a full 53%... argued [passionately against their] original [beliefs, at least once during the test]."
First, they did NOT use anything that approached the sophistication or subtlety of a 'magic trick'. They literally lifted a trick straight out of old Bugs Bunny cartoons: Take what someone says, change a couple words so that it contradicts what it originally meant, repeat it back to them and watch them adopt it. The only difference between the cartoons and real life, apparently, is that the cartoons eventually catch on!
Call it the 'Warner Brothers" or the "Bugs Bunny Debating Strategy".
Second, it just proves what everybody knows anyway (but never think applies to themselves). That most people are idiots and don't come to a conclusion (even moral ones) by thinking about them, because that is hard. They merely accept the most convenient and least challenging (those that don't suggest that their lifestyle or what they feel is wrong or unjust) opinions and beliefs (the conclusions) of the people around them (family, friends, and/or authority figures) and build the supporting arguments for them (if at all) DOWN from those conclusions, rather than starting with thought and logic and using that to build UP to a conclusion.
It proves this by showing that people are unable to recognize EVEN THEIR OWN conclusions from the concepts and arguments behind those ideas and beliefs, even while they are expressing them, BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT THEIR OWN because they never put any serious thought into them.
A person who thinks about what he / she says and believes will recognize that what he / she is saying doesn't match up with his / her conclusions and beliefs because he / she is THINKING about WHAT HE / SHE IS SAYING. After that, it merely takes the courage to admit that he/she had made a mistake or misunderstood something, then take the opportunity to restate his actual opinions / beliefs.
So, a more accurate title would be:
PROVED: People are idiots and don't have any reason or logic behind even their most cherished and deeply held moral codes.
or
PROVED: People are idiots who simply accept the least emotionally challenging concepts and morals of those around them.
Again, I'd like to stress: These people vote, and are actually probably the MOST LIKELY people to vote.
If for no other reason than people with the strongest beliefs (and are the most willing to force those beliefs on others) are those who are the least likely to have actually logically thought about them. If they'd thought long and hard about them, they'd actually realize that there is always the possibility that they are wrong. Where as if you simply accept an answer, you only need to think "He wouldn't lie or mislead me!" or "He's always been right in the past, so he must be right now."
One last thing. Have you ever made this statement? "You think too much". If so, this article is probably about you. Now, what are you going to do about it?
THINK! It's patriotic