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."

Comments

reading comprehension?

[The Barking Dog]

Isn't that a better test of people's poor reading comprehension and listening skills?

Re:reading comprehension?

[cod3r_]

That's what I got from this too. People are just more or less dummies and pay very little attention to what they are talking about.

Re:reading comprehension?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't that a better test of people's poor reading comprehension and listening skills?

No. It shows that most people are not thinking critically, which we already knew, but is a lot more dangerous.

Re:reading comprehension?

[JaredOfEuropa]

On the contrary, the results show that many people actually read the altered questions to their answers correctly, and then still stand by their given answer, even though the meaning of the answer was effectively changed 180 degrees by changing the question.

"Is censorship bad?". You answer "Yes"
They then change the question to read "Is censorship good?" and ask you to read back the altered question and your answer.

The interesting part is not that half the test subjects fail to notice the changes. The interesting part is that, when asked to provide argument, about half the test subjects will argue *against* the position they held when they answered the unaltered question. In my example, thest subject would provide argument in favour of censorship, even though he was against it earlier.

Re:reading comprehension?

[grcumb]

Isn't that a better test of people's poor reading comprehension and listening skills?

Yes!

I mean, No.

Well, whatever it is we're talking about, it's WRONG.

(Or RIGHT.)

Re:reading comprehension?

[anomaly256]

All that shows is that the majority of people would rather lie than appear to be lying

Re:reading comprehension?

[GameboyRMH]

It's worse than that. If I understand TFA correctly it's saying that these people gave their opinions on a topic by filling out a survey form with an agree/disagree scale, but then that form had it's questions flipped (with their same answers filled in) and the people supported what was written on the form later when interviewed about their answers.

So for example, you'd have a question that says "Eating babies should be forbidden" with a scale of 1-5, 1 being "strongly disagree" and 5 being "strongly agree." You fill in 5. Then your form gets changed behind your back and you are asked to explain your answers in an interview. The people in this survey saw that they apparently answered "Strongly Agree" to "Eating babies should be permitted" and began to defend baby-eating O_O

Re:reading comprehension?

[superwiz]

You are confusing poor attention span with stupidity. Poor attention span can also lead to more creative thinking and thus more innovative ideas.

Re:reading comprehension?

[cayenne8]

Hey, whatever it takes to get by in life, survive and succeed, you know?

I think most peoples' moral compass....points in the direction that will be most beneficial to them at the given moment they are called upon to utilize it.

Re:reading comprehension?

[kilfarsnar]

You are confusing poor attention span with stupidity. Poor attention span can also lead to more creative thinking and thus more innovative ideas.

That's what I tell my boss, anyway! ;-)

Re:reading comprehension?

[jellomizer]

I think it is more of a case most people really don't have a strong moral compass or have really though about the issues at hand.

We Grow up with our parents saying that the Republicans are Evil and the Democrats are Good or the other way around, this helps fix your views of the world. Now if these moral issues don't come up in your life, you can go on the belief that it is correct without really thinking about it. For me what helped me moderate myself from growing up with very conservative parents was the fact I was in the schools debate team, and we were encouraging to play devils advocate on almost all the issues at hand, even to the point of supporting the Extremism Lefts and Rights.

The problem is most of our moral issues are on a high level view, and once details come and disrupt it, it burrs the issues.
And what seems black and white on paper is actually a complex problem.

Re:reading comprehension?

[AwesomeMcgee]

Then this just shows people trust their previous judgement blindly, when told they answered a certain way they assumed that answer reflects their position on the topic and that since it's their position it's right, rather than being self-critical and asking themselves again if that answer is the correct position.

Just shows people's personal choice for faith over critical thinking, which we already knew.

Re:reading comprehension?

[craigminah]

Didn't Looney Tunes teach this exact thing 60 years ago:

Daffy Duck to Elmer Fudd: "It's rabbit season!"
Buggs Bunny to Elmer Fudd: "It's duck season!"
Daffy Duck to Elmer Fudd: "It's rabbit season!"
Buggs Bunny to Elmer Fudd: "It's rabbit season!"
Daffy Duck to Elmer Fudd: "It's duck season, now blast the duck!"
Elmer Fudd: [boom, duck bill on top of Daffy Duck's head]

Re:reading comprehension?

[SuiteSisterMary]

Eating babies should be forbidden

Strongly disagree: If the babies don't eat, they die off, and we run out of people in a generation. I, for one, am all for eating babies.

Starving babies, on the other hand, I would like to forbid.

Re:reading comprehension?

[Bardez]

You have to wonder how strongly people felt about the question. Try it with taxes or abortion or something that a lot of people actually give a damn about. Unfortunately, despite all I've ever said to people, censorship never enters the give-a-damn category for the general populace.

Re:reading comprehension?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, whatever it takes to get by in life, survive and succeed, you know?

I think most peoples' moral compass....points in the direction that will be most beneficial to them at the given moment they are called upon to utilize it.

Yes. Those would be idiots who lack integrity and character. You can usually find them chasing a carrot on a string.

Pretty soon, we'll be able to buy morons like this on the open market in packages of a dozen...oh wait, I forgot, it's an election year. We already do.

Re:reading comprehension?

[Anonymous Coward]

On the contrary, the results show that many people actually read the altered questions to their answers correctly, and then still stand by their given answer, even though the meaning of the answer was effectively changed 180 degrees by changing the question. The interesting part is that, when asked to provide argument, about half the test subjects will argue *against* the position they held when they answered the unaltered question.

They summary states that this happened in 'at least one case'.

But this doesn't support the narrative very strongly at all. There could be some issues people don't care about either way very strongly, and seeking to justify the answer they thought they gave to those, would be different from justifying the answer to something they really cared about.

Re:reading comprehension?

[PopeRatzo]

I think most peoples' moral compass....points in the direction that will be most beneficial to them at the given moment they are called upon to utilize it.

You know, the longer I live, the more I find the opposite.

I'm a pretty small sample, of course, and maybe I'm just lucky in how I've run into so many people who are not only decent, but willing to sacrifice for someone else.

There is still something in us, independent of any religious belief or lack thereof, that makes us hurt when we see someone else hurt, and makes us want to give someone our coat, or a portion of our food. And this despite by the best efforts of our corporatized culture to desensitize us to the suffering of others and our place in our communities. See, selfishness is good for business in a consumer economy. Sharing is bad for business. If my neighbor asks me to borrow $50 until payday, it's bad for the credit card business, because I'm not going to ask my neighbor for $50 plus 23%.

I guess this all means I'm hopeful.

Re:reading comprehension?

[somersault]

People will repeatedly invest in a losing proposition rather than 'cut' their losses. This also explains the Nigerian scam and casinos.

Don't forget relationships! :p

Re:reading comprehension?

[daem0n1x]

That's what I tell my boss, anyway! ;-)

Fuck, DON'T! We don't need any more bosses with poor attention span!

Re:reading comprehension?

[SuiteSisterMary]

Sentences like 'Last night, I helped my uncle, Jack, off a horse' are why one needs to be *very* careful with grammar and punctuation.

English: The perl of spoken languages.

Re:reading comprehension?

[Evtim]

This is no cynicism. There are two types of people in the world - realists and deluded. The deluded are the happy ones. Because they really hate the other type's attitude as they don't want to see their delusions gone, the have invented many terms to substitute "realism" and smear the issue. Some of those terms are "pessimist" and "cynic". There you go....

Don't believe me? There was a /. discussion over scientific investigation showing that "depressed" people have more accurate perception of reality. Moral: of you want to be happy, hold delusions.... that explains a lot about the human condition don't you think?

Re:reading comprehension?

[dcollins]

I think the far more likely interpretation is that over half didn't read the statement carefully the first time.

If they verbalized a coherent argument "pro" and page 1 and then a coherent argument "con" on page 2 then they'd have something; but as-is this just bolsters my experience in the classroom that most people can't read or write details at all.

Re:reading comprehension?

[LateArthurDent]

On the contrary, the results show that many people actually read the altered questions to their answers correctly, and then still stand by their given answer, even though the meaning of the answer was effectively changed 180 degrees by changing the question.

"Is censorship bad?". You answer "Yes"

They then change the question to read "Is censorship good?" and ask you to read back the altered question and your answer..

The problem with that test is that it doesn't take into account the moral beliefs someone might hold which is not in the statement. They're trying to get people to reverse their position on censorship, but if their position on what is justifiable to stop terrorism is set, then they can switch their position while maintaining logical consistency.

Anything is justifiable to stop terrorism, government censorship makes it difficult to stop terrorism, therefore government censorship must be stopped.

Anything is justifiable to stop terrorism, government surveillance is necessary to stop terrorism, therefore government censorship is justifiable.

If the reader came in to the test believing in the first premise, then you provide him with the second premise, he'll change his conclusion to remain logically consistent, and it makes perfect sense for him to do so.

Re:reading comprehension?

[DumbSwede]

I would hazard a guess that people that are do not easily change their positions in light of new evidence are more subject to this effect than others, a sort of elastic collision of opinion inertia, tricked into a since-that-is-what-I-believed-before-I-will-continue-to-believe-it.

Re:reading comprehension?

[Golddess]

Is it really poor attention span that would cause you you to overlook the double word in this sentence?

Because that's what this seems like to me. Only instead of two of the same word in a row, they simply replaced one word with another in a giant sea of words. Though one might be able to make the case that the people taking the questionaire should have picked up on "hey, why am I being asked each question twice?"

Re:reading comprehension?

[Qzukk]

Imagine having to re-analyze everything. I want to touch type, so I'm expected to review the keyboard layout before typing?

Except that according to this study, should the keyboard layout be changed, you'll insist that it really IS spelled qxmvbx.

Re:reading comprehension?

[ChrisMP1]

I did not claim that he was wrong - in fact, every word he said was correct - but you are dead wrong. You don't need to be deluded to be happy, and "pessimist" and "cynic" are not substitutes for "realist".

There are many very dark aspects to the human condition. Many people suffer every day, and many of them will spend the entire rest of their lives suffering. People who deserve power will never hold it, and many of the power-hungry have much more power than they deserve.

My sadness about these things will do nothing to improve them, so why should I be sad? I'm not deluded, but I'm usually a rather happy person. The human condition is complicated and twisted, and has many good sides as well as bad sides. You're daft if you think you're doing something for humanity or yourself by focusing on the bad sides. You really can just accept them without dwelling on them.

And stop this "realist" elitism. You talk like you're better than the hordes of "deluded" people. Like you've achieved enlightenment and are now miles ahead of the rest of humanity in terms of intelligence. I used to think like that and it was not good for anyone. Trust me, we all see the problems in the world just like you do.

Re:reading comprehension?

[jellomizer]

But what is more to the point, is how often our emotional reaction controls our reasoning then we like to admit.

For example in politics there is the use of Power Words, these words give us an emotional picture that in turns turns off our rational processing.

For example Back in 2003 when asked before going to war with Iraq a reporter asked If they are WMD their response was this is a "Slam Dunk". They didn't answer the question however we all stopped asking and most of us (YES MOST OF US) supported the war, assuming that Iraq had an obvious stock pile a WMD just ready to be launched.

Then you get other words that are twisted around too. That have a strong positive or negative context. Capitalism = Greed, Capitalism = Ingenuity

We are all effected by these emotional statements and we change our minds based on these.

For example if you hear someone complaining about something we actually think because this guy is being critical that he may actually have a good point.

Re:reading comprehension?

[Carewolf]

The interesting part is not that half the test subjects fail to notice the changes. The interesting part is that, when asked to provide argument, about half the test subjects will argue *against* the position they held when they answered the
unaltered question.

It is already know in cognitive science that it is common for people to form their arguments by rationalising their conclusions. This is just a new clever way of proving this effect by changing their conclusions while they were not looking.

Re:reading comprehension?

[Immerman]

Except that isn't what appears to have happened. FTFA they had people record answers to a few moral questions and then retroactively changed the wording of the question (using some paste and paper trickery) so that their recorded answers actually meant the opposite of what they originally did. When people were then asked to review their answers and discuss/defend their position 53% didn't detect the change and argued for the position opposite their original answer.

Now you could try to argue that all those people misread the question in the first place and consequently mis-answered it so that the trick reversal actually corrected the situation, but that would mean that over half the original answers were not representative of their actual position. The implication being that for such a question you would get a more accurate representation of their position by flipping a coin than by actually asking them, which would seem to be ridiculous and severely undermine the validity of every survey ever done on the planet.

Re:reading comprehension?

[tenco]

Trust me, we all see the problems in the world just like you do.

Then why isn't anyone doing anything about them?

Because they chose to ignore them and therefore don't suffer from them.

Re:reading comprehension?

[PopeRatzo]

The problem is that people recognize and laud individual kindness, but fail to recognize the systemic evil they participate in.

I take that into account.

When I lived for a while in Rolla, Missouri, working at the UofM, I noticed that you had a lot of people who were wearing all the trappings of altruism, Christianity, etc. There was much made of "charity", but they were still screaming at young women walking into Planned Parenthood, calling them "whore" and telling them that they were "damned to burn in Hell". This was before I was married, and they'd pointedly asking if I had a girlfriend, checking to see if I was gay because they didn't go for that sort of thing happening in their community. Really judgmental fuckers.

But still, in the most unlikely places, I'd find someone who was a regular working joe, putting up heating and air conditioning units, and spending almost all of his non-working hours doing stuff for the Make-a-Wish Foundation. Never talking about Jesus or Hell, I never knew if he was a believer or not. He played a mean mandolin and dobro and kept pretty quiet. But I found out that he was tireless, not so much in doing the big things that you hear about from Make-a-Wish, but little things for families with sick kids. He never had a bad word about anyone.

I know a lady across the alley from me. She's a surgeon at a big teaching hospital. A spinster, maybe a lesbian, who knows - don't care. We're a pretty prosperous neighborhood, and there are people who come around with old pickup trucks, sometimes wagons, because so much good stuff is just thrown away around here. I'd see this lady putting out some old furniture or something for the scavengers to pick up, but seem she'd fix it up before she threw it out. I'd known her for years -she's a close friend - and I never would have known that she does this regularly, except I can see into her back yard from my rooftop, and I've noticed her doing this for years. Charity without any desire for recognition. I know her well enough to know that she's not a believer in God. She's not doing it for goodies in the afterlife. I drove by the Cathedral Shelter over on Ogden Ave once, and I spotted her working in the food pantry there. And she's the one who once told me, when we were talking about taxes and charitable deductions, that "she doesn't have time" to keep track of those things, which I took to mean she doesn't look for a tax benefit from her charity.

See, I don't believe that these kind of people are by any means the majority, but the longer I live, the more of them I meet in unlikely places, unlikely situations.

Re:reading comprehension?

[jonadab]

> The implication being that for such a question you would get a more accurate
> representation of their position by flipping a coin than by actually asking them

Having seen the sample question in the article summary, that wouldn't greatly surprise me. It appears to have been designed specifically to confuse anyone who doesn't bother to think about such things analytically -- i.e., most of the population.

However, it's also true that a lot of people, when taking a test, just write down anything they think will be counted as a good answer, without regard for whether it is _true_ or not. This allows people to pass tests on subject matter they don't actually believe or understand at all, much less care about. It's ingrained behavior for most people starting in about third grade.

When asked to defend one of their earlier answers, most test subjects on the whole probably weren't thinking "Is this what I believe?" I mean, come on, my sixth-grade teacher taught me how to write lame supporting arguments that don't hold water under scrutiny for either side of any argument, so this part of the test is no problem. Unless it's an issue that the test-taker has particularly strong feelings about, noticing whether it's a position they agree with is not part of most people's test-taking thinking.

Also, just in general, most people don't think very hard about most things most of the time.

Fox News

[RazzleFrog]

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.

Re:Fox News

[__aaltlg1547]

Fox news has always supported President Obama.

Re:Fox News

[KalvinB]

Medicare and Social Security are not the government's money. It's our money we specifically paid in for those programs. They're mandated savings accounts.

Re:Fox News

[sustik]

No. You are confusing it with your 401k. Social security is a pay-as-you-go system with guaranteed benefits, an actuary's nightmare... The actuarily prudent system would tie benefits to a (moving average) of incoming contribution, forcing it to be close to be balanced.

As it stands now, the money paid into the system is not invested in a traditional sense. It is invested in infrastructure, in the education of the next generation etc. so when they grow up to work, they can make money and pay the benefits to the retired folks. Considering the state of education and else I would not be confident regarding a good return... The money is not spent on "investing in our future", but rather on wars without clear objectives, inefficient education and health system, bank (union) bailouts, wasteful government programs, farm and ethanol subsidizes, tax-cuts to big oil, other lobby groups, etc. (some of it depends on which aisle you are from). Good luck on collecting.

Re:Fox News

[Steve Hamlin]

Fluctuation in the exchange rate of the dollar against other currencies do not make you individually worth less or worth more.

Currencies have little to do with wealth - they are tools to make trade easier.

Importers love a strong dollar. Exporters love a weak dollar. China loves a strong dollar (for now), and in fact intervenes to keep to RNB weak against the USD - does the Chinese government do this because it wants to keep its citizens poor?. Switzerland wants a weaker SFR - are you saying that the Swiss government wants to make its citizens poorer?

It is true that relative currency values are affect by political decisions (trade and monetary policy), but those decisions are not made in way you think: China wants the RNB weak against the dollar because they think it will make Chinese citizens wealthier over time than if China pursued a strong-renmibi policy right now.

But in any event, "If the president wants the dollar to be weak, you'll be worth less, and if he wants the dollar to be strong, you'll be worth more. Regardless of what you do for a living." is flat out wrong.

Re:Fox News

[Artifakt]

What about: you're noticing it more because Fox does it more? There's been several studies, notably from Columbia School of Journalism, where Fox scored very poorly on an objective metric. For example, Fox was compared to various TV and print sources, from the Wall Street Journal to Al Jazeera, on a single standard - whether they got the titles and discriptors of their quoted source people and interview subjects right - that is, if they said somebody was a Psychiatrist, did that person actually have that degree, or was it maybe in Psychology or Sociology instead - If they said somebody was a retired Colonel in the US Air Force, was that person actually in long enough to retire, and did they make that rank, and so on. Did they call the Third Assistant Dean of Women's Studies at Stamford, the Dean of English at Stanford? Fox scored very low on that study (incidentally, NPR did better than PRI, but the top of the list was the BBC, which beat both the WSJ and the Christian Science Monitor). The range was very broad, with the top institutions getting these details right about 98-99% of the time, and yet Fox was one of only two news sources which had a week where they were actually wrong more often than right on that particular metric. The other one was the aforementioned Al Jazeera.

You can probably find most of the studies that involve Fox by using the search function built into this page: http://www.cjr.org/ (Columbia Journalism Review), although some papers may not be indexed, and I won't be at all surprised if many of the primary sources are paywalled. If they are, I hope some person with access from within the University system can help with more info. The general feud that has developed between Fox anf the CSJ is well known, and I'm not claiming either side is completely free of biases, but some things stand out - I remember the attribution accredations study because it confined itself to a particular metric that was as well defined as most metrics in the hard sciences.

Elegant

[Hentes]

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.

Cartoons?

[bdcrazy]

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.

Did they even care in the first place?

[Crasoose]

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.

It's duck season... No, It's rabbit season

[apcullen]

Buggs Bunny proved this years ago.

"You keep out of this. He doesn't have to shoot you now!"

Old trick

[Rik Sweeney]

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 :)

"Yes, Prime Minister" did it better

[dltaylor]

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.

Appearing Foolish / Stage Fright / Oral Interview

[trout007]

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.

An excellent case

[GeekWithAKnife]

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.

moral reasoning

[mbaGeek]

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").

Re:moral reasoning

[BeanThere]

There is no real meaningful difference between morality and ethics (it's a pointless "debate"), though the usual difference given is along the lines of that 'morality' says it would be wrong to defend a known murderer but 'ethics' dictates a laywer must argue for his client even if he believes the client to be guilty. However, when you really think about why we have due process and fair trials, the distinction disappears. Think about it - it's both 'unethical' and 'immoral' to take other people's stuff, and to steal a bank teller's bank.

It's called "critical thinking skills"

[EmagGeek]

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.

53%

[Krau Ming]

of the the people in this sample were clearly RETARDED. simple.

Moral Compass

[bickerdyke]

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.

Pretty obvious, really.

[MrLizard]

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!

Re:Pretty obvious, really.

[Tastecicles]

This. Oh, God, this.

Re:Magic

[MrLizard]

Magicians, being experts on how humans can be fooled, deceived, and manipulated, are the best people to call in as experts when doing studies on how people respond to manipulation. This is why "psychics" can easily fool many scientists, but not magicians. The utility of science in this is not determining THAT humans can be fooled, or even what tricks work best, but, rather, the underlying mechanisms that cause humans to behave as they do.

Given how much of human society is built around manipulation and deception, at all levels of interaction from the personal to the political, dismissing those who are experts in it is foolish.

Only works on simpletons

[SimplyGeek]

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.

Re:A phenomenon previously only shown

[mcgrew]

And there's another Republican trait: inability to take a joke (even though it was a pretty lame one).

Re:Goes to show...

[SEE]

So, is the above a ridiculous, inadvertent display of your ignorance of the characteristics of standard normal distributions, or a ridiculous, inadvertent display of your ignorance of the fact that intelligence in the general population is such a distribution?

Because, you see, in the case of a standard normal distribution, there's no actual point in making a distinction in which average you're using. The mean, median, and mode are all the same value. The only people who would think saying "mean or median?" in such a case had any point are fools under the delusion that the comment makes them look smart.

Re:A phenomenon previously only shown

[tmosley]

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.

the eternal morality debate

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Misleading study

[Baldrson]

What they should have done is actually measure the zeitgeist by using the same technique and same data, but carefully construct the questionnaire to cover a wide range of "moral" issues to see which of them most construct the zeitgeist.

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.

We've seen how it's done in Yes, minister.

[snaFu07]

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.