Your Moral Compass Is Reversible

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Your Moral Compass Is Reversible

Posted by Soulskill on Friday September 21, 2012 @12:45AM from the i-must-have-had-a-good-reason dept.

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."

24 of 295 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

reading comprehension? by The+Barking+Dog · 2012-09-21 00:47 · Score: 5, Insightful

Isn't that a better test of people's poor reading comprehension and listening skills?
1. Re:reading comprehension? by cod3r_ · 2012-09-21 00:53 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  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.
2. Re:reading comprehension? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-21 00:53 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
3. Re:reading comprehension? by JaredOfEuropa · 2012-09-21 00:59 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
4. Re:reading comprehension? by grcumb · 2012-09-21 01:03 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  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.)
  
  --
  Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
5. Re:reading comprehension? by anomaly256 · 2012-09-21 01:05 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  All that shows is that the majority of people would rather lie than appear to be lying
6. Re:reading comprehension? by superwiz · 2012-09-21 01:15 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  You are confusing poor attention span with stupidity. Poor attention span can also lead to more creative thinking and thus more innovative ideas.
  
  --
  Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
7. Re:reading comprehension? by kilfarsnar · 2012-09-21 01:23 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  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! ;-)
  
  --
  "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
8. Re:reading comprehension? by craigminah · 2012-09-21 01:36 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  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]
9. Re:reading comprehension? by SuiteSisterMary · 2012-09-21 01:41 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  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.
  
  --
  Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
10. Re:reading comprehension? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-21 02:02 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  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.
11. Re:reading comprehension? by PopeRatzo · 2012-09-21 02:22 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  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.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
12. Re:reading comprehension? by Evtim · 2012-09-21 02:56 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  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?
13. Re:reading comprehension? by Golddess · 2012-09-21 03:18 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  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?"
  
  --
  "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
14. Re:reading comprehension? by ChrisMP1 · 2012-09-21 03:29 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  <sig> </sig>
15. Re:reading comprehension? by Immerman · 2012-09-21 05:14 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
16. Re:reading comprehension? by PopeRatzo · 2012-09-21 07:10 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  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.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
Did they even care in the first place? by Crasoose · 2012-09-21 01:02 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
Old trick by Rik+Sweeney · 2012-09-21 01:15 · Score: 4, Funny

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
"Yes, Prime Minister" did it better by dltaylor · 2012-09-21 01:25 · Score: 4, Interesting

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 by trout007 · 2012-09-21 01:37 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
An excellent case by GeekWithAKnife · 2012-09-21 01:41 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
Pretty obvious, really. by MrLizard · 2012-09-21 02:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

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:Magic by MrLizard · 2012-09-21 02:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.