how-to-confuse-a-moral-compass

[szuetam]

http://www.nature.com/news/how-to-confuse-a-moral-compass-1.11447

Shocking?
How vulnerable we are.

[max in montreal]

I love that kind of stuff, extremely interesting...take a look at this:

http://vimeo.com/1677179

[bb113]

In total, 160 volunteers (100 female) participated in the study. Ages ranged from 17 to 69 years (M = 29.5, SD 10.. We recruited the participants when they were walking through a park and asked them if they wanted to fill in a short survey about moral questions. All participants gave written informed consent to participate in the study, and all but 18 participants also agreed to have the interaction audio recorded.

It is easy to summarize the present study; participants express their moral opinions, then moments later many of them are blind to the mismatched outcome and endorse the opposite view.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0045457

It is easy to summarize the present study; participants express their moral opinions, then moments later many of them are asked more questions when they have shit to do and endorse whatever they think will get them on their way with the minimum of social discomfort.

I propose the results of this study are classic type III error (Your study did not control for a very important confounding variable or alternative explanation). The test has detected that people don't give a shit when filing out surveys in the park, not that they have confused moral compasses.

[FirstAscent]

I propose the results of this study are classic type III error (Your study did not control for a very important confounding variable or alternative explanation). The test has detected that people don't give a shit when filing out surveys in the park, not that they have confused moral compasses.

I kind of disagree. Nobody's going to argue for something when they have shit to do. Instead, they'll say: "I'm sorry, I don't know why I answered like that. I've got to be going. Sorry."

[bb113]

I propose the results of this study are classic type III error (Your study did not control for a very important confounding variable or alternative explanation). The test has detected that people don't give a shit when filing out surveys in the park, not that they have confused moral compasses.

I kind of disagree. Nobody's going to argue for something when they have shit to do. Instead, they'll say: "I'm sorry, I don't know why I answered like that. I've got to be going. Sorry."

That would be better. "50% of respondents don't know why they have opinions on moral issues." The way it worked is that they asked you once you filled out their clipboard (foot in the door technique):

The questionnaire was attached to a clipboard, with the questions distributed over two pages. After completing the survey, we asked the participants to read aloud and discuss three of their ratings from the first page (randomly taken from a limited subset of the principles or statements), and also if it would be possible to audio-record this discussion.

[Garr255]

I love that kind of stuff, extremely interesting...take a look at this:

http://vimeo.com/1677179

This is amazingly eye-opening. It's difficult to grasp that people are so manipulable, but this is backed by history... the most pertinent IMO being nazi Germany.