|
|
Post by eddiegonz on Apr 26, 2016 10:50:09 GMT
Well maybe the title was misleading but for the most part scientists and psychologists have devised a way where they can predict our behavior given alternative scenarios. And thats crazy! They know what choices youll make from what kind of cereal youll eat to what kind of clothes youll choose. Okay maybe not that extreme but some of our behavior can be predictable and even graphed out given specific scenarios. This is demonstrated through the prospect theory, which basically states that people will make decisions based on potential value of losses and gains rather than the final outcome
For example: In a population of 600 people, you are given 2 scenarios. Zombies are loose and killing everyone!
Scenario A. You have devised a plan that will for sure save 200 people
Scenario B. You have devised a plan that has a probability of 1/3 of succeeding and saving the 600 people. But has a 2/3 probability that no people will be saved. Easy choice? Let me present the scenario differently
Scenario C. You have devised a plan where 400 people will die
Scenario D. You have devised a plan that has a probability of 1/3 of succeeding and saving all 600 people but has 2/3 probability that 600 people may die.
Think to yourself what you wouldve picked but the results say that 72% of people chose Scenario A. where 28% chose Scenario B. Weirdly, 78% of people chose Scenario D, where only 28% chose Scenario C. But scenario A and C were essentially the same, just asked differently. Same thing with B and D. But why is this?
According to the Framing of Decisions and Psychology of Choice article, it discusses that people tend to look for the solution that results in the least loss. In this case, they dont want people to die. And so when Scenario C said that 400 people would die, many would say thats unacceptable and take their chances to save everyone. In scenario A, we say we are saving 200 people vs the other scenario that has a good chance that everyone dies, so we rather have a 200 people safe forsure. Its the changing of the words "save" and "die" that may guide us to answer differently.
And this is where a person's framework of choice comes in. People perceive situations differently and so respond to different scenarios in different manners. And while the model may be bale to predict what kind of behavior or choice one makes, it cant account for personal subjective reasons for choosing something and may not always accurately represent the prediction of choice of an entire community.
How do you respond to this? Heres a poll to see if you have predictable behavior or whether youre that weird outlier
|
|
|
|
Post by stacyli on Apr 26, 2016 17:38:17 GMT
This makes me think of the "Trolley Problem," which is a utilitarian thought problem introduced sometime in the 1900's I believe. It basically says that you're at a lever that controls the tracks of this trolley. On one hand if you do nothing, the trolley will continue along its usual path and kill five people that are tied to it. However, if you choose to get involved and pull the lever, you change the course of the tracks to the other side, which has one person tied to it. There are a few dilemmas that someone has to think through in this case. You have to decide first of all if you choose to do anything or not. Will this eat at your guilt if you choose to not do anything? Are the deaths of five people your responsibility? Just because you have the potential to save those five people, does it make it your responsibility? You also have to decide whether the weight of five people or the weight of one person is going to more to handle.
On one hand, someone might argue to do nothing and say that the five people were not their responsibility in the first place. Although they could have done something, it should not be their responsibility if they are not the ones directly killing anybody. One the other hand, someone else might feel that it is their responsibility to act if they are the only ones who can. Although the guilt of "killing" one person may live on in their head, the satisfaction of knowing you saved five lives might be enough to outweigh it. The question of whether or not you know the people is also a big dilemma that people face. What if the one person on the trolley was a loved one? What if that one person was a communist dictator? What if the five people on the tracks were the greatest artists of all time versus the five members of one direction??
I guess to make a decision, it all comes down to knowing your own personal moral standpoint. You have to decide for yourself whether you feel like it is your responsibility and whether or not one or five people dies. Though all hypothetical, it's an interesting idea to see where your moral thoughts lie.
|
|
|
|
Post by dchang on Apr 27, 2016 2:51:04 GMT
I think that the way the question is worded definitely allows people to view the problem under a different light. For me, I also originally wanted to choose scenario A, but after reading scenarios C&D, it did make me doubt my decision because 400 people dying did sound a lot more sever than 200 people living. I just find it interesting how human thoughts can be so easily manipulated; just a slight change of wording can completely flip our decisions around. No matter how "free" we think our decisions are, it is so easy to predict and manipulate the so-called "free" choice you thought you made.
|
|
bdang
New Member
Posts: 17 
|
Post by bdang on Apr 27, 2016 3:35:11 GMT
People tend to be more adverse to losses than they are favorable of potential gain. Take any of the many game shows for example. When people's earnings go up, the more at risk they are to losing a larger amount of money as they continue the game. I think the reason many people often pick certainty in such games is because they know they have already attained the prize, whereas, if they continue, the potential earning is not guaranteed. That prospect combined with the possibility of walking out with less than they have already earned leads people to making conservative decisions. Also, they end up leaving the game richer than when they started so to the mind, it's a win-win: more money, and avoidance of risk/loss.
This could be why more people chose Scenario D with the different wording. People don't like to be faced with the prospect of losing. When people are more blatantly exposed to the prospect of losing, it forces them to act in a different way.
|
|
dalia
New Member
Posts: 28 
|
Post by dalia on Apr 27, 2016 6:37:21 GMT
I agree with bdang that people prefer avoiding losses over possible future gain. I think this ties back into economics in a sense because people and companies always want to minimize their expenditure when purchasing things/cost when selling. Notably, the dual side of this equation is maximizing utility or the satisfaction from consuming some goods. Usually, we think of the two problems as two sides of the same coin, however, given the real-life applications and risks we just discussed, maybe they're not. For those of you studying econ, so you think people would always choose to minimize expenditure over maximizing utility subject to a certain budget? Are they the same thing from a psychology or non-economic perspective? Also, I definitely think that the way things are worded can influence how people react; this is why euphemisms are particularly strong. I.e, saying fluffy vs obese, or went to heaven/passed away vs died. This just serves to attest to the power of language and how connotation vs denotation play a part. I think it would be interesting to see if the results would change if we use the same situation but with words that are particularly connotative. P.S: stacyli "the greatest artists of all time versus the five members of one direction" lol, I'm guessing you're not a fan of one direction ;p |
|
|
|
Post by EmmaVSaravia on Apr 27, 2016 7:26:48 GMT
In the US, the government subscribes to the idea of maximises the number of lives saved, i am not sure how far that idea goes, but I believe through my sister's time in the Navy, she took classes in Naval Ethics witch taught the most sure is chosen. The Navy doesn't gamble, but in mainstream movies, like "A Team" or "Avengers" it depicts the glory of hero's taking chances and the main characters of these movies are typically male.
but to refer back to a different thread that referred to to hunter and gathering times and how evolution selected the contrasting behaviors in regard to gender. this thread was wrong and missed a large and glaring point, it said that males took larger risks while out hunting while females stayed at home[?] (they had camps but no houses) and thous this lead to what not. IN REALITY the people inside of the clan could not survive off of the hunters soly, they simple not successful often enough to support and keep the group from starving to death. So in reality it would have been more likely for /social/evolution to select and promote the gathering that women typically did. The other thread ignored the fact that there was a larger risk on the fact that picking a berry a few shades darker then the ones your suppose to be picking could kill you and your family (this is also the reason they believe women have a better ability at detecting the different shades and tones of color).
also what about the risk taking of men today, there is always talk of one foolish boy doing donuts in the parking lots or jumping off of things they shouldn't. This is blamed on the testosterone that teenage boys suffer from, they do this to prove that they are the best mate in a sense that is another form of dick measuring. If they do something too risky and ends up dead, they won't be able to pass on there genetic code for higher amounts of testosterone, so evolution does control for too much risk.
|
|
|
|
Post by eddiegonz on Apr 27, 2016 23:13:47 GMT
stacyli That is an interesting point you make. For me, I feel that although its not my responsibility to save those 5 people, Id feel guilty for not doing anything bc i knew that i could've done something to change the scene. For me, I think of it in an inverse manner. Like if i was one of the 5 people that was tied to the rail. I would definitely want someone to save me if they could and in a sense I would feel responsible for the death of 5 people if I didn't do anything. But then again, thats just my moral reasoning. People think and act differently. There are those people that would literally not give a shit about others, even if the people were their loved ones and there are those who think about others and try to help out whenever possible. It just shows the great contrast between our framework of making choices. We think and act differently bc we aren't not only influenced by different factors but we have different ways of thinking and viewing the scenario that enables to act in a certain manner. To what extent have we accepted responsibility for someone else's life and is there a scenario where we would potentially sacrifice ourselves for the well being of others. It really varies.
|
|
|
|
Post by eddiegonz on Apr 27, 2016 23:29:20 GMT
bdang dalia And this is exactly what i was trying to accomplish in including the poll. If you haven't already seen, more people picked the option of getting the $501 instead of possibly getting $10000. Why is this? Bc people much rather pick something where something is for sure instead of taking their chances in getting a bigger prize. It just all goes back to the idea that people may act on behalf of possible gains or losses. When analyzing the situation, people want to maximize their gains and minimizing their losses. And heres where game shows and gambling come in. As for me, if i were ever gambling or on a game show, as soon as a make an amount of more than what i started with, I would stop there. Of course this statement may vary depending on how high my probability of succeeding would be if i were to continue, but for the most part, i would stop when i have a good amount of gains. And the poll emphasizes the idea that people will often choose something that doesn't include any "losses" in the scenario. Much like bdang pointed out, people dont like being faced with losses and so will be more prone to choosing options that dont include the words "lose or die." And expanding on the word choice of a scenario, we are constantly influenced by people, even if we dont realize it. When speaking to a friend or watching a tv commercial, we dont realize it but the way they present a message may influence our way of acting in the future. Whether thats speaking in euphemisms or having a certain choice of vocabulary, they may have a strong effect on our emotions and can even change our subjective framework of choice and change in morals. Crazy how a burger commercial could potentially make us more prone to choosing to murder someone. Okay maybe thats a little extreme but nevertheless the idea stands. Messages and they way they are presented to us can influence how we view them and choose to act
|
|
|
|
Post by eddiegonz on Apr 27, 2016 23:43:29 GMT
@emmavsaravia You do bring up an interesting idea of gender and whether this has any correlation to how people make choices and its really hard to say. I always thought about it in a more subjective or general manner but it'd be interesting to see exactly how gender and culture has effect on choices. And to a great extent, it does influence our choices and morals. Different cultures teach us different things and as a result we have different morals. So maybe our choice may come from our socioeconomic standing, personal experience, culture, gender and identity. From deciding on whether or not to skip class today to choosing what type of food you want to eat today, we often undergo a whole process where we analyze the situation
Ex: Me: *txts friend "Hey we should probably head out to class soon or we'll be late"
friend: "nah im not going today. Don't really feel like it today lol"
Me: "You know what, i don't think ima go either. Its only one day right? haha"
You may not see it but in making the choice to not go, a whole process took place. My friend definitely influenced whether or not i wanted to go after all. Since he wasn't going, why should i go. If i went, i would be alone bc i don't know anyone else in the class. Also not to mention that the class posts notes online after lecture so i could always just look at those and i should be good. And its only one day so it really shouldn't affect me too much. And this would be a result of my framework of thinking and analyzing the situation.
|
|
|
|
Post by cliffordzhang on Apr 28, 2016 3:48:59 GMT
Shoot I'm late to the party but this was a scenario that always has me thinking and I'm wondering what your opinions are.
Imagine that you are in a self-driving car that you have no control over. There is an unavoidable disaster that involves your car smashing into a crowd of people. If that happens, 10 people will die, but there is one way to avoid that situation. The car will do a manuever that will kill the occupants (you) inside the car, but will save the lives of everyone in the crowd. What do you think the car should do?
|
|
|
|
Post by eddiegonz on Apr 28, 2016 17:42:29 GMT
cliffordzhang Alot of people would ask whether you would give up your own life for the sake of other people. After all, you'd either die or live with the guilt of killing 10 people knowing you could've done something about it. As for me, I definitely kill myself to avoid killing others. Again, I wouldn't be able to live on with the guilt that i killed 10 people, when I could've prevented the situation. Now alot may say that it wasn't my fault bc the car was self maneuvering and therefore technically not my fault if it crashed but my framework of thinking and acting involves me taking full responsibility of things even when they aren't really my fault. And of course I care about the safety of other people. However, I will say that the situation can vary if there are certain people that I would kill in the event. Dont label me a murderer yet, but I would definitely change my answer if per say Donald Trump was one of the people that I would kill in the event. It really comes down to morals and different ideas. Would you really give your life up for people you dont even know? What if they're bad people? How would family react if anything happened to you? Is choosing to live the selfish choice? Are you a bad person for acting the way you did? These are among the many questions I would ask myself before responding in that scenario.
|
|
|
|
Post by krish97 on Apr 28, 2016 20:08:54 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by eddiegonz on Apr 28, 2016 21:41:39 GMT
Here's what I find interesting: the dissociation of responsibility among people. People could easy say it wasn't their fault bc the trolly was not under their direct control. Whether or not they decide to do something to get involved in the trolly's path is more of a "do you want to be a good person and help other people out or do you just not care." As I've previously mentioned, I would go out of my way to save the people bc thats my framework of thinking. if i am able to help and minimize the loss, I will act to do that. Last thing I would want tis recalling the event and thinking "I could've saved those people" and not to mention all the mental scaring if i saw their horrified facial expressions or shrieks of pain. Its the difference between how a mother would react to the situation vs how a solider would react. Does desensitization play a role in how people respond to the scenario? Maybe this is al just part of their personal experience and their way of responding to the situation. Im curious, this is open to anymore, but would anyone be willing to give up their own life to save the lives of 10 people who you don't know? If the answer is no, is there anything that would change your mind? And remember, you aren't hawk-man or hawk-girl so if you die, you can't just reincarnate.
|
|
