1. Comment #424050 by Hominidae on October 16, 2009 at 1:28 am

8:40 into the lecture...this is going to be GREAT!!

Other Comments by Hominidae

2. Comment #424055 by Thurston on October 16, 2009 at 1:47 am

Andy Thomson's lectures are always informative. I particularly like the fact that he references both famous and obscure studies and urges people to read the research.

And it was beautifully filmed, as ever.

Other Comments by Thurston

3. Comment #424056 by A-Farr on October 16, 2009 at 2:06 am

This was a fascinating presentation by Andy Thomson. I have listened to his talk on the evolutionary origins of religious belief several times over now, and I plan to do the same with this one. Well done, Andy, and Josh, and Richard and everyone who helps make this information available. As an atheist in Utah I'm practically drowning in religion and superstition. For me these kinds of resources are a breath of air.

Other Comments by A-Farr

4. Comment #424059 by Spinoza on October 16, 2009 at 2:13 am

Great example of confusing moral talk for morality.

Other Comments by Spinoza

5. Comment #424062 by Hominidae on October 16, 2009 at 2:28 am

I'd push the man.

Ok jk...I'll probably lose sleep tonight over this issue. Thank you Dr. Thompson for that.

Other Comments by Hominidae

6. Comment #424065 by HappyPrimate on October 16, 2009 at 3:00 am

Thanks Josh. Appreciate these talks being available. Most enjoyable and informative.

Other Comments by HappyPrimate

7. Comment #424069 by RightWingAtheist on October 16, 2009 at 4:48 am

The hypothesis of psychopaths taking over should be fairly easy to test. They either have more children than normal people or they do not. Having "money" to be more appealing doesn't mean anything for evolution unless they actually out-breed us.

I also suspect that there is a sharply diminishing return on money and power after a point. A someone with $100 million is not 10 times more desirable than a someone with $10 million.

Other Comments by RightWingAtheist

8. Comment #424073 by RightWingAtheist on October 16, 2009 at 5:00 am

Since we are on the subject of psychopaths, here is a long interview with a former hit man:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5740692213665972395

Other Comments by RightWingAtheist

9. Comment #424156 by keddaw on October 16, 2009 at 11:59 am

"someone with $100 million is not 10 times more desirable than a someone with $10 million. "

Yeah, but he can afford 10 times as many divorces.

Other Comments by keddaw

10. Comment #424187 by LWS on October 16, 2009 at 2:39 pm

AAI09 was fantastic especially thanks to the science based presentations hosted by RDF. Josh of course is a more than capable videographer and everyone now has the opportunity to watch/listen to the recordings of lectures.

On the way to the airport on October 2 CBC Radio One, the Current, broadcast an interview with Frans de Waal on the topic of empathy expressed by other species.

"Frans de Waal

We started this segment with a clip of legendary economist Milton Friedman at the height of his powers in 1979. And the idea that self-interest, greed and even a little ruthlessness will get you ahead is still a powerful one. But according to Frans de Waal, when you look at human beings as a species, the warm and fuzzy stuff matters ... a lot.

Frans de Waal is one of the world's leading primatologists. He's known for his ground-breaking research on what humans can learn from the power games played by chimpanzees. And now, he has turned his attention to the role that empathy plays in animal and human survival.

Frans de Waal is the Director of the Living Links Center at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center at Emory University. His latest book is The Age of Empathy: Nature's Lessons for a Kinder Society. He was in Toronto."

Listen to Part 2:
http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/2009/200910/20091002.html

Other Comments by LWS

11. Comment #424197 by Moq on October 16, 2009 at 3:29 pm

Thank you for making an interesting lecture available (and the quality of the production). Origins of morality is indeed an interesting question to examine and I'm grateful for the references provided in the talk.

Other Comments by Moq

12. Comment #424202 by Sally Luxmoore on October 16, 2009 at 3:59 pm

Excellent talk.

Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work
by Paul Babiak (Author), Robert D. Hare (Author)

- Now on order from Amazon.co.uk.

Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore

13. Comment #424203 by mordacious1 on October 16, 2009 at 4:05 pm

Always a pleasure to hear a talk by Andy Thomson.

Other Comments by mordacious1

14. Comment #424204 by Enlightenme.. on October 16, 2009 at 4:09 pm

RWA:
"The hypothesis of psychopaths taking over should be fairly easy to test. They either have more children than normal people or they do not. Having "money" to be more appealing doesn't mean anything for evolution unless they actually out-breed us."

-----------

One of the points being made I think is that they wouldn't necessarily have to outbreed us to 'take over' - rather that, even as a relatively static component of the genepool (in such a deterministic paradigm), they may be better equipped to attain either power, or death row! (survival of the fittest)

Of course the other way of looking at things is that Capitalism and other power structures are unfortunately warped to benefit the inherent efficiencies bound up in psycopathology's clear conscience.

I'm certainly intrigued to read the books by Hare (and others on the 'amazon also recommends' page for snakes in motherfucking suits)

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

15. Comment #424209 by Enlightenme.. on October 16, 2009 at 4:22 pm

Have also downloaded the Tetlock 2002 paper.

Tetlock, P. E. (2002). Social-functionalist metaphors for judgment and
choice: The Intuitive politician, theologian, and prosecutor.

(Intrigued by the theologian bit, obviously!)

------
I shall now read this and see if I can understand!
Before I get that far, can I ask whether biasing Intuit-pol (maintain positive identities with multiple constituencies) is more likely to make you sympathetic to accommodationism?
..and the correlate - Is my strident militant neo-atheism because I'm biasing my Intuit-prosecutor?

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

16. Comment #424213 by Enlightenme.. on October 16, 2009 at 4:41 pm

Why is RD so baffled by Collins' choice?

It seems clear to me that Collins simply considers that the absence of 'the Moral Law' is not a good place for lesser mortals to dwell in, (without God everything is permitted) and that society needs godfear of the divine lawgiver. (notwithstanding the unfortunate consequences of some hacked off clitori)

But maybe I am giving Collins too much credit, and he is motivated by baser things - after all - his profession of Christian belief has done him no harm in achieving the position of head of the NIH

..and ditto for Obama achieving the position of POTUS.

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

17. Comment #424224 by Enlightenme.. on October 16, 2009 at 5:41 pm

Hominidae:
"I'd push the man."

..and ask questions (self-justify) later!

------------

Very interesting about the New Orleans stuff, I'd thought he was going a bit far at the start of the talk with seemingly tentative suggestions that euthanasia decisions had been made - little did I know.

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

18. Comment #424235 by ANTIcarrot on October 16, 2009 at 6:22 pm

"Take a step back. It's exactly the same problem."

That has to be one tof the stupidest things I have ever heard. It's not a question of morality. It's basic highschool physics.

Throwing the switch can realistically be expected to have an effect on the train. Pushing a 300 pound mass (of anything!) in front of a train that probably weights at least TEN THOUSAND pounds and may be going at 20 or 40 mph will not realistically affect the train.

One has a hope of success. The other doesn't. Even if the fat man coudl somehow magically stop the train I still wouldn't push him because I wouldn't and couldn't know the fat man's death could magically break the laws of physics and actually stop the train.

Expending further (based on the *end* of the video...)

Dr Thompson contradicts himself. At the start he says (paraphrasing) "This is what your brain goes through, providing you've never seen this scenario before." Then later he says (paraphrasing) "Your brain always does this. Anything else you think your brain is doing is simply a justifacation masquerading as an alternative process."

One of these statements has to be wrong. And I think it's the second. If he asks the same audience the same question, I think at least some of their brains will be mentally lazy and pull the answer out of memmory rather than bothering to think about it. (In fact it's possible they'd still do this after you resolve their objection, but that's a well known behaviour.)

I'm an aerospace engineer. I have also been involved in a serious car accident where someone was killed. Therefore I know a lot about the mechanical forces involved in large meavy moving objects, and the practical limits of the human body. Is it possible that my personal experience is contaminating my 'virgin' exposure to this scenario - and hence I'm making a decision based upon that personal experience, rather than the moral process he presents here?

I think it's a possibility at least worth considdering. And it's one that is certainly not disproven by the evidence he presents here.

Other Comments by ANTIcarrot

19. Comment #424284 by sillygirl on October 16, 2009 at 8:06 pm

When I've done these thought experiments, they've always been derailed by the certainty that by the time I decided what was feasible and what was moral, the train would already have gone throught and everyone would be dead.

Other Comments by sillygirl

20. Comment #424301 by RightWingAtheist on October 16, 2009 at 8:32 pm

ANTIcarrot:

I also think he is wrong on that, at least a little bit. Maybe we are odd ducks.

My skeptical reaction to the unworkable hypothetical body-drop (and similar proposals) is instant, often before the proposing speaker even finishes their sentence. I have the same reaction to a lot of these thought experiments.

And it definitely isn't post-decision rationalizing in my case, because I am in the minority of people who just might push the fat bastard. While it is interesting that 80% of all people answered in a contradicting way, it shouldn't be forgotten that 20% did not.

Other Comments by RightWingAtheist

21. Comment #424341 by Richard Dawkins on October 16, 2009 at 11:28 pm

"Take a step back. It's exactly the same problem."

That has to be one tof the stupidest things I have ever heard. It's not a question of morality. It's basic highschool physics.

Throwing the switch can realistically be expected to have an effect on the train. Pushing a 300 pound mass (of anything!) in front of a train that probably weights at least TEN THOUSAND pounds and may be going at 20 or 40 mph will not realistically affect the train.

For goodness sake, it's a THOUGHT EXPERIMENT! You might as well say Einstein was wrong because trains can't travel near the speed of light.

Richard

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

22. Comment #424349 by keddaw on October 17, 2009 at 12:28 am

I was rationalising after the fact for a long time when I first heard of this problem trying to work out why my brain reacted differently to pushing the man and pulling the switch. Part of me knew they were morally the same, yet I also knew my gut reaction was different. I eventually got it down to the idea that the problem was the idea of perfect knowledge and that was what was throwing my morality and so I'd throw the fat man if I knew it would stop the trolley. I am so glad to have seen this video though, as I have thought for a long time that we have various individual processing units in our head and our so-called consciousness is only slightly aware of them individually and takes a kind of straw poll to decide what we will do. This shows it perfectly.

Other Comments by keddaw

23. Comment #424358 by Quine on October 17, 2009 at 1:59 am

First, I want to say that I enjoyed Dr. Thompson's presentation at AAI very much and thought he was a great choice for that gathering. As a result, I am glad Josh has this up so soon so I can send the link to people that I know in the psychological sciences for discussion. As for the thought experiment, yes, it loses its value if you over think it. You have to take the parameters as given.

Other Comments by Quine

24. Comment #424359 by NakedCelt on October 17, 2009 at 2:05 am

My brain reacts in much the same way to both versions of the trolley problem: I can't bring myself to choose either option in either case. I can report, as a fact that may or may not say anything about my personality, that the only response I am able to contemplate is "Screw the parameters of the question, go yell a warning to the workers or something. Save everybody. Don't let anyone die."

Other Comments by NakedCelt

25. Comment #424364 by Sciros on October 17, 2009 at 2:26 am

Are we talking about the thought experiment where you have to choose between pushing a fat guy in front of a train to derail it or let the train hit a school bus (or whatever)? Well yeah you have to kind of abstract away the "details" and just look at the premise -- can you sacrifice one life to save more than one?

Sure, yeah, assuming no emotional attachments to that one life.

Other Comments by Sciros

26. Comment #424379 by NakedCelt on October 17, 2009 at 3:42 am

It would help if you watched the video, Sciros... the top one.

Other Comments by NakedCelt

27. Comment #424384 by Sciros on October 17, 2009 at 4:14 am

Watching it now... ok yeah it is indeed that problem. He is getting at more interesting points bringing the idea up, though.

Long video, but interesting. I like thinking about morality even though most of the time it seems to me like a pointless exercise unless I go crazy and take an ethics course even though I'm not in university anymore.

Other Comments by Sciros

28. Comment #424434 by Corylus on October 17, 2009 at 10:35 am

Very interesting.

The demonstration that moral judgements are formulated and then second-order judged by different parts of the brain was very useful.

An argument for a god given moral law appears intuitively to demand a monolithic 'morality centre' in the brain, instead we have bits and bobs all over the place - and bits that can that can be individually damaged, diseased or underdeveloped at that.

While this is not killer evidence against the "god put morality in our heads" line, it is at least cause for a "hang on a mo..."

Other Comments by Corylus

29. Comment #424469 by the great teapot on October 17, 2009 at 3:23 pm

The killer evidence that god didn't put morality in our heads is the fact that non of us can agree on what that morality should be.Unless he put different morality into different heads. Which is equally as possible and equally as horseshit.

Other Comments by the great teapot

30. Comment #424470 by the great teapot on October 17, 2009 at 3:33 pm

Whatever decision is made I know that all of the victims will be looking down on us at their funeral with a smile on their face.
Anyway, how are you?

Other Comments by the great teapot

31. Comment #424487 by the great teapot on October 17, 2009 at 5:11 pm

why did I believe in god.
Well between the age of seven and eleven I believed cos my school made me pray to him,
I would say conformity, even to a 13 year old child this was nonsense
.

Other Comments by the great teapot

32. Comment #424563 by Cartomancer on October 17, 2009 at 9:28 pm

These thought experiments need updating for a British audience. Back in the 1980s when we had good old British Rail they would have worked. Nowadays with all the privatization the train would be delayed indefinitely, so that the workers could quite easily finish off and go home without knowing they were in the slightest danger from it. If they were there in the first place that is, because they never seem do any repair work on the tracks either...

Anyway, I'd just let the buggers die. I've been delayed at Didcot Parkway station far too many times to have any sympathy. And if the fat bloke was the director of First Great Western then I'd push him off with glee, whether or not doing so would save anybody's life!

Then I'd go and find Norman Tebbitt and push him off as well.

Other Comments by Cartomancer

33. Comment #424593 by souper genyus on October 17, 2009 at 11:09 pm

Has Dr. Thomson authored any books? I find his lectures most informative and I like his style. If he hasn't, he definitely should...

Other Comments by souper genyus

34. Comment #424603 by ANTIcarrot on October 18, 2009 at 12:11 am

> For goodness sake, it's a THOUGHT EXPERIMENT! You might as well say Einstein was wrong because trains can't travel near the speed of light.

Are you accusing me of being strident Mr Dawkins? :)

It's not the thought experiment we object to, but rather the conclusion Dr Thomson draws from his results: "I am right and nothing can ever prove me wrong."

This is essentially what he says when he specifically denies even the possibility that something else might be happening. He might have been just exagurating, and might regret going that far, but when he made a claim that cannot exist in the world of science. You wouldn't hesitate to jump up and down on any religious person who made such a claim. I think it's only fair that the secular athiests get the same treatment.

PS: Oh Wow! Oh my gosh! WTFOMGLOL! Richard replied to something I said! I think I may need to go lie down.:)

Other Comments by ANTIcarrot

35. Comment #424619 by mordacious1 on October 18, 2009 at 2:06 am

34. Comment #424603 by ANTIcarrot

It's not the thought experiment we object to...

Who is "we", or are you using the royal "we"? Prince Charles, is that you?

You don't seem to understand thought experiments. As Quine stated, Dr. Thomson can set the parameters of the experiment, if you change those you are changing the experiment.

Other Comments by mordacious1

36. Comment #424622 by mordacious1 on October 18, 2009 at 2:24 am

33. Comment #424593 by souper genyus

As far as I know, he has not authored any books. His forte seems to be as a lecturer. I came across this paper last year when I was reading Nesse, it was co-authored by Andy:

http://biology.unm.edu/Biology/pwatson/public_html/HWT.pdf

If you want to read more of his papers, be sure to search for J. Anderson Thomson.

Other Comments by mordacious1

37. Comment #424631 by souper genyus on October 18, 2009 at 3:47 am

Thanks mordacious1! He is definitely a superb lecturer, and writing books isn't for everybody, so to each his own. It would still be wonderful if he would write one on some things he lectures about.

Other Comments by souper genyus

38. Comment #424649 by weavehole on October 18, 2009 at 9:23 am

Here's a nice little TED talk that touches on Psychopathology and sexual selection:

http://www.ted.com/talks/jim_fallon_exploring_the_mind_of_a_killer.html

Other Comments by weavehole

39. Comment #424851 by Mr. Grape on October 19, 2009 at 2:19 am

Even if I knew the fat man would stop the train I wouldn't push him. Imagine instead of the fat man standing on the bridge with you, he's sitting at a bench 15 more feet away. Imagine having time to pull him away from the bench and push him off the bridge. Both of these scenarios are murder. The difference between pulling the switch and pushing the man is that he is an unwitting bystander. You're bringing him into a problem he has nothing to do with.

Other Comments by Mr. Grape

40. Comment #424872 by Sarmatae1 on October 19, 2009 at 6:01 am

Honesty here, me me me. This was my first knee jerk reaction to the train scenario. My first thought was how this decision would affect me. I suppose this makes me a moral deviant lol.

The first case of pulling the switch I thought. "By pulling that switch I would be consciously killing someone I couldn't possibly do that". I had the same reaction in the second case of pushing the fellow off the bridge. Guess I rely more heavily on my more primitive brain centers than others here.

Other Comments by Sarmatae1

41. Comment #425741 by Yngve on October 22, 2009 at 8:22 am

This talk ties in perfectly with that I've read on neurology, evolutionary psychology and sociology/social geography and anthropology.
And it's no doubt a big issue, but from my own subjective little outlook it makes perfect sense and the mechanisms get more vivid with every peace of information that science provides.

Soooo.. I wonder, will RDF ever have an event like JREFs TAM?
Something along the lines of 'Fun with Reason and Science' - because it is really funny, interresting and quite enjoyable once you get over the preconception that science is dust dry and unintelligible for most people.
And who can say the don't need more reason...

Thanks to Josh, you really deserve the dedicatioan from Richard in TGSOE.

Other Comments by Yngve