Comments on: Given the Choice, Liberals Would Rather “Kill Whitey”

By: Periapsis

Periapsis — Tue, 08 May 2012 14:30:00 +0000

My answer is neither. One choosing to sacrifice himself to save others on his own free will to save others is heroism. To sacrifce another person against his or her will is murder in my view. This is a horrible question to ask people, and it is opening a door to an abyss that stares back.

By: Lordclydeofomar

Lordclydeofomar — Sun, 15 Apr 2012 00:19:00 +0000

Honestly, it would depend on which situation was actually in progress. When it comes to sacrificing one person to save 100 others, I don’t think most people are going to be thinking about names, race or taste in music. Hell, I’ll push em both to save 200

By: whiterabbit

whiterabbit — Sat, 03 Mar 2012 16:41:00 +0000

In the 1960′s all and only white countries opened their borders to massive non-white immigration. Then governments and media demanded we “mix together.” Now those same governments and medias are calculating that by the year 2040, there won’t be a single white majority nation left on the planet, and that this is a “good thing.” If this was done to all and only black countries, people would quickly recognize it for the genocide it is. “Anti-racism” is a codeword for anti-white.

By: Jamie

Jamie — Fri, 24 Sep 2010 20:12:12 +0000

As far as I am concerned this is a horrible question; I would much sooner toss myself in front of the trolley rather than be responsible for the death of another.

By: BILL7718

BILL7718 — Thu, 23 Sep 2010 19:19:31 +0000

@krissy: It sure sounds like you are saying that science doesn’t do anything useful based on your observation that this study is not useful. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, though, and assume that you meant “Why couldn’t these scientists have done something useful?”

By: Jennifer Welsh

Jennifer Welsh — Tue, 21 Sep 2010 22:11:39 +0000

Thanks everyone for reading and leaving such thoughtful comments. David Pizarro has completed decades of work doing these types of studies, and there are many more studies and controls that I didn’t have time to discuss in our short-form blog post.

If you would like more information about these studies, it can be found at David Dobb’s writeup for Wired.com about Pizarro’s work, Link: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/09/kill-whitey-its-the-right-thing-to-do/ or by listening to Pizarro’s EDGE talk Link: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/morality10/morality.pizarro.html or the chapter he wrote about those studies Link: http://www.peezer.net/storage/Pizarro%20PublicationsChaptersDitto%20Pizarro%20Tannenbaum%20.pdf (PDF)

Thanks again for reading!
Jen

By: Alex

Alex — Tue, 21 Sep 2010 15:04:42 +0000

I do not think it as serious science. First you need control group: something that do not reflect race, such as a race-neutral name like John Peterson. Also, you need a clear dividing between “liberal” and “conservative”, and preferably, allow “neutral” people inside. Then you should replicate the experiment in different places, to prove it as not just a coincidence.

By: Keith B

Keith B — Tue, 21 Sep 2010 13:06:27 +0000

From the article, it seems that the experiment is missing two key controls: would people throw Chip to save the Philharmonic, and would people throw Tyrone to save the Jazz Orchestra? Without these, it seems a comparison of the two conditions explained in the article to be far less informative, almost unrealistically so. I hope that reading the paper itself shows whether those two conditions were also replicated. Also it must be questioned by what manner participants are categorized as liberal or conservative; were moderates/independents allowed to participate?

By: surge

surge — Tue, 21 Sep 2010 11:30:53 +0000

I would first have to verify that killing one person will indeed save the purported number, because it might have been one of those lies politicians and corporations use to get rid of a competition while staying clean themselves. Next, I wil have to find out why it came to having to kill a seemingly unrealted and innocent person to save someone else and how all those people got into trouble in the first place.
Once all that has been figured out, I will only support any actions to be taken to prevent such a disasterous situation from arising in the future. I guess I am good at keeping a contract job for a lot longer than the employer initially intended! But then I would be saving any future spending on hitmen.
I agree with all that opine that this kind of study is a waste of all resources, actually harming scientific thinking than contributing to it. Any conclusions have no useful value whatsoever.

By: krissy

krissy — Tue, 21 Sep 2010 05:14:24 +0000

I am so sick of these unethical studies. That and electric shocks and torture. Why cant science do something useful?

By: Amos Zeeberg (Discover Web Editor)

Amos Zeeberg (Discover Web Editor) — Tue, 21 Sep 2010 00:50:06 +0000

You’re right, Beth—there was an editing error. I changed the lead-in to the quote to clarify how conservatives figured into the study.

Thanks for the correction.

By: Chuckles

Chuckles — Tue, 21 Sep 2010 00:25:27 +0000

This is an exercise in futility……an unreal situation that presents only one of two scenarios in which you would likely not have time to think, only react.

The correct answer is provided by Robert above – one would sacrifice themselves first as occurs in real life or combat quite often. That is the highest and best principle – to sacrifice one’s self for the life of an0ther.

Another stupid study funded by who – the taxpayers more than likely.

By: Beth Terry

Beth Terry — Mon, 20 Sep 2010 22:15:01 +0000

I’m confused by the comment explaining the event. Did you edit something out? The article talked about LIBERALS doing something, then there’s a non-sequitur that mentions conservatives.
Bias? Or editing problem? Just curious how Liberals choosing to kill the white guy makes conservatives more racist???

Quote ~~
“the *LIBERALS* were more likely to sacrifice “Chip” to save the Orchestra than they were to sacrifice “Tyrone” to save the Philharmonic. When describing the findings in a recent talk Pizarro explained his interpretation of the findings:

If you’re wondering whether this is just because *CONSERVATIVES are racist*—well, it may well be that conservatives are more racist. But it appears in these studies that the effect is driven [primarily] by liberals saying that they’re more likely to agree with pushing the white man and [more likely to] disagree with pushing the black man.

By: anonymouse

anonymouse — Mon, 20 Sep 2010 18:53:38 +0000

Is this what we are calling science these days? The way I read the outcome of the study: Liberals prefer Jazz and Conservatives prefer Classical.

By: Katharine

Katharine — Mon, 20 Sep 2010 18:00:50 +0000

Screw the orchestras. Tyrone and Chip could be chemists.

By: Bill

Bill — Mon, 20 Sep 2010 16:17:45 +0000

I’m curious what the outcome would be based purely on artistic merit………

By: Georg

Georg — Mon, 20 Sep 2010 16:13:42 +0000

People are aren’t using these principles and then applying them. They arrive at a judgment and seek a principle

Douglas Adams depicts a software entrepeneur making big money with
a software named “REASON” in Dirk Gentleys Holistic Detective Agency”".
The software produces exactly what one needs: reasons for a decision
already made. REASON never made it on everybodys PCs, because
Pentagon bought the software including paper in waste bins.
Georg

By: Robert Hiles

Robert Hiles — Mon, 20 Sep 2010 15:24:47 +0000

If I was given the choice, I would sacrifice myself. If I would be in that position, I wouldn’t sacrifice anyone who didn’t have a choice in the matter.

By: Matt

Matt — Mon, 20 Sep 2010 13:38:31 +0000

“Chip” sounds like a preppy twit. I might sacrifice him for a trolley car full of westminster dog show best of breed winners.