Although both men and women carefully considered the consequences of their potential decision, women said they found it harder to commit murder and were more likely to let Hitler survive, the study found.In defense of the women. If you know the exercise is not real, why not engage in theory and speculation? It's not like you are the president of the United States and Christians are being killed for no other reason than being Christians while you delay and dither as commander in chief.
"Women seem to be more likely to have this negative, emotional, gut-level reaction to causing harm to people in the dilemmas to the one person, whereas men were less likely to express this strong emotional reaction to harm," says lead research author Rebecca Friesdorf. A master's degree student in social psychology at Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo, Ontario, Friesdorf analyzed 40 data sets from previous studies....
The study considered two contrasting philosophical/ethical principles; utilitarianism, which says committing a harmful action is acceptable if it is for the greatest good for the greatest number of people, and deontology, which holds that breaking moral conventions as held by most people, even to secure a favorable future result, is wrong.
Women were more likely to fall into the deontology camp and agonize for a long time over a decision, while men were somewhat more likely to lean toward utilitarianism and make a quick decision, the researchers found. (read the whole thing)
I was struck by a seemingly innocuous throw away comment Boston marathon bombing survivor Karen Brassard said yesterday during a hastily court steps press conference. She was asked "do you feel like you got justice? and she paused smiled, seeming to reflect, she said "I don't know what justice is". (See video at around 2:15) Would a guy have said something like that? I don't know.
43 comments:
When I was a kid, I was upset that nature documentarians would film a wildebeest or something being torn apart alive by lions and do nothing to help the poor creature, but I got used to it.
It would be many years later that fully grown men, military veterans, voiced their indignation when it was reported in the media that some TV journalist (Dan Rather? Peter Jennings?) said that journalistic ethics would forbid him from warning U.S. troops of an imminent enemy attack.
But I figured they should all just get used to the idea, same as I did.
Women are inclined to sanctify themselves and to be totally unaware of their actual motives.
See the story of the young woman in Westchester County in NY who murdered her son slowly over 5 years by enforcing unnecessary medical procedures on him.
While I adore women, I don't necessarily buy their own stories about how peaceful and loving they are.
Sorry ladies, but you are devious in ways even a man sometimes can't fathom.
Mike Wallace.
What if you killed Hitler and Albert Speer took over and subsequently conquered the world.
In other words women are a catastrophe in the public realm.
Speaking of which: there's a fascinating interview with Liz Smith in the Hollywood Reporter. Can be accessed via Drudge. What a tough old bitch she is -- but fascinating.
If Albert Speer conquered the world it would be like a super Robert Moses was in charge with giant autobahns to emerald cities everywhere -- it would be great!
The worse thing that Nazi's had going for them was Hitler running the military aspect of the war. Invading Russia was the dumbest thing that he could have possibly thought of.
What if Hitler had been taken out and Russia hadn't been invaded and Germany spent more time developing the bomb. They already had developed missiles.
Scary thought.
It's probably politically incorrect, and legally dubious, but I'm the sort who'd kill evil people like "Joker" in Boston if I could do it on the spot. In short, those police didn't fire enough rounds into that boat, a couple hundred more might have saved us the intrigue and expense...when he emerged, I'd abide no "hands up don't shoot" either. It is the intensity of the moment that could make me kill, once under control, I am less likely to want a death penalty...I'd prefer a long life in prison suffering the loss of freedom.
On another thread a couple of us talked about anger and what it might be about. Anger is a failure of mine that I've tried hard to overcome, so when tempted on something as innocuous as a blog thread, I tend to just back off. What is "real" about my personality is that I have an emotional "switch" that I can flip on and off, and off is sometimes the better solution. Sometimes it is also my mental excuse for excessive force in real life, so I try to stay engaged and keep the emotional aspect under control....e.g., switched on.
I know what it is like to let anger take over and at times it is necessary, but usually counter productive...in warfare it can get you killed in fact, by impetuousness, so being coldly deliberate is an asset...and that is how I learned to turn anger on and off.
Had to do so because in the end I found my enemy more like me than different, beside language and ethnic traits. It is hard to kill those you might like under different circumstances. It is what makes war so ugly...and it is the training Soldiers & Marines get that prevent atrocity most of the time.
I wonder what others here think about that subject? If no one replies, I understand...it is a deep hole and few of us want to go in there. My personal goal is to never lose my temper again.
Later in my life I got to know a WWII vet who was shot to pieces in the battle for Monte Casino. When I found the book of the day to day history of his unit I saw an 80+ year old man cry. Stanley, may you RIP forever (he passed away 3 years ago)...your Silver Star for leading your squad against a machine gun emplacement was very well deserved...more of your friends would have died had you not done so. I know you knew that. It wasn't anger that drove you, albeit part of the emotions you felt that day, it was honor and duty. I was honored to meet you and find a kindred spirit.
I would have no hesitation in going back in time and killing Hitler. There would be some others that I would also get rid of at that same time, just in case they would move up the chain and become the new Hitler.
The only problem with this potential time travel deal is that the unintended consequences might be worse. But....it was already horrific enough. I'd take that chance.
As a Sci-Fi fan, I really like the time travel books and alternate history scenarios. But...kill Hilter. Hell YEAH.
Personally, I don't think the Boston Bomber kid (can't spell his name) should be given the death penalty. He should have both legs amputated above the knees and one of his arms at the elbow. Preferably his dominant arm. Let him live the rest of his life crippled as are some of the survivors. Death is too kind.
I guess I don't fall into the gentle lady category?
AllenS...I know you know the history of WWII. Hitler's insanity made him our best general and caused our military to stop sponsoring his assassination...for that reason and those that you cite as well.
Interesting most women never stop to consider Winnie Churchill put the kibosh on offing Der Fuhrer because he was worth more to the Allies alive.
But, again, we've always known once a woman gets her blood up, she's Hell on Earth.
William said...
What if you killed Hitler and Albert Speer took over and subsequently conquered the world.
On the one hand, think somebody like Heydrich, on the other think somebody like Walter Schellenberg or Karl Haushofer.
Speer was fairly benign in comparison.
DBQ...kill "joker"..hell yeah, but on the spot. At present I'll accept whatever the jury decides...and life imprisoned will be acceptable, since they cannot order him taken out back and shot like the brute he was and is...let him keep his limbs, but never taste freedom again. If sentenced to the death penalty, it would take 15+ years to carry out with all the appeals, etc. Meantime let the little POS rot and be bedded by bubba.
I can only hope the police and the feds got some usable intelligence from his worthless behind...for letting him live at all.
I like these what-if science fiction stories too, but they are simply fantasy. I can see absolutely no way any such time-travel could ever be possible.
If it were possible, I don't know how you could prevent utter chaos from resulting; because if one person can go back, any number can go back.
(Of course, if indeed that were happening, how would you know?)
DBQ is no broad to fuck w/! Men are the Ying and Yang of the world. It took a man like Hitler to try and conquer the world w/ evil. And it took men, storming Normandy knowing they would die to stop him. Women are he rocks of our culture. They are the stabilizing force. But, as Camille Paglia states so well, if women ruled the world, we would still be living in huts. Men are the risk takers. It's a testosterone thing. And that hormone is both good and bad.
The Padre obviously does not know of Mr. Peabody on the Rocky and Bullwinkle show.
Women... round em up and killem!
Nancy Pelosi and Cher would offer Hitler a nice cup of tea.
What if instead of killing Hitler, we could go back and prevent him from ever existing? Prevent his parents from meeting and procreating? Hitler, himself, would not be born. Would not be raised or exist.
How would that affect the events that unfolded to become WWII. Would another personality rise to fill the void? Is the history somehow preset so that it is necessary to have a Hilter personality..... or would it take another path? Worse or better.
What happens to all of us in the future if we change the past? Do we wink out like sputtering candles. Do we morph into someone else. Does the timeline split and we have more than one history line going at the same time. One where Hitler exist and one or multitudes of histories branching off from the break where he is not present.
It makes my brain hurt to think of the possibilities. What if. What if. What if.
This is the problem with time travel as a reality and the fascination that exists with the books that deal with it in the Sci-Fi and Fantasy genres.
Synova needs to chime in here. I know she is also a big Sci-Fi fan.
If you give Tsarnaev life imprisonment, he will have ample time to mingle with the prison population and perhaps win a few converts to his faith. In his case, the quality of mercy can be a strain leading to a herniated disc......Kaiser Wilhellm was showing off his macho. He put a cigar in his mouth and asked Annie Oakley to shoot it out. She did. If her aim had been a tad less accurate, we would have been spared WWI and te subsequent rise of Hitler and, for that matter, Lenin. The great enabler of 20th century evil was the Kaiser and the German general staff.
If every person now alive was given the power to, only once, go back in time and kill one person he particularly thought deserving of a premature death, what would the world be like? Would one of us have sought out the person or his ancestor who gave us this power in the first place, and killed him to make sure such power would not persist?
I thought the novel "Time and Again" was pretty interesting.
According to string theory an infinity of different universes is possible. This removes the paradox of time travel. You can go back in time and murder Hitler. In that universe Hitler would not exist, but in our particular universe he would continue to exist. Just so long as you don't mess with the existence of the guy who invented the tv remote control, it's all fine with me......I'm saddened every time I contemplate for how many weary years I lived on planet earth without the comfort of a remote control.
Why are we so quick to believe some sociology studies and not others? This one seems like it's trying to promote a proggy assumption that women are superior because they are more deliberative and less murdery than men, even in the most severe cases of People Who Really Need Murdering. Oooh, gal power, you go girl. Of course, that this same result can be read to flatter the opposing assumption that women are timid dithering morons doesn't make it credible.
Instead of dividing people into groups, and defining and judging them on that basis as the left does, the better course is to insist on judging individuals as individuals as much as possible. There are two women in my office who I asked about the joker trial. One was all predictably Bay Area "well maybe he was influenced by older bro so we shouldn't kill him" (even when shown the photo of joker planting a nail bomb behind that family and slinking away) and the other was in favor of slow torturous death. Televised. There are plenty of men (our president, for one) who would lap up cultural sophistication bonus points by finding him guilty of some lesser offense and punishing him with anger management and psychological counseling. Pretending to difficult decision-making based on moral superiority due to some supposedly more nuanced understanding of human nature and social justice. I can totally see a guy, some slacker millenial or aging would-be intellectual philosopher-king saying "I don't know what justice is" because they can only/only want to recognize justice when it's coded as such by the left (e.g., "social justice," "racial justice," "environmental justice" etc.).
$335,602.00
That's what we gave the US researcher to continue investigating this important field of behavioral studies.
The other two were a German and a Canadian. I don't know how much they got paid.
Whereas this poor bastard only got 20k for what seems like a much more important project.
William's hero.
Looks like they finally got him. RIP Eugene.
According to string theory an infinity of different universes is possible.
@ William
Wait! There is a theory on this? I thought I had made it up in my head.
I used to think. Whenever you make a decision especially one that fundamentally changed your life.... What if there is another me that continued on the first path while the other me went down the new one.
The me that DIDN'T decide to move to SF and as a result met my ex husband with whom I have a daughter and wonderful grandchildren. The other me that continued in the college track and got that degree in Meso American Anthropology. That me that is now a PHD and teaching at Stanford who doesn't have children Or.... or....or....
You can drive yourself crazy imagining all the what if alternate histories.
:-)
If I had the power to see the thread of humanity via the human tree and prune off those that have set this world afire with their unmitigated evil, I would easily have the power to time travel and do it. And I would, without hesitation.
"If it were possible, I don't know how you could prevent utter chaos from resulting"
After you kill Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Harry Reid, you go find the guy who is going to invent the time machine and get him laid. That should put the kibosh on his pocket protector ways.
What the men are saying is: "Git-R-Done!"
The women are saying: "What if I feel bad? That's why they voted for Obama.
The problem is not Hitler or Stalin or Obama, the problem is human nature, which keeps throwing up these monsters. There ain't no way to cancel out a future Attila the Hun. Am I saying that human nature is evil? No, but in human nature there is the potential for evil and the potential for sainthood. And so there will be future monsters and future saints.
I think that the likes of Hitler would be proud you bothered to come back just to kill him. He might be insulted if you were looking for others too.
Alternatives exclude. You can't hope to find the golden prizes behind Door A without screwing yourself out of the perhaps equally enviable prizes behind Doors B & C. A better designed universe would allow you to have a fair number of incarnations to sample things out. Sort of a total life Groundhog Day. Or maybe you should just be allowed to press the reset button a few times and start over again after a bad day......But perhaps it doesn't matter. You're still stuck with gravity. The earth is way too heavy and keeps dragging you down. It's very hard to have a buoyant life with this much gravity. Even if you get rid of Hitler and do everything right in your own life, too many of the good things are accessible only after a long, uphill trudge. The ideal time machine should include an anti gravity device.
Iowahawk - "Say what you want about Hitler, but the dude killed Hitler."
I would not do it.
You cannot extinguish evil. You're in your time machine popping off evil and creating vacuums for fresh evil to fill so you go back and pop those off too and what becomes of you popping off people you deem evil, spread out from your original project by protecting your original kill, you become a time traveling serial killer, a mass murderer. And that's not what I want for myself. There goes my naïvety and innocence. It makes participation in the Chip Ahoy Fun Activities Club more difficult to pull off with a world-weary face leaden with deep responsibility.
You're always faced with the world you live in now.
A better question is, "would you kill a known Hitler-type now?"
And the answer is "Yes."
I would. Dispatch without compunction.
In English that means, "this patch without punctures." I would kill them this patch without punctures.
Witnesses report about school overrun and murdered by Islamists. "If you were Christian, they'd just shoot you."
They show a clip a young warrior walking up to a captive and shooting him in the head insouciantly as if in passing by. And I ask myself, "Can I do the same to him?" And the answer is, "Yes."
And that's why I'm a terrible Christian.
This reminds me of a conversation I had two lifetimes ago at age twenty, with pilots much older than myself, serious guys (when they weren't being old ladies), looking back over decades we might have been talking about something in the local news, something stupid, and I said, "If anyone branded me when I got untied I would kill them." And a military guy there nearly twice my age laughed and said, "You would."
And that told me then that older military guys consider younger guys impulsive and not considering of the thousands of things big and small that follow in the wake of premature and violent deaths.
Like the insouciant ISIS guy, I'm still un-considering. Why bother even talking? There is no chance for reform. Just kill them.
One other point.
Killing Der Fuhrer was no easy task.
There were 42 attempts on his life.
Dolf had sense enough to be unpredictable (unlike Heydrich) and he was a gutsy guy (like it or not).
That's why he always stood up in the Mercedes.
His philosophy was, "If they're gonna get me, they're gonna get me".
Maybe women have watched enough SF to know that if you go back in time and change X you end up changing ABCDEFG etc. possibly for the worse.
You go and kill Hitler and then somehow Stalin gets the A-bomb and conquers the world.
Its like when people say "If only i'd invested in Company x i'd be rich". And if you had become rich you would have been at a different place at a different time and might have gotten hit by a truck.
I'll bet going back in time would work like a dream. Literally. I'd get there, spot Hitler, draw a bead on him and discover I had a German rifle and couldn't get it to shoot.
Next thing you know he's right in front of me so it's hand to hand. Then I discover I'm still 70 and Adolph's much younger and stronger plus there's some Nazi's watching to make sure I don't fight back.
I make a run for it but I can't find the spot where I have to be to get back to 2015. The Nazi's catch me and throw me into a railroad car with some other people....
Whew! Glad I woke up from that one. Good luck to whoever gets to do it.
Time travel. I doubt it. I'm more in line with Steven King's movie "The Langoliers." It was bad but good sci-fi, and likely more true in concept that we realize...e.g., the past is gone as soon as we leave it. No going back.
The study considered two contrasting philosophical/ethical principles; utilitarianism, which says committing a harmful action is acceptable if it is for the greatest good for the greatest number of people, and deontology, which holds that breaking moral conventions as held by most people, even to secure a favorable future result, is wrong.
This is the trick paragraph, and I am surprised if it's not instantly caught as such. (When it's not caught as such!) To me, it's obvious.
I am taken aback, in this instance, that it's not instantly caught as such.
In other words women are a catastrophe in the public realm.
Indeed. Because they got the vote less than a century ago and have been wreaking havoc ever since. It's all their fault that things have gone to shit, not to mention the sorts of presidents that have been elected for, well, since, from that time until this, not to mention--for good measure--well before that, too.
Also, "deontology"! And, "utilitarianism"!
\\ //
00
Man, I look at this sort of post and thread and I think:
1) Wait. Where are all the fact-based conclusions?
2) Wait. What happened to the notion that it's better to stand on principles than to make a decision based on a particular case in a particular situation at a specific point in time?
Sweet sheesh.
Post a Comment