"When I put this to my 11-year-old, his response was immediate: “Save the dogs!” In his defence, he has grown up with a pet dog, which he adores — and, according to a new study in Psychological Science, most other kids would say the same thing.... Indeed, when the team put similar questions (varying the numbers of dogs, pigs and people) to adult participants, 61% opted to save one human over 100 dogs... and 85% of people prioritised one human over one dog, while 93% opted to save a human rather than a single pig.... When the team asked 249 kids aged between five and nine about what they thought, though, they found that just over 70% opted to let a person die to save 100 dogs. When it came to one human vs one dog, only about a third of the children opted to save the person, 28% were clear on going for the dog, and the rest couldn’t decide. When pigs, rather than dogs, were pitted against people... only 57% prioritised one human over one pig, and 18% reported that they’d save the pig. The child’s age had no impact — the 9-year-olds made the same judgements as the 5-year-olds."
IN THE COMMENTS: Leland said:
Dumb survey. Try thinking just a little bit like a child. You, a 5 to 9 (maybe 11) age kid, small, unsure around people, comfortable around pets that are typically your size or smaller; have to save a person (in their head one of those bigger people like a parent or teacher) or a dog (something your used to handling) in dangerous water. Simple self-preservation says they'll pick the object they can handle.
Yes, and you might think the human being might have a chance of figuring out on his own what to do, and, after all, he did, in all likelihood, choose to go out on a boat. The dog didn't take the boat out on its own, but has been put in a confusing situation by a human being and may therefore seem to deserve human intervention.
पोस्ट्स
१२६ टिप्पण्या:
What breed of dogs?
From my experience, dogs are inherently better swimmers than people.
"Children Are Much Less Likely Than Adults To Prioritise Human Over Animal Lives"
So are progressives.
Maybe we should name all the schools after dogs.
Except pit bulls, of course. Could be confused with Pitbull.
And German Shepherds, because of the prison camps.
Although a deep historical dive might determine whether they were forced or willingly took part.
This is dumb.
You're asking for an intellectual response to a hypothetical when the actual response will be 100% instinctive.
Who's the person?
My 12-year-old daughter would choose 2 dogs over 1 human. I suspect she would choose 1 dog over 1 human, though I am less sure. It's not entirely the case that she values dogs over people (though maybe she does a bit). Rather, she sees animals as being in greater need of protection. Humans are better able look after themselves.
Browndog said...This is dumb.
You're asking for an intellectual response to a hypothetical when the actual response will be 100% instinctive.
Just because it may not play out that way in real life doesn't mean no insights can be gleaned from the answers. That goes for lots of survey questions.
Lash LaRue said...What breed of dogs?
The Crack Emcee said...Who's the person?
Both vital questions that will affect the answer.
It's too bad no one asked these questions before Disney. The results might have been instructive. Not necessarily that children valued their dogs any less - but they may have been (of course I don't know for sure) less likely to anthropomorphize to the degree that we do today.
Plus they would have been more likely to grow up within a moral framework that taught the sanctity of human life.
I mean, I love my dog, and it would break my heart to let her drown. But there is no other appropriate choice.
The response from children is expected. Children are driven by emotions. Thats as the world should be.
For adults, anything less than 100% save the person, is just how corrupt our society is.
Away from the metro areas I would guess the results from kids and adults would be much better but still short of 100%
They are making (negative) judgements about the morals of adults by comparing their responses to these questions to those of intellectually underdeveloped children. Now make them choose between their Bugatti and a human child's life.
Want to know why our covid response is so fubar'd?
This. A percentage of adults that are too stupid to identify the right simple choice.
I kept asking the same question. What is the goal? I never got a serious response. I never heard a person in a position to change thing, enunciate a goal.
I would shoot Hillary Clinton twice.
Oooops, wrong question.
Remember the outrage when the gorilla was shot after the child fell into the enclosure at the zoo? There are many morally stunted adults who value animals over humans.
Don’t let these kids off the hook.
Your puppy is in one boat, your mother in the other.
Who do you save, Mr. Smarty Pants?
Who. Do. You. Save?
Toss the human a flotation device and save the dogs
There is a reason that society (until it fell apart) did not look to children to make high-stakes moral choices. (Unless it was Greta Thunberg.)
Lash LaRue said...What breed of dogs?
If we are talking Golden Retrievers, it's a no brainer.
And that is why children should not be permitted to make life-altering decisions.
Well....it depends on which humans you are talking about in the scenario. As Crack said: Who is the person.
Some people just aren't worth saving. Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer on a boat versus two labradoodles or even two pigs.
Children would naturally have an affinity to saving the animals because they see people/adults as being strong and in charge and animals as being small and helpless...as they, the children are. Small, helpless and in need of assistance.
The whole questioning is stupid anyway. adult participants, 61% opted to save one human over 100 dogs.
Well DUH!!! Who can save 100 dogs at a time?? Even 10 dogs would be a challenge. If you have a choice to make that is going to be effective save the ONE human.
That doesn't mean you would rather save the dog though. It is just logistics.
Don’t let these kids off the hook.
Your puppy is in one boat, your mother in the other.
Who do you save, Mr. Smarty Pants?
Who. Do. You. Save?
That makes the stupid response even worse. You are validating making value judgements driven by emotion.
If you’re writing the algorithm for a self-driving vehicle will you tell it to run over the dogs or the human? (A no- brainer, right?)
And how will such a vehicle be instructed to choose between one human and five? (Cars don’t get to ask cute questions like “what if the five people are 95 years old and former concentration camp guards”, or “what if the single person is carrying a Vermeer?”)
Your puppy is in one boat, your mother in the other.
If you have small children and a dog, you'd better learn to swim.
Dumb survey. Try thinking just a little bit like a child. You, a 5 to 9 (maybe 11) age kid, small, unsure around people, comfortable around pets that are typically your size or smaller; have to save a person (in their head one of those bigger people like a parent or teacher) or a dog (something your used to handling) in dangerous water. Simple self-preservation says they'll pick the object they can handle.
What if the person suffers from lycanthropy and actually believes they are a dog. Haven’t kids been taught that whatever someone believes about themself is true?
Next they should put an 8-month unborn child in one boat and the dog in the other. See what the adults do.
I guess my siblings and I aren’t the only ones who ask these type of questions. We always joked that we didn’t want to think about if our mother would save one of us or her dog because we knew we wouldn’t like the answer.
Curious George said...
"I would shoot Hillary Clinton twice.
Oooops, wrong question."
No, no, I think you nailed it.
boatbuilder said...
"Next they should put an 8-month unborn child in one boat and the dog in the other. See what the adults do."
Is that an "Indigo Child"?
That makes the stupid response even worse. You are validating making value judgements driven by emotion.
The question itself is stupid. I’m just pointing it out.
Humans know to wear flotation devices when they get in a boat.
tim maguire said...
It's not entirely the case that she values dogs over people (though maybe she does a bit). Rather, she sees animals as being in greater need of protection
I suspect THIS is the Entire thing with kids...
Kids expect people to be adults; Adults look after themselves.
Puppies are cute and adorable; and kids think THEY can help the poor little puppy dogs
Here are some fun thought experiments
Two boats, one with 100 adults, one with a child... Who would a kid pick? (Who would You?)
Two boats, one with a 100 dogs, one with THE CHILD WE ARE ASKING THE QUESTION TO
{of course, This experiment would make the child sad, and unhappy; so never mind}
It all depends. Who is the person? If it's a democrat I just got two new friends.
I've heard an interesting variation on this
There are two people condemned to death. You can save one. The only thing you know about them is that one is an American and one is not.
Who would you save?
And how long did you have to think about it?
Who would you save?
And how long did you have to think about it?
---
The American, and less than it took me to finish reading the sentence.
The reality is most people would stand there wringing their hands and watching while the person and the two dogs all drowned. Then afterwards they'd say, "Why didn't somebody do something?!"
"When I put this to my 11-year-old, his response was immediate: 'Save the dogs!'"
Future Democrat voter who would have also voted for Hitler (even in the real elections Germany had before 1933; it goes without saying said person would have voted Hitler in all his post-1932 "elections").
Archie Bunker: "Hitler didn't have no kids... he had a police dog!"
I used to teach poli sci/political theory. Once chatting with a philosophy prof, he said: don't bother trying the lifeboat ethics exercise. The kids have done it many times, it's old hat, and they have a chilling willingness to just get on with it: throw the nun overboard, she doesn't have kids, or whatever. The original point of the exercise was to see that some decisions present genuine dilemmas; the young may not be that sympathetic.
A surprising number will grow up to be Facebook posters who use the term murderer to describe someone who hunts and kills a defenseless creature from the animal kingdom. Especially if it’s furry or has tusks.
Yes, like Crack and DBQ, the person would need to tell me a little something about themselves. What do you do for a living, who di you vote for...basic stuff like that.
Recently I've rediscovered self preservation so this isn't my usual snark...
I'd be worried about the legal consequences of touching the person. The dogs wouldn't sue...
I would also think , from a kid’s perspective that the human, especially if an adult, can take care of him or herself and doesn’t need rescuing by a kid, whereas the dog or animal couldn’t.
LLeland said...
Dumb survey. Try thinking just a little bit like a child. You, a 5 to 9 (maybe 11) age kid, small, unsure around people, comfortable around pets that are typically your size or smaller; have to save a person (in their head one of those bigger people like a parent or teacher) or a dog (something your used to handling) in dangerous water. Simple self-preservation says they'll pick the object they can handle.
That's not an objection to the survey, that's an opinion about what to do with the answers.
What a horrible question to ask a child!
Actually, now that I think about it, the very asking of the question is I believe an offense act.
When you give a child a choice between saving “x” number of a particular animal vs one human, you are in fact giving that child permission to dehumanize the human, and humanize the particular animal in question.
Let’s try the same experiment with some German kids in the 1930’s : “children, you can choose between saving 1 German soldier, and “x” number of Jews”
Any corrupt democratic Soviet elite in that boat - we all agree - let it sink.
It's like letting Hitler sink. You do it for the betterment of the world.
tell the big person to go to the boat with the dogs - why leave it to child!
Leland said...
Dumb survey. Try thinking just a little bit like a child. You, a 5 to 9 (maybe 11) age kid, small, unsure around people, comfortable around pets that are typically your size or smaller; have to save a person (in their head one of those bigger people like a parent or teacher) or a dog (something your used to handling) in dangerous water. Simple self-preservation says they'll pick the object they can handle.
Exceptionally dumb. Change the question to read;
"Two boats are sinking and you can save only one. One holds two dogs, the other your Mommy." Then tell us what you get.
I'd shoot O'Malley twice.
Oh, wait, wrong joke.
"Two boats are sinking and you can save only one."
False.
You could eat the pigs. For that matter, you could eat the dogs.
The question itself is stupid. I’m just pointing it out.
Humans know to wear flotation devices when they get in a boat.
I'm not picking on you. Not a bit.
What I'm trying to do is shift the perspective of the exercise a bit.
As a society there used to be (100 years ago) a shared moral value of the sanctity of life. All life. At the same time understanding moral choices needed to be made.
That has changed because, generationaly, society is further and further removed from our agrian roots.
I grew up smashing new born baby pigs in the head because they were the runt of a big litter and would never be a thrifty animal. Even with an outsized investment of milk supplement and labor, this pig would never grow and keep up with the rest of heard, and even with the investment, just keeping the runt alive was less than 50/50. But when I left the farrowing house, I would never think to kick a 40 pounder out of the way, our beat an obnoxious 100 pounder across the snout. Those were daily, moral, and to a lesser extent, economic lessons.
Today with the contact to animals limited to disney movies and cute puppies, society has drifted away from understanding moral teachings and why those teaching are critical to a functioning society.
I don't think this little example is a fun throw away "what if", of a board game variety, but a snap shot of a society in decline.
Nancy said...
What a horrible question to ask a child!
It's thinking like that, creating the messed up youngsters we got.
Just a couple years ago, our 8 year old learned what a pork chop was. She spent a couple days in denial, but with loving parents guiding her, she grew into reality. As it should be. These lessons should be, no, must be taught to children.
I'm 'supposed' to say "Save the people."
But all dogs are better than all people.
So it's a trick question.
Rose would save neither.
She wouldn't even let Jack get on the floating door.
Survey science is bullshit. This is yet another example of the pollution of science by “science”.
PS I save the empty raft in preference to the one with Karla Homolka.
Browndog nails it
“ This is dumb.
You're asking for an intellectual response to a hypothetical when the actual response will be 100% instinctive.”
Yes. And then they do regressions on the answers.
The really "dumb" thing is these "researchers" probably got a six figure plus grant from some taxpayer supported entity.
A child would think, "If I save the dog, I'll get to keep him."
What makes you think a dog won't go out on a boat?
Sailor Bark and Midshipman Woof say otherwise.
"You could eat the pigs. For that matter, you could eat the dogs."
-- Child Hannibal Lector has a counterpoint.
Depends in part on the politics of the parents. People who are bent on increasing the death count of 68 million aborted babies don’t put much of a premium on human life except when it is politically expedient. Even then it is short lived when it is time to prioritize vaccinations.
I recall having this conversation, or something a lot like it, in a dorm room during my freshman year at college.
I asked my nine-year-old. He picked the person and added, "This isn't one of those questions where there's no right answer. One answer is right!"
"... one of those questions..." The tell that he has weird parents.
The only disturbing thing about this result is that only 61% of the adults would choose to save one human over 100 dogs. This isn't a difficult moral question for me, but it is apparently one for 39% of the population.
To answer the question: I would feel terrible letting 101 Dalmatians drown... but I'd feel even worse letting a human being drown.
Save a human is abstract to a child. Try, save your mom...dad...grandma...brother...
I think you'll get a different result.
My grandfather raised and slaughtered chickens. I knew where KFC came from by the time I was 4 years old.
Matt Sablan said...
To answer the question: I would feel terrible letting 101 Dalmatians drown...
i'd feel terrible too! what a waste of good pelts! think of the coats you could have made!
If the human is someone known to me to be an honest and responsible person, it’s the human. Otherwise dogs first.
Save a human is abstract to a child. Try, save your mom...dad...grandma...brother...
Dogs ARE inherently cute and adorable! "A person" sounds in-personable (And Scary!)
even to this adult
Stranger danger!
Of course if you're a kid you'd save the dogs! You probably have a dog, and love him. And even if you don't, dogs/puppies are so cute. Meanwhile, outside of your family, you probably don't know or care about many people.
Personally, I'd save 1 pig over the 5 woman on "The View" or Joe Biden.
when I was a kid, I didn't like that my parents killed our chickens. Today, I'd kill a chicken without thinking twice. Kids seem to be more emphatic, although that doesn't apply to fish for some reason. If the animal isn't "cute" or is too different, we don't feel any kindship. Oh, that poor dolphin got caught in a net. sads. But the net was for Tuna, and nobody cares about them. Kill the tuna, save the dolphin.
If I had a choice between saving a box of flies and nancy pelosi or Zuckerberg...well...I have to think about it.
I had YMCA swim team lifesaver training from age 9, so perhaps it isn't fair of me to point out that the "saving" can take more than one form of action.
"Hey, you on the boat! Can you swim? Good! Here's a float to help you get to shore. I'm going to help the dogs head to shore, they might panic."
A better question for a kid might be, a big strong 6 foot tall man is thrashing in panic in the water, and a 4 year old nearby is floating with his head up calmly. Which one do you try to save? And do you try with a long pole, from the edge of the pool, or by swimming over to them?
That's not an objection to the survey, that's an opinion about what to do with the answers.
Fair point, the survey could have some merit, but certainly not as described by the conclusion they wanted to draw from the survey. If I wanted to understand the child's mind, then it could be interesting to understand why about 1/3rd would chose to save a person vs the 1 dog while about 28% would save 100 dogs vs the 1 person.
My assumption is the child considers what is possible in their context, but how is saving 100 dogs more possible than a single person? But that would require asking the child to describe the situation further than the survey question provided.
Does the child see the 100 dogs as puppies? Does the child see the saving of a 100 lives, whether they be dog or human, as greater than saving 1 life? Those are thoughts I have before drawing a conclusion; children value dogs over humans.
An older child's reaction:
"So I have to let either a person or two dogs drown? (laughing) What the heck? Why would you ask me that? You're a jerk!"
Is the person a democrat? If so, dogs.
rehajm said...
I'd be worried about the legal consequences of touching the person. The dogs wouldn't sue...
1/29/21, 8:13 AM
Isn't there also a joke about locking your wife and dog in the trunk, then opening it up as seeing which one is happy to see you?
This is the problem with hypotheticals: they never happen.
"Isn't there also a joke about locking your wife and dog in the trunk, then opening it up as seeing which one is happy to see you?"
Flyer on a telephone pole:
Wife and dog missing.
Reward for dog.
: )
The only disturbing thing about this result is that only 61% of the adults would choose to save one human over 100 dogs. This isn't a difficult moral question for me, but it is apparently one for 39% of the population.
This is the disturbing discovery. I have not a clue exactly what a "researcher" would learn from involving Children in the hypothetical.
As for adults, not sure what can be done to get them on the right track. I would guess, persons in positions of power across government would fall into exactly the same percentages or must likely worse.
I’d choose the dogs because I know *they* would be grateful and would forgive me if I had to grab them by the tail or somehow inadvertently hurt their feelings during the rescue operation. The human might not be as forgiving, drag me into court and then put me through litigation hell for years! So yes, definitely the puppies.
What if I choose to save the pig because I'm looking forward to bacon?
This is another case of overthinking the choice. The question says there are two boats and you (I) can save only one. One boat has a person and the other a dog, which would I choose?
I save the person. Then the two of us save the dog that probably belongs with the person.
Well, all my grandchildren, from 5 to 15 now, were raised to respect the sanctity of human life and would save a human being over 100 dogs every time. As would I.
"The response from children is expected. Children are driven by emotions."
So are most adults, most of the time. This is not an insult to them, simply a reality of our nature.
"Remember the outrage when the gorilla was shot after the child fell into the enclosure at the zoo? There are many morally stunted adults who value animals over humans."
The outrage may have been because of the view that the shooting may have been precipitous. Was it certain the gorilla would harm the child?
If the gorillas were living in their native habitat rather than our penning them in zoos for our entertainment, the situation could not have occurred.
The nine year old came back for more.
9yo: "But what if it's 1000 dogs? Then I don't know."
Me: "I'd pick the person. There is no number of dogs morally equivalent to a person."
9yo: "What about a million dogs? A trillion dogs--all the dogs in the world?"
Hm.
If forced to choose, I’d save Robert Cook over Joe Biden. Especially if Robert Cook is actually a puppy who’s posting comments on the internet.
On the internet no one knows I’m a 9yo.
Also depends on the dog in question.
The neighbor dog that scares the hell out of you every time you walk by or the fluffy little puppy that licks your face off every time you pick it up. y
Snarling pit bull or Nancy Pelosi? Both of them may ultimately kill you, one for sure, the other may turn out to be a good watch dog.
"If forced to choose, I’d save Robert Cook over Joe Biden. Especially if Robert Cook is actually a puppy who’s posting comments on the internet."
I like to think I'm as cuddly and cute as a puppy!
Li’l Meade said...
On the internet no one knows I’m a 9yo.
Well let's hope no one finds out or Althouse is going to have some 'splainin to do to Madison PD!
If it were the worst person in the world, say Pelosi or Stalin who were going to die of cancer in a couple of days, and my prized and much loved dog who was young and vital? Pelosi, without hesitation. Not to say I wouldn't feel like a piece of shit afterwards.
HALP ME! IMMA 9 YR OLD PUPPY TRAPPED BY ALTHOUSE!!!
“I like to think I'm as cuddly and cute as a puppy!”
I see what you did there, Robert Cook. Here, have biscuit. Good boy!
This might be the dumbest thought experiment ever conceived. You save people over property every time. In fact, it's even dumber than it first appears when you remember that International Custom and Law on the High Seas imposes a duty to save lives from shipwrecks - even during wartime.
Which makes me realize: the questionnaire left out some important details. For instance, suppose the drowning human is as cute and cuddly as Robert Cook?
The outrage may have been because of the view that the shooting may have been precipitous. Was it certain the gorilla would harm the child?
Fantastic! Now do Ashli Babbit.
This is way better than the dog/human conundrum.
Exactly which shooting was precipitous? We know the public outrage was greater for the animal
When Black Quarterback, Michael Vick got caught running a dog fighting business, the wrath of the public was swift and massive. I noted at the time, Vick would have a better chance to rehabilitate his reputation if he was caught have sex with children. What with the publics elevation of animals higher than Humans in importance.
Jeffry Epstein and Bill Clinton at Pedophile Island proves me right.
Children these days are expressly taught that an adult should never be asking for help from a child. This is meant to stop kids from going with a stranger who asks them to help look for his lost puppy, but that training may be influencing responses here.
I would save one amoeba over a thousand Biden voters.
I saved the American. Then Maxine Waters chased me out of the restaurant as soon as she'd sipped enough water to feel a little better. Felt bad about the Dalai Lama though.
I think the question is problematic because in a situation like that you don't actually have adequate information to really know that one can be saved but not both. If I saw the person wave his arms and reach toward me, I would grab him or her first. But if the person seemed to be escaping the boat I would go for the puppy with the intent of retrieving the person after. If hindsight showed that was a bad calculation, I'd feel bad, but it's not about which you save, it's about where you can actually do some good.
Who says I'm going to save either one? Sauve qui peut.
Person, dog, boat.
Marry, F___, Kill?
I'd save the boat for starters.
rcocean said...
If I had a choice between saving a box of flies...
now Wait a minute!
Are these Dry Flies? or Streamers
did I tie them, or did i pay for them?
With individual dignity comes personal responsibility. With progress, people are pets, too.
No matter how crappy my day is, rcocean makes me laugh.
Bitterly. Ironically. But still, laughter is laughter.
If the gorillas were living in their native habitat rather than our penning them in zoos for our entertainment, the situation could not have occurred
That has zero relevance.
I have a recollection of an early '70s National Lampoon image of a man holding an icecream cone before a young boy, saying words to the effect of, "Billy, would you like this icecream or would you like to see your mom and dad ever again?"
Two is more than one, so kids choose 2.
Offer a nickle or a dime to a little kid, they always choose nickle.
Robert Cook said...
If the gorillas were living in their native habitat rather than our penning them in zoos for our entertainment, the situation could not have occurred.
"National Geographic is reporting violent chimpanzees are becoming a very dangerous problem for some locals in Uganda. The wild animals have allegedly attacked and killed several children"
"The possessive primate reportedly barged inside a home in the remote village of Karnataka, India, and tried to steal the child. "
"National Geographic is reporting violent chimpanzees are becoming a very dangerous problem for some locals in Uganda. The wild animals have allegedly attacked and killed several children."
"The possessive primate reportedly barged inside a home in the remote village of Karnataka, India, and tried to steal the child."
That's a locale that is a natural habitat for both chimpanzees and humans. We have no such habitat in the US where apes and humans co-exist.
That's a locale that is a natural habitat for both chimpanzees and humans. We have no such habitat in the US where apes and humans co-exist.
Not sure what your beef is with zoos. They serve a big conservation/preservation function. The animals are not mistreated and the knowledge gained is vital to understanding and increasing the species. Man has dominion of animals. To utilize as we see fit.
The outrage may have been because of the view that the shooting may have been precipitous. Was it certain the gorilla would harm the child?
An unconscious child with unknown injuries was being flopped around like a rag doll and you want certainty? Why?
Unequivocally the dogs or cats. I’m a misanthrope. Humans always disappoint. Cats sometimes disappoint. Dogs never disappoint.
I'm a cat person, but I'd save the dogs. At least I know the dogs wouldn't be "liberals"--i.e., tax-happy, coercion-addicted, power-tripping State fellators--the worst and stupidest people on Earth.
The dogs.
There is an hilarious video on youtube about someone who chose to take their dog sky-diving. I can't find it now, but the punch line is that people can choose to go sky-diving, dogs are thrown out of planes.
If the gorillas were living in their native habitat rather than our penning them in zoos for our entertainment
No reputable zoo is about entertainment. They exist to preserve endangered species and to study animals. This isn't the 19th century.
I need to cross a river in a boat but I have a cabbage, a goat, and a wolf.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा