Why philosophers should not associate with psychologists

This is taken from a 2000 paper by Jonathan Haidt, Fredrik Björklund, and Scott Murphy from the University of Virginia. I wanted to mention it here because it shows how completely out-of-whack my constant exposure to philosophy has made me.

In this experiment, they taped a bunch of college students as they attempted to respond to various dilemmas. After each decision, the experimenter would try to convince the student of the opposite. They recorded how long it took candidates to answer and whether they did any ‘nervous actions’ in the interview. Here’s the questions

1. The Heinz Dilemma

In Europe, a woman was near death from a very bad disease, a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium for which a druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to make. The sick woman’s husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying, and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said, “No, I discovered the drug and I’m going to make money from it.” So, Heinz got desperate and broke into the man’s store to steal the drug for his wife. Was there anything wrong with what he did?

What my response would have been:

Pixel: Yes, it was wrong, but necessary. It was less wrong than the alternative. A way to make this more right would be to send payment later, but I don’t imagine this occurred..

Psychologist: Are you sure, what about if—

Pixel: I’m sure. Next question please.

2. The Cannibalism Story

Jennifer works in a medical school pathology lab as a research assistant. The lab prepares human cadavers that are used to teach medical students about anatomy. The cadavers come from people who had donated their body to science for research. One night Jennifer is leaving the lab when she sees a body that is going to be discarded the next day. Jennifer was a vegetarian, for moral reasons. She thought it was wrong to kill animals for food. But then, when she saw a body about to be cremated, she thought it was irrational to waste perfectly edible meat. So she cut off a piece of flesh, and took it home and cooked it. The person had died recently of a heart attack, and she cooked the meat thoroughly, so there was no risk of disease. Is there anything wrong with what she did?

My response:

(instantly)

Pixel: Nope, she was attempting to try something new. It’s commendable, really. She made the most out of her resources… But she’s going to be feeling it later.

Interviewer: She’ll feel remorse?

Pixel: No, she’ll be in the bathroom all night.

Interviewer: But she thoroughly cooked it. There’s no risk of disease.

Pixel: Have you ever been a vegetarian? Eating meat messes you up, even if it was cooked thoroughly!

3. The Incest Story

Julie and Mark, who are brother and sister are traveling together in France. They are both on summer vacation from college. One night they are staying alone in a cabin near the beach. They decide that it would be interesting and fun if they tried making love. At very least it would be a new experience for each of them. Julie was already taking birth control pills, but Mark uses a condom too, just to be safe. They both enjoy it, but they decide not to do it again. They keep that night as a special secret between them, which makes them feel even closer to each other. So what do you think about this? Was it wrong for them to have sex?

My response:

Pixel: Nope, good for them.

Interviewer: But doesn’t it violate some sorts of cultural norms? Don’t you have any aversion to that?

Pixel: Only if Julie would be willing to date me. Otherwise, it’s like that old song: live and let incest.

4. The Roach Task:

Experimenter asks: Do you like apple juice?
if “Yes”: Good.if “No” : OK, then, I have some water.
Experimenter brings the appropriate beverage, a napkin, a cup, the roach container, and the tea ball to table. OK, I have here a (can of apple juice/carton of spring water), which I’m going to pour into this glass [pour it into glass]. Would you be willing to take a sip of the juice/water? [wait for S to take sip]. OK, now I have here in this container some sterilized cockroaches. We bought some cockroaches from a laboratory supply company [show box and label]. The roaches were raised in a clean environment. But just to be certain, we sterilized the roach again in an autoclave, which heats everything so hot that no germs can survive. I’m going to dip this cockroach into the juice/water, like this. Now, would you take a sip of the juice/water?

My response:

(less immediate)

Pixel: Well, damn. Okay, fine, but if one of the feelers fell off and is floating around, I’m going to be very angry.

5. The Soul Task:

I have a piece of paper here. If you agree to sign it, I’ll give you two dollars, for real. If you sign it, you can then rip up the paper immediately, and keep the pieces yourself. So take a look at this [hand S the “contract”, which says:].

I, _____________________,

hereby sell my soul, after my death,

to ______________________ for the sum of $2.

___________________
(signed)

Note: This form is part of a psychology experiment.
It is NOT a legal or binding contract, in any way.

My response:

(sign)

Pixel: Are there any more? Do you know anybody else that wants a piece of my soul?  You can have the contract.  I’ll even tear off that last little bit that says it’s part of a psychology experiment.  That seems like it defeats the whole purpose.

And that is why I should not participate in any psychological studies!

This is taken from a 2000 paper by Jonathan Haidt, Fredrik Björklund, and Scott Murphy from the University of Virginia. I wanted to mention it here because it shows how completely out-of-whack my constant exposure to philosophy has made me. In this experiment, they taped a bunch of college students as they attempted to respond…