
The Cold Logic of Drunk People (2014) - bkraz
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/10/the-cold-logic-of-drunk-people/381908/?single_page=true
======
mgraczyk
I doubt that people became more utilitarian as they became more drunk. A
simpler explanation is the participants answered the questions using the same
altered thinking drunk people use to choose their own behavior; They think far
less than normal about the social consequences of their actions.

You don't want to flip the trolley switch in part because you feel more likely
to be blamed for the outcome, or to be held accountable for making the wrong
decision. After drinking a bit of alcohol, it is easier to forget about how
others will perceive your actions and instead think about the physical
consequences of the actions themselves.

~~~
nickodell
You can slightly change the context of the problem, and it entirely changes
the character of responses:

Imagine you're an accountant working for the government. You choose how
medical research funds are spent. One day, you notice that there are two
equally expensive programs: Program A, which will save one life next year, and
Program B, which could save five lives next year.

Program A is being funded, but Program B isn't. Program B could be funded if
you took all of the funding from program A and diverted it.

Do you divert the funds?

~~~
sokoloff
> two equally expensive programs: Program A, which will save one life next
> year, and Program B, which could save five lives next year.

For me, it depends on the chances of "could save five lives" and the cost of
the program.

If the chance of "could save 5" is under 20%, no, you don't divert the funds.

If the total expense of the program is over some threshold per life saved, and
there is another opportunity, C, elsewhere to expend those funds with a better
outcome (more lives saved/extended/improved), you defund both A & B in favor
of that other program.

~~~
barrkel
I would expect that probability has already been factored into the numbers at
this level of decision.

If you're e.g. making a change to road signage, you wouldn't start out with
the total number of KSIs, you'd be looking at the potential reduction in KSIs.
Similarly, if you're looking at a medical intervention, you'd be measuring a
probability-adjusted delta in QALYs (in the UK).

~~~
sokoloff
Yes, I agree that's how it should be done.

The question specifically used certain language for one branch and uncertain
language for the other, so I replied to the question as asked rather than
strawmanning an answer to a question that wasn't asked.

~~~
chc
I think that's because one was a statement of present reality (the program is
currently doing this), whereas the other was a hypothetical (if could do this
_if we funded it_ ).

~~~
sokoloff
Thanks. I now see that as a possible reading. I read it only as a statement of
uncertainty.

s/could/would/ would have eliminated the ambiguous reading.

------
dmichulke
I didn't read the study but whenever you ask these questions, you'd also need
to account for the legal implications.

I doubt any court in any country would say "You did the right thing" flipping
the switch or pushing that person off the bridge. IOW, you're likelihood for
ending up in prison for a good amount of time is much higher.

Furthermore, it's entirely possible that we are even conditioned to say it's
wrong to flip the switch because that's how the laws are.

An interesting discussion about this problem and its legal implications is [0]
- a dozen or so pages but it will make you think for days about it (read the
PDF and not only the wikipedia article)

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Case_of_the_Speluncean_Exp...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Case_of_the_Speluncean_Explorers)

------
Theodores
If you were to ask 102 sober people if they would drive whilst under the
influence of alcohol, then you would get 102 definite 'no' answers. Okay, some
HN person might have some convoluted 'no' and some bored person might throw in
some other silly answer, but, generally, you would get 102 'no' answers to
this simple question.

Obviously none of this group of 102 would ever drink and then drive whilst
under the influence of alcohol, then be silly enough to get caught. That is
what you would think if you took the survey results as proof of something.
However, maybe not tonight or even some night soon, some of those people will
drink and drive, maybe to get caught.

So, if Mr Police Officer stops one of our 102, weaving across the road,
driving home drunk, does the drunkard have a) a bundle of feeble excuses and
lies or b) a well thought out, coherent reason for driving under the
influence? It is a), not b). My point being that 'cold logic' does not apply
to 'drunk people' and the best test of that is actual actions, e.g. propensity
to drive under the influence, rather than some notional question about would
you 'save this baby squirrel or let the holocaust happen?'

~~~
bcook
Do you define driving after having a glass of wine during a meal as being
"under the influence of alcohol"? If so, your position that everyone would
answer "no" is severely flawed.

~~~
jacalata
That's the HN convoluted 'no' he was referring to.

------
pnt12
The train question has always annoyed me. It's a fantasy world where you kill
and save people by pulling a lever. And after the you answer, people add more
rules, like "you may have to face jail time if you deliberately kill anyone".
What about negligence?

Call me obtuse, but no one could convince me yet that not pulling the lever is
the right option. Does it detach you from the problem? No, you still took an
option and acted according to it.

Maybe even better, we should look for the sociopath who's trapping people in
these train racks for the fun of creating moral dilemmas.

~~~
MatekCopatek
It's not a fantasy - you kinda had a similar situation on 9/11 with United 93.
In that case, the passengers brought it down before a decision could be made,
but in case they didn't, the moral question would be nearly identical.

There's a plane full of people that got hijacked and will definitely be used
to cause even more casualties. You know that the people on the plane are going
to die anyway. Would you really shut it down just like that?

~~~
agarden
If you really know, then yes. On those on flight 93 seemed to know. But the
other two planes didn't and they didn't do anything. Totally reasonable.

Where I in the hypothetical train scenario, I would not pull the lever.
Because in truth, I don't <i>know</i> that the five people will be killed. One
of them may look up in time, shout, and all of them scatter. But the one
loner? He may be too absorbed in his task.

The details in these kinds of things really matter. They make or break the
morality of the scenario. And the details in the train & lever scenario are
implausible. The supposed level of certainty is too high.

------
kristiandupont
In addition to the points already made here, there is a difference between
what people say they would do and what they would actually do. This difference
may be bigger or smaller for drunk people but in any case, what we learn from
a study like this is about how people present themselves, not how they act.

~~~
hugh4
True, but there's some insight to be gained from what people _say_ they think.

Asking drunk people philosophical questions seems to be a pretty promising
field of research.

------
yason
Putting philosophical approaches on the scale of drunkenness allows me to
consider possibly the most fascinating corollary I can think of this whole
experiment, which is to try to deduce the general level of intoxication of the
original philosophers while working on their most notable publications.

------
yiyus
I would think any question starting with "Would you..." gets more chances of
getting a "Yes" as an answer when the person you are asking is drunk, whatever
is the question.

~~~
SpaghettiCat
How so?

~~~
yiyus
Disinhibition.

------
Const-me
“Blood alcohol concentration predicts utilitarian responses in moral dilemmas”
— seriously? Blood alcohol concentration correlates to unlawful behavior.

For both dilemmas, a person who won’t touch that switch or won’t push anyone
is legally innocent. There’s no way he’ll have to go to the court, while the
organizer[s] of those experiments will be charged with a 1st degree murder and
found guilty.

OTOH, a person who will switch those rails or push an innocent will be charged
with a murder of that 1 person she killed, and I’m seriously doubt any jury
will find the suspect not guilty.

Drunk people don’t realize legal consequences of their [in]action. That’s why
they conclude saving 5 people justifies killing the 1.

~~~
jmnicolas
Fwiw, French don't obsess as much as the Americans about the legality of their
actions, so I don't think the participants were influenced by the (virtual)
likelihood of going to court for their decision.

~~~
Const-me
You don't need to be obsessed about legality of your actions. Not wanting to
go to jail is good motivation, at least for sober people.

French penal code 221-1 says “wilful causing of the death of another person is
murder. It is punished with thirty years' criminal imprisonment.” 30 years for
touching that railway switch is a lot…

~~~
jmnicolas
There's the theory (you googling the French penal code and its scary max
sentences) and practice (me a French guy with 37 years of seeing (as an
outsider) what really happens in French courts). In France you don't go in
prison, or not that long, when you were faced with an impossible choice.

If the trolley problem happened for real here, whatever your choice, I'm
willing to bet you wouldn't go in prison. It's not a 100% bet (I estimate it
at 80%), of course I could loose but you wouldn't do more than 5 years. I
can't find anything about it in English but if you're willing to Google
translate it, look for "Vincent Humbert" for a perfect example of what I'm
talking about.

There's a real cultural difference between how the French and the Americans
think about the law.

I'd wager that more than 95% of the French population will never see a lawyer
through their life.

~~~
antimagic
You'd almost certainly lose that wager though. There are a lot of French
lawyers out there! OK, I'm being a bit tongue in cheek, you're talking (I
think!) about people actually needing a lawyer, but you know what, those
lawyers must be doing something, so I'm thinking that people interact with
them a lot. Certainly I know that I personally have three separate friends (ie
they don't know each other) that are lawyers, and I definately didn't seek
lawyers out amongst my friends!

------
mikecmpbll
There are two reasons someone would make the non-utilitarian answer to the
questions:

\- They wouldn't feel that they could bring them self to cause someone's death
(but they could still be utilitarian in principle)

\- They feel that it's not the right ethical choice

A well known consequence of consuming alcohol is "dutch courage", becoming
bolder and more risk-taking. I suspect the differences seen are actually just
the utilitarian-in-principle folk being a bit braver.

Rather than asking:

"people must choose whether they would flip a switch to divert a runaway
trolley, killing one person but sparing five others"

They could've asked what they think the correct thing for someone else to do
would be.

------
cm2187
Or utilitarian people drink more than non utilitarian people!

------
werber
I'd be interested to know what fields the participants were from and how that
changed their answers. Grenoble is pretty STEM heavy college town, ~1/3rd of
the population are students.

------
afsina
This part is kind of a deal breaker:

"Duke also recognized that the implications of the study are limited,
especially because the sample size is so small. Plus, the questions themselves
have flaws."

~~~
cosarara97
Another thought: Are utilitarian people more likely to get drunk?

------
bikeshack
Did this article overlook the recent findings that Alcohol is similar in
effects to low doses of Oxytocin and thus influences a 'trust decision'?

------
lurkinggrue
Obligatory XKCD: [https://xkcd.com/1455/](https://xkcd.com/1455/)

------
bruuuu_
That was my first thought too. In the article they talk about decreased
empathy, but maybe it's social awareness.

I also feel like if I was sober, and that dude walked up to me, I would tell
him what I actually think (don't kill the guy). If I was drunk, I would just
say whatever I thought was the most amusing, which is clearly the more callous
response.

They need to do a randomized experiment. It could be the social environment,
it could be the types of people who like to drink a lot are more unfeeling,
etc

