12 ms·

Correct. As a study stands flawed, there is no real takeaway. However, a flawed study does not mean the original conclusion is false. Merely that the evidence

by abnry 8y ago

Correct. As a study stands flawed, there is no real takeaway. However, a flawed study does not mean the original conclusion is false. Merely that the evidence the study provides for it cannot bolster it. But now the study is part of the societal conversation, and this means the idea of moral plasticity is something on people's minds, especially in the context of the study. This isn't the same thing as a rigorous study, but it does prove the point that many people /feel/ that moral plasticity /is/ a thing. This is not rigorous, but in a way, it gives a weak confirmation of the relevance of the idea. Think of some alternatives: we aren't wondering if the study suggests people will become hyper moral when given the power to act harshly. Nobody talks about that.

taeric 8y ago
I sorta agree. A flawed study says nothing about any conclusions. Neither for nor against. Is it an interesting question? I think so. But right now I see no evidence that I trust one way or the other. Instead, I see a ton of posturing. This is akin to picking a movie like Shawshank Redemption and claiming it proves something of human nature. No. It doesn't. I feel it helps me relate to and accept some behaviors. But it proves nothing. As it is fiction.
Kalium 8y ago
It's possible that the notion of moral plasticity has taken hold in part because of this flawed experiment that set out to prove it. That people feel moral plasticity to be a thing in the wake of being systematically lied to the tune of "moral plasticity is a thing!" should not be taken as evidence of moral plasticity. That is at best circular reasoning. Indeed, by that line of reasoning every religion should be thought to be true simultaneously, as their respective adherents feel them to be true. The only confirmation I see here is that of squishies being over-eager to fit facts to convenient and familiar narratives.
- mcguire 8y ago
  There is a persistent story that there are "good" people and "bad" people, and that "good people" only do bad things under very extreme circumstances. Everyone wants to believe they would never do that, for various definitions of that. Only real monsters would do that. There is plenty of evidence that this story is false, yet one sees it constantly.

by abnry 8y ago

taeric 8y ago

I sorta agree. A flawed study says nothing about any conclusions. Neither for nor against. Is it an interesting question? I think so. But right now I see no evidence that I trust one way or the other. Instead, I see a ton of posturing. This is akin to picking a movie like Shawshank Redemption and claiming it proves something of human nature. No. It doesn't. I feel it helps me relate to and accept some behaviors. But it proves nothing. As it is fiction.

Kalium 8y ago

It's possible that the notion of moral plasticity has taken hold in part because of this flawed experiment that set out to prove it. That people feel moral plasticity to be a thing in the wake of being systematically lied to the tune of "moral plasticity is a thing!" should not be taken as evidence of moral plasticity. That is at best circular reasoning. Indeed, by that line of reasoning every religion should be thought to be true simultaneously, as their respective adherents feel them to be true. The only confirmation I see here is that of squishies being over-eager to fit facts to convenient and familiar narratives.

mcguire 8y ago
There is a persistent story that there are "good" people and "bad" people, and that "good people" only do bad things under very extreme circumstances. Everyone wants to believe they would never do that, for various definitions of that. Only real monsters would do that. There is plenty of evidence that this story is false, yet one sees it constantly.