[ExI] paranoia risk

[William Flynn Wallace]

On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 8:38 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Anders Sandberg
>
> *>…*I have the trolley problem game of moral dilemmas…
>
> --
>
> Dr Anders Sandberg
>
>
>
>
>
> Anders, I am deflecting from the topic a bit in response to this comment.
>
>
>
> During the Trolley problem discussion(s) I kept quiet for lack of insight, but I noticed something interesting when I discussed my personal version of the Trolley problem with the genealogy crowd in another forum.  I have written a software package that does systematic comparisons of cousin lists generated from DNA tests.  It doesn’t generate information exactly, but it concentrates it in such a way that it allows a prole to see patterns otherwise missed.  From this I can see signals come through loud and clear, and discover things previously unknown to both me and to the person who invites me to view their results.
>
>
>
> I asked here and in the genealogy forum what should a prole do: tell what he sees, or keep quiet?  Or something in between?
>
>
>
> On this forum, the answers were all over the map, leaning towards tell.  The consensus there was more towards when in doubt, leave it out.
>
>
>
> So it occurred to me that perhaps legal principles were guiding our ethical notions.  You made a comment recently that suggested this is a bad thing for legalities to shape our ethics, and I agree.  In the case of the genetics people, there was some notion that there could be legal trouble for revealing information, but one can never be sued for doing nothing and saying nothing.  The legal system is shaping societal ethics.
>
>
>
> In the classic problem, if a bystander switches the trolley and slays one geezer while saving ten children, she faces a brutal lawsuit.  So most people, conflating legality with ethics, will choose to do nothing.
>
>
>
> First arrivers at an accident scene face a similar and more realistic dilemma.  Our legal system has trained us well.  In most cases bystanders do nothing, or at best call for help from professionals as the victims bleed out.  Most bystanders opt for no-touch first aid.
>
>
>
> That genealogy software I mentioned has become even more powerful recently, so the question of tell or not tell is as important now as ever before.
>
>
>
> spike
>
>
​There is a huge literature in social psych about bystanders and helping,
and I am not up on the latest.  It stemmed from the case of Kitty Genovese
(1964), who was killed, stabbed, in front of dozens of people who did
nothing, not even call the police.
There was no question of legalities - calling the police threatened no
one.  It seems that there is a spreading around of responsibility.  The
more people who are around, the fewer will do anything.  Quite a few other
variables are important and I wish I knew what they were.  bill w  ​


>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160116/97c212b7/attachment.html>