From: Damien Sullivan (phoenix@ugcs.caltech.edu)
Date: Thu Jul 31 2003 - 21:38:22 MDT
On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 05:56:02PM -0700, Hal Finney wrote:
> There is something about the mere possibility of a non-emotional response
> which is threatening to this mindset. My take on it is that there is
> a certain strategy, or perspective, or philosophy, which gives great
> value to emotional response. This is a widely held philosophical view,
TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences Vol.7 No.7 July 2003
Thinking the unthinkable: sacred values and taboo cognitions
Philip E. Tetlock
University of California, Berkeley, USA
The article is on tradeoffs involving 'sacred' values and how they're viewed.
E.g. people will say "you can't put a price on life", and then decisions on
safety measures require an implicit tradeoff of life vs. money, and if made
explicit most people feel contaminated just by thinking about it. Has notions
of routine tradeoff (money/property vs. money/property; do I buy fire
insurance, or save money on premiums?), tragic tradeoff (do I save the fetus
or the mother?) and taboo tradeoff (do I save his life if it costs a million
dollars?)
I thought it was pretty interesting, and it might have a bit of relevance to
all this. The idea of people trading on tragedy, or profiting from it, seems
like it'd fall into the taboo category, especially if not explained well so
all people knew of it was "seems like trading on tragedy".
-xx- Damien X-)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jul 31 2003 - 21:46:50 MDT