It reminds me that in mainstream screenwriting, if we want an audience to sympathize and support a character who is deeply oppressed and who wants to break the social norms, the most conventional way is to portray the character as morally impeccable so that the audience can easily classify the character as a victim (e.g., in The Bridges of Madison County, the heroine patiently hid her secrets until her death). In some art films, however, the screenwriter often deliberately portrays morally flawed, but still oppressed characters who yearn for freedom (e.g., in Anatomy of a Fall and Titane, the heroines are very strong and aggressive, even subject to suspicion of murder), which often causes widespread controversy due to their ambiguous identity between victim and perpetrator (but these characters also elicits more thoughts and discussions that surpassed facial moral intuitions).
Great post. Just finished re-reading The Mind Club, and it definitely touched on some of these topics.
I'm a liberal and wouldn't say I celebrated, but I was pretty indifferent. I think something we need to bring into consideration is the utilitarian perspective on the matter: This CEO was arguably responsible for thousands of deaths and the suffering of countless others. Yes, this man had a family, but what role did he play in the suffering of so many families over all of these years just so he and other shareholders can live lavish lifestyles?
So we're talking about the death of one vs the death of many. The suffering of one family vs the suffering of many. I do think that's something that's going on in the minds of a lot of liberals when they share their feelings about this story.
I don't condone the murder, and I also don't see it really moving the needle on anything, but I'm a pessimist. It is interesting to see so many people getting into the conversation about how awful our healthcare system is though.
I do think it's interesting how we don't see villains having the capability to feel pain in the same way. I want to say, "No, I don't think that way," but I kind of do. I think it's because we see them as having no emotional feelings so it'd make sense for them to not have the same types of physical feelings, which is insane, but interesting.
Thanks Chris. I agree it's good to examine our reactions more carefully, and I agree that many didn't celebrate as much as feel indifferent--which I guess you'd expect if it was about a lack of pain. More like 'meh' especially with the many-to-one tradeoff that you mention.
I know you posted this shortly after the event so public response was still coming in. What is your reaction to the fact that people were broadly unsympathetic across the entire political spectrum, including many conservatives on facebook who (most likely) have similar horror stories from their interactions with the health insurance industry? The partisan divide doesn't appear to manifest in this case, except among political elites who are trying to steer messaging (in spite of their rank-and-file members feeling the opposite) and score political points.
I think you're right. There's more broad support (although I informally see some asymmetry), and I think it's because many are united in feelings of harm from the CEO-set and medical insurance. It's more of a class-based division...and everyone has suffered at the hands of the insurance system...
My intuition was that villains' capacity to feel pain was absent in the progressive moral equation. "They deserved what was coming for them" was enough to adjudicate the moral debate.
I wonder if people's opinions shift if you show them a video of actual harm being performed on the 4 clusters of subjects VS show them the text questions.
Great point, I reckon showing them actual harm suffered would shift the equation. I imagine the phenomenon is driven by people not thinking concretely about high power folks suffering, but instead of doing the harm
I find moral psychology fascinating and troubling in its insights into human nature.
A couple of questions arise for me from studies like this. First, would perceptions of villain change if a CEO has been outspoken in articulating a progressive stance (e.g., Mark Cuban)? Second, in consideration of God on the vulnerability scale by conservatives, is this equated more with the close connection between an ingroup and their conception of God? It seems strange for a religious group to perceive of God as vulnerable, even in considerations of allegedly heretical beliefs, which seems to point more toward perceptions of moral harm related to beliefs as a social identity marker than a vulnerable deity.
Thanks John. I think the CEO articulating any stance would make him seem opposed to half the country. Cory Clark as some great data that people think institutions/company should stay neutral in politics, and mostly what happens if when people align with you, you think "obviously" and why they don't you think they are evil.
Good Q about God's vulnerability. We ask specifically about vulnerability to victimization and mistreatment and harm. In the paper we find that concerns about the victimization of the bible and the US flag are driven by people seeing them as alive and with a rich mind. I know it seems theologically incorrect to see God as vulnerable to harm, but certainly people think of Jesus suffering in the present (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_6jICFWLxo). But I agree that more needs to be done to figure out what's going on here with perceptions of harm.
Agreed, murder is wrong. Can treating people's healthcare like a commodity also be a moral wrong? I do not believe that the facetious social media posts of bitter consumers (or the likes on those posts) are in support of murder. I think two things are true. These people have been subjected to trauma that is making them think joking about a human death is okay and they believe saying whatever they want is okay because rules of civility and morality do not apply online.
The question is not whether or not people online believe murder is wrong. If you asked every single person who posted if murder is wrong they would all most likely say yes, murder is wrong. The question is whether or not the immorality and incivility on social media is leaking like a cancer into the bloodstream of our society and I believe the answer to that question is yes. Social media is destroying the fabric of our society and instead of asking hard questions about that everyone wants to write click bait to help enrich themselves. Ask the hard question, why do people believe their morals do not apply to their online lives? Why are they beginning to believe it is okay to be less moral in their real lives? Why would they want to live a less moral or ethical life? Do they feel good about their online morality and their real life morality? Why must we look at all these situations as a judge or prosecutor instead of truly inquiring like a scientist? I don't want to hear judgments, I want to know why! I want the complex answer and I know that doesn't fit neatly on a social media post, but I am sick and tired of accusations from this side or that side and no one bothering to stop and ask how or why we are here.
These are great big questions Stacey. We try to tackle some of them in our other substack posts and scientists (including my lab) have been working on questions surrounding social media and moral behavior. In the upcoming Outraged, I've tried to sketch out how to understand morality and behavior from ancient humans to modern times--you might find it interesting.
Yeah, doing some related work on advantage and harm. Interestingly, we haven't found consistent moderation by ideology but rather how powerful, high-status, and wealthy the participants perceive themselves to be (high aligning with what you would expect from conservatives, low = liberals).
It reminds me that in mainstream screenwriting, if we want an audience to sympathize and support a character who is deeply oppressed and who wants to break the social norms, the most conventional way is to portray the character as morally impeccable so that the audience can easily classify the character as a victim (e.g., in The Bridges of Madison County, the heroine patiently hid her secrets until her death). In some art films, however, the screenwriter often deliberately portrays morally flawed, but still oppressed characters who yearn for freedom (e.g., in Anatomy of a Fall and Titane, the heroines are very strong and aggressive, even subject to suspicion of murder), which often causes widespread controversy due to their ambiguous identity between victim and perpetrator (but these characters also elicits more thoughts and discussions that surpassed facial moral intuitions).
Great post. Just finished re-reading The Mind Club, and it definitely touched on some of these topics.
I'm a liberal and wouldn't say I celebrated, but I was pretty indifferent. I think something we need to bring into consideration is the utilitarian perspective on the matter: This CEO was arguably responsible for thousands of deaths and the suffering of countless others. Yes, this man had a family, but what role did he play in the suffering of so many families over all of these years just so he and other shareholders can live lavish lifestyles?
So we're talking about the death of one vs the death of many. The suffering of one family vs the suffering of many. I do think that's something that's going on in the minds of a lot of liberals when they share their feelings about this story.
I don't condone the murder, and I also don't see it really moving the needle on anything, but I'm a pessimist. It is interesting to see so many people getting into the conversation about how awful our healthcare system is though.
I do think it's interesting how we don't see villains having the capability to feel pain in the same way. I want to say, "No, I don't think that way," but I kind of do. I think it's because we see them as having no emotional feelings so it'd make sense for them to not have the same types of physical feelings, which is insane, but interesting.
Thanks Chris. I agree it's good to examine our reactions more carefully, and I agree that many didn't celebrate as much as feel indifferent--which I guess you'd expect if it was about a lack of pain. More like 'meh' especially with the many-to-one tradeoff that you mention.
Hi Kurt,
I know you posted this shortly after the event so public response was still coming in. What is your reaction to the fact that people were broadly unsympathetic across the entire political spectrum, including many conservatives on facebook who (most likely) have similar horror stories from their interactions with the health insurance industry? The partisan divide doesn't appear to manifest in this case, except among political elites who are trying to steer messaging (in spite of their rank-and-file members feeling the opposite) and score political points.
I think you're right. There's more broad support (although I informally see some asymmetry), and I think it's because many are united in feelings of harm from the CEO-set and medical insurance. It's more of a class-based division...and everyone has suffered at the hands of the insurance system...
My intuition was that villains' capacity to feel pain was absent in the progressive moral equation. "They deserved what was coming for them" was enough to adjudicate the moral debate.
I wonder if people's opinions shift if you show them a video of actual harm being performed on the 4 clusters of subjects VS show them the text questions.
Great point, I reckon showing them actual harm suffered would shift the equation. I imagine the phenomenon is driven by people not thinking concretely about high power folks suffering, but instead of doing the harm
I find moral psychology fascinating and troubling in its insights into human nature.
A couple of questions arise for me from studies like this. First, would perceptions of villain change if a CEO has been outspoken in articulating a progressive stance (e.g., Mark Cuban)? Second, in consideration of God on the vulnerability scale by conservatives, is this equated more with the close connection between an ingroup and their conception of God? It seems strange for a religious group to perceive of God as vulnerable, even in considerations of allegedly heretical beliefs, which seems to point more toward perceptions of moral harm related to beliefs as a social identity marker than a vulnerable deity.
Just curious.
Thanks John. I think the CEO articulating any stance would make him seem opposed to half the country. Cory Clark as some great data that people think institutions/company should stay neutral in politics, and mostly what happens if when people align with you, you think "obviously" and why they don't you think they are evil.
Good Q about God's vulnerability. We ask specifically about vulnerability to victimization and mistreatment and harm. In the paper we find that concerns about the victimization of the bible and the US flag are driven by people seeing them as alive and with a rich mind. I know it seems theologically incorrect to see God as vulnerable to harm, but certainly people think of Jesus suffering in the present (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_6jICFWLxo). But I agree that more needs to be done to figure out what's going on here with perceptions of harm.
Agreed, murder is wrong. Can treating people's healthcare like a commodity also be a moral wrong? I do not believe that the facetious social media posts of bitter consumers (or the likes on those posts) are in support of murder. I think two things are true. These people have been subjected to trauma that is making them think joking about a human death is okay and they believe saying whatever they want is okay because rules of civility and morality do not apply online.
The question is not whether or not people online believe murder is wrong. If you asked every single person who posted if murder is wrong they would all most likely say yes, murder is wrong. The question is whether or not the immorality and incivility on social media is leaking like a cancer into the bloodstream of our society and I believe the answer to that question is yes. Social media is destroying the fabric of our society and instead of asking hard questions about that everyone wants to write click bait to help enrich themselves. Ask the hard question, why do people believe their morals do not apply to their online lives? Why are they beginning to believe it is okay to be less moral in their real lives? Why would they want to live a less moral or ethical life? Do they feel good about their online morality and their real life morality? Why must we look at all these situations as a judge or prosecutor instead of truly inquiring like a scientist? I don't want to hear judgments, I want to know why! I want the complex answer and I know that doesn't fit neatly on a social media post, but I am sick and tired of accusations from this side or that side and no one bothering to stop and ask how or why we are here.
These are great big questions Stacey. We try to tackle some of them in our other substack posts and scientists (including my lab) have been working on questions surrounding social media and moral behavior. In the upcoming Outraged, I've tried to sketch out how to understand morality and behavior from ancient humans to modern times--you might find it interesting.
Yeah, doing some related work on advantage and harm. Interestingly, we haven't found consistent moderation by ideology but rather how powerful, high-status, and wealthy the participants perceive themselves to be (high aligning with what you would expect from conservatives, low = liberals).
Great post!
Thanks Ryan. Cool data! Now that you say it, it makes sense that it hinges on how well you see yourself as a member of these groups.