The transition team has drafted a new document of Guiding Principles and New Rules for our community. These rules will go into effect on November 25. 2024.
[Ethics] Did I just loose my favorite Show? (Mind Field Trolley Experiment)
Yotebeth
IlluminatorB'hamRegistered User regular
IlluminatorB'hamRegistered User regular
(Please be gentle, this is my first post in D&D...)
As a huge fan of vSauce, I was excited when Michael Stevens got a new show, less excited that it was on Youtube Red, but whatever. There are a couple free episodes and I checked them out. Season 2 episode 1 was a recreation of the Trolley Experiment. I assume you all know it, but just in case:
In the show, they pre-record the tracks and a train going down them. Then the split, where one worker is working on one set, and five workers are on the other. People who have signed up to do research on high speed trains are left in a room after being shown how to switch tracks and the conductor has to leave for a second. Train comes up, person must decide if they switch it or not. As soon as they choose the screen goes black and says no one was hurt this was an experiment. From the episode, there are counselors on site, and people are screened to be chosen who will in theory suffer the least bad effects.
Now, I'm not well versed in ethics or philosophy, but I had heard of the thought experiment and found it really interesting to watch.
Then I told my husband about it (who was a phyc major, and has taken many ethics courses) and he was horrified. He couldn't fathom why anyone would actually do this, and said that is respect for vSauce was gone, and just boggled at the audacity of it all.
I felt bad because...well, I was really interested watching it.
But the more I think about it, the more questions I have. So....I wanted to throw it out to you fine folks, who are way more articulate, and well-thought than I, to see what your opinions are.
Was this as horrible a thing as it might seem to be? Do I have a moral obligation to not support Michael Stevens and his projects? Or just...what are your thoughts?
Thanks guys!
-Yote
Ps-Episode is Here.
As a huge fan of vSauce, I was excited when Michael Stevens got a new show, less excited that it was on Youtube Red, but whatever. There are a couple free episodes and I checked them out. Season 2 episode 1 was a recreation of the Trolley Experiment. I assume you all know it, but just in case:
From Wikipedia:
The trolley problem is a thought experiment in ethics. The general form of the problem is this:
There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person tied up on the side track. You have two options:
Do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people on the main track.
Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.
Which is the most ethical choice?
In the show, they pre-record the tracks and a train going down them. Then the split, where one worker is working on one set, and five workers are on the other. People who have signed up to do research on high speed trains are left in a room after being shown how to switch tracks and the conductor has to leave for a second. Train comes up, person must decide if they switch it or not. As soon as they choose the screen goes black and says no one was hurt this was an experiment. From the episode, there are counselors on site, and people are screened to be chosen who will in theory suffer the least bad effects.
Now, I'm not well versed in ethics or philosophy, but I had heard of the thought experiment and found it really interesting to watch.
Then I told my husband about it (who was a phyc major, and has taken many ethics courses) and he was horrified. He couldn't fathom why anyone would actually do this, and said that is respect for vSauce was gone, and just boggled at the audacity of it all.
I felt bad because...well, I was really interested watching it.
But the more I think about it, the more questions I have. So....I wanted to throw it out to you fine folks, who are way more articulate, and well-thought than I, to see what your opinions are.
Was this as horrible a thing as it might seem to be? Do I have a moral obligation to not support Michael Stevens and his projects? Or just...what are your thoughts?
Thanks guys!
-Yote
Ps-Episode is Here.
Full Time Artist. Rescuer of Reptiles. Engraver of Things. Occasional Coyote.
+1
Posts
Your friend is absolutely right. Without informed consent you just can't do something like that.
Like, working in the research field I'm almost physically recoiling because that is so holy shit unethical.
It's akin to shooting a man in the leg, but it's ok because you have a doctor standing by.
Having a psychologist walk in and go "there there" isn't going to stop the self loathing or doubt that will now follow those you have tortured with this test. They will carry that for the rest of their lives and their counseling will only be there to help them deal with those emotions.
It is cruel, amoral, and unethical. There is a reason IRB boards exist (to ensure minimal harm occurs from these sorts of studies) and clearly vSauce or whatever decided that such oversight wasn't worth it in favor of shock value and ratings, regardless of the harm they caused. Maybe it was simply in ignorance, but probably not. The failings of the early 1930s-1960s with these sort of studies are widely known and I really can't see a situation where the trolly situation is used without the knowledge of the rest of the baggage that follows it.
That was my husbands reaction too. And now I feel bad because I guess...I didn't understand the context enough to be horrified....
As for Michael.. I am curious as to his thoughts on it. Who produced this? was it the normal vSauce crew? Or was it more akin to, say, some other company hiring him for name recognition? Is there backlash out there?
One of the basic parts of any experiment is informed consent. That means the subject is aware they are participating in research and accepts the level of risk / harm that may be present in that experiment. There's a lot more to it, and in some studies they may not be aware of some particulars, but obtaining consent is the bedrock of any experiment. Part of that is they can refuse to participate or quit the experiment at any time for any (or no) reason.
So, it sounds like they did not obtain informed consent. They caused serious potential harm for the participants in their study - participants who were not even informed that they were participating. Something like this can cause emotional trauma and possibly even PTSD.
As Enc said - this is the psychological equivalent to walking up to people and shooting them in the leg, but saying it's ok because there is a doctor nearby. And you made sure they looked tough so they can take a bullet.
I'm not sure what they expected to glean from this or if they just did it for shits and giggles, but holy hell that's terrible. Like, if it's not criminal it probably should be.
It's true that informed consent can cause some issues with obtaining data, but it's a damn sight better than the alternative (i.e. Tuskegee).
This one stood out to me because they involved other people.
It's not the normal vSauce crew as I understand, its Youtube? I honestly don't know.
I haven't found a lot of backlash, a couple things in some reddit threads, but that's part of where my confusion is. If this was as bad as a few people say shouldn't there be more hullabaloo?
The fact that they could do it on a show though, no problem, does highlight how weird the regulatory framework in the United States is. The most substantive research ethics regulations are built into the Common Rule, which regulates anyone getting federal funding through a set group of agencies. But that doesn't apply to people doing research without federal funding. And it double doesn't apply to people who aren't doing research... but are just doing a show.
In most cases, even if he's doing it to himself it's still not ethical.
Basically, what he's doing isn't science - it's David Blane stunts pretending to be educational.
There should be more hullabaloo, but the fact he's doing it independently for 'entertainment' means nobody really has any authority over what he does. He probably also has people sign some kind of waiver before they do it, and most of his victims (hence the absence of informed consent) wouldn't realize that what he did was terribly wrong and unethical.
Is it legal? Sure.
Its it abhorrent? Absolutely.
There are definitely some legal issues here. There is some massive liability here that would open them up to a civil suit (I wouldn't expect any waivers to stand considering the above mention lack of consent).
To the OP, you aren't terrible for thinking it was a fascinating exercise, it objectively was, that why they did it. This is all on them for doing something I assume they knew crossed some lines.
It's like mythbusters if instead of finding excuses to use ballistic gel they psychologically scarred people.
The big three are the Robber's Cave Experiment (1954), Stanley Milgram's obedience studies (1961-1965), and the Stanford Prison Experiment (1971).
This was concomitant with a simultaneous push for medical ethical research guidelines after the whistle was blown on the Tuskegee Syphillis study.
While there are significant differences between the Mind Fields trolley problem simulation and the Milgram obedience studies, there is a one salient commonality: the participants in each could reasonably believe that they actually caused another human being to be harmed (even if they found out after the study that the harm was simulated).
Generally speaking, such deception is only going to pass ethical review if:
1) It's as minimal as possible
2) Participants are informed that they may be exposed to some frightening or disturbing scenarios beforehand
3) The research has potential to uncover some novel results
(I'm paraphrasing some guidelines; don't take this as gospel.)
The trolley problem has been studied to death in psych, philosophy, and even neurology papers in all sorts of combinations and permutations. There's been something of a backlash towards it (example) because it's a well-beaten dead horse.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Imagine having to carry that around for the rest of your life. Especially if you were like, paralyzed by fear and froze.
Yep, it was all fake but also you're the kind of person who would let 5 people die out of fear.
"Minimal risk" refers to the risk level typically encountered in daily life. That's in recognition that nothing is risk free, so the comparison is really between the elevation involved in participation over a very low ambient baseline. So, yeah, if someone were to try to run this as a research experiment I doubt there's an IRB in the world that would count involvement in a mock death as no more than minimal risk.
I mean, it is such a popular thought experiment i'm actually surprised no one caught it in the moment.
Q: 1.This is definitely not ethical, because there's no way people wouldn't be mentally harmed by the test.
A: 1.) I believe it was ethical. Studying the mind is not an easy thing and should not be done lightly. We turned to the experts and, though they may be more strict about studies at their own institutions, we didn't find anyone who told us not to do it. I stand by my belief that the benefits here outweighed the costs. Everyone who participated left being very glad to have had the experience and to haved help us explore human behavior.
(Bolding mine)
There isn't much in the way of pushback in that thread, most of the responses feel that he did his due diligence. But I think fellow researchers on this board would agree that he doesn't have a strong grasp of the ethical concerns involved in how this production was structured.
regularly brought up in news articles, white papers, and research studies over the last two years. In this case particularly in response to automation.
Don't forget there was an episode of The Good Place entirely devoted to it.
So, I'm a random person unrelated to this study. If I were put on here I would end up having to choose who would be killed by a vehicle.
My sister-in-law was killed by a truck driver who had to choose between hitting her as she fell off a sidewalk or crashing into traffic in a split second, delayed momentarily, and then did both due to the delay.
The similarities here are enough to where, just talking about this, I am reliving really terrible parts of my past. Which is fine, in this case, because it is theoretical. Where I in this situation, I would go through a living hell, as would my wife and her family as they helped me get through it, causing a lot of misery for... what? A quick buck through shock factor on TV?
Even if you are familiar with the exercise, you may not recall it in time to matter. Or, if you do, you might still second guess yourself because what it it was real and just happened to coincidentally look like the test? Does that make you hesitate in the real situation also? Are people dead because of you?
It doesn't matter if it was common. It doesn't matter that nobody told him no. This is a really shitty thing to do to an unassuming bystander, especially one interested in the vehicles. Now those people will link the potential deaths of others to their passion every time they see a high-speed train. What if they are unable to look at them the same now? What if they never want to work with trains again, after decades of interest?
This is super shitty. It needs to be called out on it.
That's hugely fucking insulting!
Studying the mind isn't easy. Which is why people who study the mind are very careful not to scar people in a television stunt that contributes nothing to the understanding of the mind!
"Explore human behavior" my ass. What a complete jerk.
Edit: Also, "The people who we did it to in retrospect reported that they didn't mind" is a very common way to weakly excuse doing something dangerous and stupid to people and then pressuring them into saying it was cool.
Either they weren't experts of any sort or he's just making that shit up.
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
yeah I'm just nonplussed because I don't understand what they thought it would reveal. ethical thought experiments are by definition not about how real world people would actually behave, something that is obvious once you consider other problems used to get at the same issue. (my favourite is one about executing one rebel soldier to save nine.) the point is just to see if people agree with a consequentialist or a deontological morality.
there is also interesting research in moral psychology done with it to find out how and why we agree with one over the other, but a) that is already done b) was actual research.
there isn't a right answer, that's the point
knowing how any individual person would perform doesn't get you any useful information
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
I'm messed up that they dropped the ball so hard, when the rest of the series, and vSauce in gneral has been really fun to watch, and really rad for putting science concepts into pretty good laymen terms for folks like me.
fwiw, on a scale of getting people to sign waivers and then psychologically destroying them on television, this is pretty mild stuff compared to what routinely happens on reality TV. It looks really bad because it immediately brings to mind the contrast with actual human subjects research. But part of the reason that comparison is so unflattering is that human subjects research is, in general, regulated really really hard compared to just about any other kind of activity.
Of course, if "we're no more exploitative than reality TV" is the best defense then—
What this serves as is an uber example of why every single thing the IRB does exists; it's quite a good educational tool
That being said, if this is a tv stunt and not research, the IRB regulations don't apply. Go nuts but get a good lawyer. Mythbusters never needed an IRB.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Well no obviously there has to be a right answer. Unless you subscribe to error theory.
There really isn’t. It’s more about whether you trend more towards deontology or utilitarianism.
Edit: Full disclosure, I’d pull the lever. But I understand why others wouldn’t.
I'd argue that the right answer is pretty blatant.
As a thought experiment, it's a good demonstration of how humans tend to absolve themselves of moral responsibility for the consequences of not taking actions that we could have taken. As long as we can convince ourselves that we don't have ownership of a tragedy, we'll allow it to happen without feeling any guilt.
this mistake is treating it like a scientific experiment
it's an exercise, it's used to illustrate people's own morals and as a framework to argue about those morals
it's not something where inflicting that choice on people teaches you anything about ethics
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
Don't beat yourself up about your initial reaction to the episode. Research ethics is a topic the lay public receives zero useful training in, which makes it difficult for us to explain all the things that go into something like this without, well, a dedicated discussion thread (what constitutes informed consent, what are the possible sources of harm to the participant, when is it appropriate to mislead the participant, what constitutes a meaningful experiment, and so forth).
Don't beat yourself up about your initial reaction to the episode. Research ethics is a topic the lay public receives zero useful training in, which makes it difficult for us to explain all the things that go into something like this without, well, a dedicated discussion thread (what constitutes informed consent, what are the possible sources of harm to the participant, when is it appropriate to mislead the participant, what constitutes a meaningful experiment, and so forth).[/quote]
That's why I decided to post here. I've been lurking for years, but I figured this would be a good place to get an idea of what's wrong with what happened. And...how I should feel...if that makes sense.
Well the actual question is "which is the most ethical choice?". Essentially "What should you do?"
The fact that people give different answers and argue for them tells us a lot about moral reasoning and moral intuitions, and certainly tells us that what is ethical is not obvious, but one of the choices has to be right for it to be a dilemma.
(that said yeah it is also useful as an introduction to ethics and competing theories within it and why they matter. it's just a thought experiment, not an actual one.)
But that's the thing, it really isn't, it's why the discussion sticks. Utilitarianism would say "kill less people." Deontological arguments would/could say "don't actively choose to kill somebody for the greater good."
Which I would agree with except there's a lot of tech people who are trying to block automation because they don't want automatic cars that don't make the "right" answer to the trolley problem. (despite the fact that, from an automation standpoint, if you ever reach a trolley problem you've already had way more important problems before that point)
So the fact that it's being considered for testing and design purposes and/or regulation does mean that it has some value in testing the problem as a matter of how humans and machines react to it.
But we know how people react to trauma, violence, and hard ethical choices. The military has oodles and oodles of research on this stuff, with solid hardcore research going back to WW2. I agree that knowing those things are important, but both psych and sociology have studied this issue to death over the last few decades. My cite is any undergraduate psych or socio textbook, these kind of moral issues and how humans react are usually intro material and are routinely covered in your first year in a program, along with the ethics of doing such cases being taught alongside the experiments themselves.
What new knowledge did putting people through this test get us? Was there a falsifiable idea being tested here, that hasn't been done before? Because that's the only reason I can think of ethically think for putting people through this type of situation. And even that assumes it could be done under proper testing protocols, which from the info I have been able to get Mind Field didn't do, the subjects were not adequately informed as the to the harm they may be subject to.