[Ruckus Fox]

Are you bored? Do you want to spend a measly minute to help out some college kids get some conclusive data? Mosey on over to the link below and take a quick 6 question survey to help us calculate some quick and easy data. Christians are especially helpful to the survey, though any other religious affiliation is welcomed.

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/FP6BQGC

All results are kept confidential, study is double-blind, and IP tracking has been disabled from the website.

Thanks for supporting my study group.

[Neraphym]

There is no option to throw gasoline on the fire that is about to consume the kindergartners?!?!

[x..]

I've done it.

[Jake]

Neraphym, on 29 November 2010 - 12:18 AM, said:

There is no option to throw gasoline on the fire that is about to consume the kindergartners?!?!

I too, found this disappointing.

[Ruckus Fox]

This was a legitimate study. Someone -did- actually put "call for a reward" and we ended up discounting that whole ballot due to the fact that they were an outlier and they didn't provide any why's. Research is done...I presented today and the class ate it up. Especially the black kid in the front...I don't think he ever stopped laughing from when I said "Feisty Christy" and "When Christians attack--this week on Discovery."

[Jake]

Where did "Fiesty Christy" come from?

And feel free to post results.

[Ruckus Fox]

I was describing the two Christian responders who chose to assault the bankrobber. Their reasons "why" were...very different from the two A/A's that chose that course of action. They were very vindictive and somewhat delusional.

About 1/3 of the respondents were Christian. About 1/2 were A/A, and the remainder were "Other."

Since these numbers are uneven, we calculated differences in ratios to themselves. Our hypothesis was that Christians will respond to ethical dilemmas no more "positively" than their nonreligious peers. In the end our hypothesis was proven correct, simply because there was not enough variation in order to fail to reject the null hypothesis.

For example, the Starfish question, the Christians actually pulled ahead a little bit. Their ratio of "Do nothing" to "Toss it back" was about .06. A/A's and Other's were tied at .09.

In the second question (regarding the train tracks) Christians followed an interesting trend. NO Christians decided to do nothing. They all definitely had a purpose. However, this average of people who did nothing (2) chose to save the infant rather than their family--something that no A/A's did and only one Other did. Otherwise Other's and A/A's were extremely similar in ratios. A/A's were more utilitarian in their answers (that is they chose to save the most people more often than they chose to selfishly save their families).

In the third question Christians repeated their trend. NO Christians chose not to donate. Twice as many of them chose to give money rather than food. A/A's were about tied for food and money (not a big surprise, as we've already established them as the most likely to behave Utilitarianly), but they had a whopping 8 people do nothing. Most of their responses were that they don't trust street charity...perhaps the Christian's faith is what makes them feel that charity is charity, regardless if it's crooked? Or perhaps the thought never crossed their minds. Other had a few skeptics, but most donated money.

In the flaming Kindergarten (Or Kindergarten der Toten) never once saved the driver...perhaps some vindictive nature in that? "He got what he deserved" responses, yes? A/A's saved the driver twice. Others didn't save the driver either. All three saved the children quite a bit...but there was a 4-5 average across the board of people who "did nothing." Most of these responses were rational though. Some said that they would call 911 and let them handle it. Others said that they wouldn't know what to do and didn't want to get in the way or end up hurting someone. That's a fairly legitimate excuse. There was one A/A outlier who chose to "ask for the reward." Since he was the only one of his kind (and didn't provide reasons why) we just excluded his entire results from the study. Our peers were in agreement.

In the bank robbery Christians were most likely to rush the robber (due to ratios, mind you). A/A were most likely to reason. And Christians and Other were almost identical, besides the fact that only one Other bumrushed the robber. They had the same number of reasoners and same number of nothings. Most of the "do nothing" responses here were also rational. In fact, it was the rational response (with the comfort others being the "positive" response). Not many people want to get shot...

So in the end, A/A take the lead with a couple, Christians take the lead with a couple (very slimly with that first one though--with a Tukey test I'm sure it wouldn't have a significant effect, thus we'd have to reject it). Our macro-analysis was that there is NO significant difference. Our hypothesis was proven. One of my classmates actually opened up an alternate hypothesis, to which our professor agreed. Religion has no effect on dilemma solving. In the end, when each person is brought to their core on the toughest decisions ever, we are brought to Act Utilitarianism. It really doesn't matter about our religion...but why, then, did those two Christians save the infant? A question that you'll just have to take on...pardon the terminology--faith.

I also made a cross-analysis into some of the Christian responses on the railroad. This was a trend I saw with about 4 answers, and I saw them ONLY in Christian responses. There were a few people who rejected the situation and said "I'll save the kid, my family can get out of the way" or something to the effect. Sorry to burst your bubble, but that's not how the situation works. The fact that these individuals were trying to switch the situation is a suresign that they're afflicted by the pre-determinism that exists with religion. "God is watching over me, so he'd never let anything bad happen that I couldn't handle." Sometimes you have to bite the bullet, and this is one of those situations. The fact that these people wanted to save both groups also held some validity with a messiah complex...which is fitting given the situation, but it's still neurotic delusional behavior. There were also a couple people (A/A, I believe) who used some very destructive defense mechanisms in justifying their choice on this matter. Rather than saying "Greatest amount for the greatest people" they said "who leaves a baby on the train tracks anyway?" The obvious, cruel answer is "the same people who left your family there." But the point is moot. What they're exhibiting is called Cognitive Dissonance. The most classic example is the fox from Aesop's Fables who wanted to eat the grapes high up on the branch. Unable to reach them, the fox finally dismisses the grapes and leaves, complaining that "they're probably sour anyway." This is a pretty normal defense mechanism, as identified by Sigmund Freud. It's popular...but destructive. It's better to take responsibility for the situation at hand rather than justifying why something worth having isn't worth having at all.

In the end it was a journey. We got great data from great people, and I couldn't be happier. One of my classmates said that she "really enjoyed it, and it could be interesting if it was done professionally in a journal." To which I laughed, smiled, and responded "God, I hope not. I hope no one ever has to do this study again."

Thanks to those of you who helped out.

[Jake]

None of it sounds terribly surprising really, except I'd have guessed there would be more gimmick answers *coughalphacough*.


Hope nobody ever has to do it again? Did you have to go around polling people or what? That would get old quick.

[Ruckus Fox]

It's more of a shocker to those devoutly religious with a narrow worldview. The different types of Christians who believe that "if you aren't Christian, you're going to hell" see themselves are more moral than their faithless peers. What we discovered is that's not the case. Christians maintain their hedonistic calculus with A/A's and A/A's are able to express empathy like Christians. It's not really so much a shocker to skeptics, but for zealots it's an eye opener.

I hope that no one has to do it again because I am a man of behavior. I am studying in the field of Psychology under a behaviorist approach to classes and therapy. Hence why my partner and I were able to guess the behavior without a second thought. All of man's decisions are motivated by goals, and since goals are relatable we can say that behavior is quantifiable. Being a man of behavior I know that trying to relate correlations to Religion is just as foolhardy as any other political policy involving church and state. You may as well argue abortion or stemcell research. You can easily defend both (as far as Religion goes) but you will rarely, if ever, get anything done. The area between Psychology and Religion is usually best left untouched, and is reserved for only the most nutty of Psychologists.

Thanks again for all of your responses.

[Darkness]

Oh, damn, I did the survey too late. xD

[Ruckus Fox]

*patpat* You're one of two. Don't worry.