Are you a psychopath? Take a quick test

You can alternatively watch the video below for a better idea of the scenario:

A couple things first:
* You do not know any of the people
* You cannot stray from the decisions.
* This is not a trick question. You simply choose one of the options provided.

You are on a ledge above train tracks. Below, a small train is hurtling along the tracks going quite a fast speed. There are 5 people trapped and tied to the tracks a bit past you. Fortunately, there is a fork in the tracks, and you can flick a switch that will divert the train along another path; however, that path has a single person trapped on those tracks. Now here is the question: Would you flick that switch?

To many, that might be an easy decision: 1 dead is better than 5. Let's change the scenario slightly. There is still a small train hurtling towards 5 people. This time, however, you are on a ledge above the train. There is a large man that you're standing behind. He is just large enough that if you push him off the ledge, he will land on the tracks and derail the train, saving the 5 people tied up. Now, would you push that man over the ledge?

Now that may be a trickier situation. The final step, and my own personal addition, is this: Now there is only one person tied to the tracks. This, however, is someone you love (spouse, mother, brother, etc). Would you push that man over the ledge now?


Ran into this a few years ago, and just remembered it. Please take the time to actually think about what you do, and the implications behind each action.

 

I don't really think he's trying to say the decision from the outcome is the result of being a psychopath. He's saying that the difficulty in making that decision when things get "hands on" is where the determination for a psychopath comes from. In essence, the normal person will use their emotional thought where as a psychopath will use logical/rational thought when they should be thinking emotionally. That detachment is what considers the person a psychopath.

However, it is a little pop quiz psychology. Of course, the first scenario I'd happily flip the switch for the greater good / less collateral damage. However, to actually throw the person off.. Not a chance. Even for the sake of emotional though, I doubt I'd be able to throw someone off a bridge who has the collective mass to stop a moving train. Though for the main reason it is "hands on".

There's other alternatives to these sort of questions as well. For instance, if you had just travelled back in time and found yourself in a maternity ward with who you know it Adolf Hitler laid in-front of you, would you take the "babies" life, knowing what you would prevent?

Or another.. You are a surgeon with twelve highly successful people in your theatres; they have families, dependants and help a wide collection of people. All destined to their soon fate because of a lack of organs that they require. Then, out of nowhere walks in a young man ( down and out ) for a checkup. You find in the checkup, all of his organs are a perfect match for your twelve successful people. This man, has no family, friends, job or lacking care for anything other than himself. Would you take his life during his checkup to help your twelve other patients? ( whilst this one seems very harsh, it is too another which a psychopath will additively come to the conclusion saving twelve is better than one, rather than dealing with the emotional backlash of taking this man's life. )

EDIT: and for your added question. If I could guarantee their safety by doing so.. Of course.

 

I wouldn't flip the switch to save 5 and I wouldn't push the fat guy over. I believe I'm a sociopath, is there a test for that? :\

 

The trolley scenario is always such an interesting one, especially if you try to get someone to explain their choice. It can get even more complex as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

 

Read that, and there are certainly some interested variations in there. I have another scenario that I might post later on, but I can't put it into words and am currently too lazy to do much of anything atm haha. But thanks for the link and informing me of the type of scenario it's called

 

Under the moral foundation behind our justice system, it is clearly immoral to act in either case. You're supposed to let the 5 die in both situations.

I agree with this assessment. If you push someone off or pull the lever, you're committing murder. If you don't, you're failing to save lives because of a worse alternative (murder). I think the second option is much more morally justifiable.

Edit: I'd like to add that I take the two hypothetical situations to be exactly the same in terms of the moral issues at stake. Pulling the lever and pushing the person are the same. I believe this is self-evident, so it would be a waste to type out an explanation for why this is so, but if someone wants me to provide an explanation I can.

 

On paper, yes, it is the same scenario. However, when you dig deeper and really think, it's different. More people are inclined to flip the switch, as it's easier to distance yourself from committing murder if you're just flipping a switch. However, when you have to physically push someone, you can't distance yourself from that.

 

dun give a fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuk, flip the switch and chuck the fatty

 

So what is it when you go through the motions so no one questions what you actually feel but in terms you don't feel any emotion towards anything that you should?

 

That's part of what the test is geared for. If you feel nothing then it can suggest that you're a psychopath. It's of course by no means definitive, it's just something fun to throw around.

Not sure if there is a term of faking or a lack of emotional response though.

 

Just because people treat it differently does not make it morally different. That is my point. Both are murder regardless of the way you handle them.

 

I'm not saying one is morally better than the other. As there is no "correct" answer, it's up to interpretation. Some may feel it's necessary to preserve life and push the large man. Some may feel it's morally unjust to push him, and wouldn't be able to. Some feel no empathy at all and are more than willing to push the large man, or not act at all and just watch the 5 people die.

I'm not sure you can constitute not acting as murder. Here is a similar scenario. There tend to be three responses: fight, flight, or freeze. Many people might freeze in this scenario. A prime example is when I asked this question to one of my friends, and I gave them 30 seconds to react (more than enough time to push the large man). He stuttered and wasn't able to make a decision in that time, hence he froze. Because he was faced with a difficult situation and wasn't able to act, was he a murderer?

 

I mean let me give an example. Say some one gets hurt. I know I should care so I do what I've seen caring people do. I don't have a natural response to someone getting hurt, I actually think nothing of it. In terms of comedy though, I do find things funny naturally. So it makes me question if I am just emotionally numbed out on certain emotions but not all.

 

Sorry, there was an ambiguity in my last statement. I was saying both are murder (if you choose to flick the switch or push the man) according to whatever way you mentally handle the situation. I agree that it is not murder to refrain from pushing or pulling the lever; indeed, like I said earlier I think it's the only way to avoid murder.

I would argue that there is a correct answer because morality is capable of being argued and figured out. The obstacle to a correct answer of morality is that at some point we have to have a base belief which cannot be justified in itself, but which is necessary for morality (Ex: Pain is bad; or human beings have rights). But if we are talking about the issue with some people who have gotten on board an original premise of morality, I think that after that point we can start making arguments and finding the right answer. This is more evident when we think that there can be false answers. If we're engaging a system of morality, claiming that the general right thing to do is to make people suffer will be an incorrect answer. This opens the possibility for a correct answer no matter how elusive it may be.

So implicit in my statement is the idea that matters of opinion would not be enough for moral justification. Someone could not say "I would push them, this is my belief" - he or she would have to provide justification, justification that could be analyzed. So if we accept certain moral premises (whatever those would have to be) then there would be correct and incorrect answers to these questions. These would be confirmed by reasoning and evidence.

Moral opinion is really rather empty when we consider the nature of morality. If everything is a matter of opinion, then we shouldn't listen to anyone and should put forth our own systems, because reasoning is really irrelevant. Obviously this would erode the nature of morality. Alternatively, if everything is not a matter of opinion, then opinion is now irrelevant (obviously). So naked opinion is quite the waste of time.

 

I would flick the switch in scenario 1 but wouldn't even contemplate scenario 2. As for your questions, I would indeed kill Hitler as a baby knowing full and well what he would grow up to be (I'd save millions of lives by doing so). I wouldn't take that mans life, it doesn't matter if he has no family and only cares for himself, I have a responsibility as a Surgeon to help patients, not intentionally kill them.

 

Seen this, very interesting. On a minor level it's quite significant to the thinking patterns of a psychopath but it's truly scary to know how common it's become to be like this.

 

I'd have to disagree with you. I think you're arguing more of a 'popular opinion' which does not necessary go hand-in-hand with morality. One such example is rights for homosexuals. A now popular opinion is that it is acceptable, while 10 years ago the popular opinion is that it is not. Does this mean that based on current trends and popularity, morality can change? You can't necessarily argue that there is a correct and incorrect answer. Someone might push the large man to save the 5 people while another may not. Both sides have justifiable and sound reasoning as to why they chose to do so. A question with a correct answer means that it has to be universally correct and have no opinion: 2 + 2 = 4. This cannot have a correct and incorrect answer.

 

Flip the switch, push the man, save loved one.

Didn't have to think about that at all. lol

 

Well, there are studies that have empirically concluded a link between "utilitarian" psychology and psychopathic tendencies. I say "utilitarian" because the actual findings are a lot more convoluted (like when you take the fat man out of the scenario and instead have the option of jumping in front of the train yourself to stop it: a true utilitarian would sacrifice himself to save the lives of the 5 others, whereas we would expect a psychopath not to). I can definitely see some kind of link between the two though, especially when you look at the later scenarios and what would be involved in simply maximizing utility.

I agree with this. You can be logically and consistently carried to any moral position simply based on your moral framework, i.e. what initial premises you take to be true. So I guess what we really should be arguing - or the only thing worth arguing, perhaps - are the foundations on which we are building our views of morality.

I would argue that there does exist a universal moral standard, and while that has remained unchanging, our understanding of morality is what has evolved and advanced over time. I agree with the fact that we can't really assign "correctness" to morality so much as we can only compare moral ideas within themselves (in how well they align with a universal moral law).

 

my thoughts on the matter?: Considering a psychopath has more than just a single empathy symptom of psycopathy, this can be describing someone with ADHD and a social communication disorder if you want. this is certainly not even considered a test in my honest opinion.

What would i do personally?: I would do both scenarios for sure (kill 1 not 5), it makes complete logical sense and i do not connect with my emotions as well as other people for a lot of reasons. I would much rather kill 1 person than kill 5 because by doing nothing i am in fact killing 5 people because i have the ability to stop it.