So, humans are actu­al­ly remark­ably averse to per­form­ing harm­ful actions. And para­dox­i­cal­ly, one of the best exam­ples of this is war. After the Battle of Gettysburg, 27,500 mus­kets were recov­ered. And the US Army expect­ed to find almost all of them emp­ty. Because what sol­diers were trained to do is to load a car­tridge in the rifle and then as soon as they had it loaded, point it at the ene­my and shoot. But when the Army ana­lyzed the the mus­kets that were col­lect­ed, what they found is only about 15% of them were emp­ty. And maybe 45% or so were loaded with one car­tridge. But amaz­ing­ly, almost a quar­ter were loaded with two car­tridges, one right on top of the oth­er. And the remain­ing quar­ter or so were loaded with three or even more. Sometimes up to twen­ty car­tridges stacked one on top of the oth­er.

Fiery Cushman Studying Harm 002

And when the Army tried to fig­ure out what was going on, what they real­ized was that the sol­diers were load­ing, they were try­ing to shoot but they couldn’t pull the trig­ger. So they would pre­tend. And then they would load again, and pre­tend again, until final­ly some­body shot them.

So, for the US mil­i­tary, they con­sid­er this an enor­mous prob­lem and you can under­stand why. It hap­pens in con­flict after con­flict. It’s not just the Civil War. Front line GIs are real­ly resis­tant to killing. But from my per­spec­tive, I hope from yours too, you don’t see this as a prob­lem but an extra­or­di­nary oppor­tu­ni­ty to try to under­stand the emo­tion­al mech­a­nisms that pre­vent humans from doing harm to each oth­er, but also to under­stand their lim­i­ta­tions.

So in my lab we’ve been doing a lot of work on this. One of the most recent par­a­digms that we’ve used to try to get this under exper­i­men­tal con­trol is to ask peo­ple to act out pre­tend harm­ful actions. So for instance, we’ll give them a dis­abled hand­gun. We’ll show them that it’s fake. That it couldn’t pos­si­bly harm a fly. We put it in their hands and then we ask them to shoot us in the head. Actually, most of the time it’s my grad­u­ate stu­dent.

So then what we do, we have them hooked up to to mea­sure­ment devices that record their blood pres­sure, heart rate, so on and so forth. And those are reli­able indi­ca­tors of a kind of aver­sive emo­tion­al response. And we find that even for a total­ly pre­tend behav­ior, peo­ple have a real­ly dra­mat­ic emo­tion­al response to this.

But inter­est­ing­ly, if we ask them to just watch as one grad­u­ate stu­dent shoots anoth­er grad­u­ate stu­dent, the response is sig­nif­i­cant­ly weak­er. And this teach­es us some­thing real­ly impor­tant about the nature of our aver­sion to harm. So, naïve­ly you might think that the rea­son that we don’t like to shoot a gun is because we don’t like the out­come. We don’t like the fact that it’s going to kill a per­son. But even though that’s almost cer­tain­ly true, it couldn’t pos­si­bly explain the data that I showed you, because first of all peo­ple knew that there was no actu­al harm that was going to occur. And sec­ond of all, if they’d been wor­ried about even an imag­ined out­come, they should’ve been just as wor­ried when they were wit­ness­ing as when they were doing it them­selves.

So what it looks like is part of our aver­sion to harm is real­ly just an aver­sion to the phys­i­cal action. It’s an aver­sion to feel­ing the weight of the met­al in your hand and wrap­ping your fin­ger around the trig­ger. In a follow-up study, we cre­at­ed a new ver­sion of this where instead of hav­ing peo­ple pull the trig­ger with their own fin­ger, we just tied a six-inch rope around and had them pull the rope. And under those con­di­tions, you find that the emo­tion­al response dropped by almost half. And this is real­ly real­ly sig­nif­i­cant in an era when bat­tle­field tech­nolo­gies are chang­ing the types of phys­i­cal actions that sol­diers are called upon to per­form, in ways mak­ing them much more dis­tant from their vic­tims. But I think equal­ly impor­tant­ly in oth­er ways bring­ing them much much clos­er to their vic­tims.

And this isn’t just a mat­ter of war, either. I mean, all of you have tech­nol­o­gy in your pock­ets that in ways make you much much more dis­tant from peo­ple, and in equal­ly impor­tant ways bring us much clos­er togeth­er. And this rais­es deep ques­tions for how you’d want to design and use that type of tech­nol­o­gy.

But for me per­son­al­ly, what’s most excit­ing about this research is that all around the world I have col­leagues who are mak­ing great strides in under­stand­ing human learn­ing. The neur­al and a com­pu­ta­tion­al mech­a­nisms that trans­late the expe­ri­ences that we under­go into the behav­iors that we per­form. And in my lab we’re try­ing to take these mod­els and use them to under­stand moral behav­ior. And so this presents us with a real­ly big ques­tion. And this isn’t just a ques­tion for me or for my lab but for the whole field of moral psy­chol­o­gy. Which is, as we gain a bet­ter sci­en­tif­ic under­stand­ing of human morals, is it pos­si­ble that we can actu­al­ly over­come some of its lim­i­ta­tions?

Thank you very much. 

Further Reference

This presentation at the PopTech site.

Help Support Open Transcripts

If you found this useful or interesting, please consider supporting the project monthly at Patreon or once via Square Cash, or even just sharing the link. Thanks.