So, if I’m following this right, we’re trying to explain why people empathize more with newborns than fetuses. Hypothesis H1 is that it’s because we have a cognitive bias in favor of empathizing with things we can see. H2 is that it’s because we have a cognitive bias in favor of empathizing with individuals with some unspecified attribute… perhaps simple chronological age… that, in the ancestral environment, was correlated with reproductive potential.
Did I get that right? I’m actually pretty fuzzy on what H2 actually is claiming.
Assuming I got that right, then H1 predicts that showing someone videos of a fetus will increase how much they empathize with the fetus; H2 doesn’t.
That seems like it should be easy enough to test. I would be astonished if it didn’t have that effect, personally.
In the study Eliezer linked to, they somehow managed to plot the “parental grief” variable against age and it closely matched the curve of “reproductive potential in the ancestral environment”. H2 makes the prediction that the curves will continue to match if we extend them into the pregnancy period. Not so easy to test. And I’d say it’s compatible with what you say H1 claims, because in the ancestral environment they didn’t have ultrasound scans and videos of fetuses, so seeing the baby might well be one of the cues used by H2. Keep on thinking...
Sure, if visible/invisible is the key attribute for H2, then H2 makes the same predictions as H1. In the absence of any clear claim about what attributes matter to H2, I’m not sure H2 is coherent enough to test.
Anyway, IIRC the experimental protocol EY referred to involved asking people how much they would grieve over the death of an N-day-old human for various Ns.
“Extending the curve” for that protocol into the pregnancy period is easy: ask people how much they would grieve over the death of an N-day-old fetus for various Ns. Beats me whether this tells us anything that matters, but I have the same problem with the original experiment.
I also admit to not really understanding what the curve of “reproductive potential in the ancestral environment” actually is… what are we measuring, here, and how are we measuring it? Perhaps if I understood that more clearly, it would be clearer how one could extend it into the gestation period.
So, if I’m following this right, we’re trying to explain why people empathize more with newborns than fetuses. Hypothesis H1 is that it’s because we have a cognitive bias in favor of empathizing with things we can see. H2 is that it’s because we have a cognitive bias in favor of empathizing with individuals with some unspecified attribute… perhaps simple chronological age… that, in the ancestral environment, was correlated with reproductive potential.
Did I get that right? I’m actually pretty fuzzy on what H2 actually is claiming.
Assuming I got that right, then H1 predicts that showing someone videos of a fetus will increase how much they empathize with the fetus; H2 doesn’t.
That seems like it should be easy enough to test. I would be astonished if it didn’t have that effect, personally.
In the study Eliezer linked to, they somehow managed to plot the “parental grief” variable against age and it closely matched the curve of “reproductive potential in the ancestral environment”. H2 makes the prediction that the curves will continue to match if we extend them into the pregnancy period. Not so easy to test. And I’d say it’s compatible with what you say H1 claims, because in the ancestral environment they didn’t have ultrasound scans and videos of fetuses, so seeing the baby might well be one of the cues used by H2. Keep on thinking...
Sure, if visible/invisible is the key attribute for H2, then H2 makes the same predictions as H1. In the absence of any clear claim about what attributes matter to H2, I’m not sure H2 is coherent enough to test.
Anyway, IIRC the experimental protocol EY referred to involved asking people how much they would grieve over the death of an N-day-old human for various Ns.
“Extending the curve” for that protocol into the pregnancy period is easy: ask people how much they would grieve over the death of an N-day-old fetus for various Ns. Beats me whether this tells us anything that matters, but I have the same problem with the original experiment.
I also admit to not really understanding what the curve of “reproductive potential in the ancestral environment” actually is… what are we measuring, here, and how are we measuring it? Perhaps if I understood that more clearly, it would be clearer how one could extend it into the gestation period.