Going back a while to answer parts of a post, as I've promised.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2004 1:28 PM Subject: Re: Terrorism too close to home... > > I saw the smiley, but I think you have over-simplified. This is not a > conflict between experiment and theory, but rather between theory and > theory. Gary has NOT performed the experiment of having his child taken > for ransom to see if he would try to pay with all the money from a bank. > Rather, he has hypothesized what he would do in such a situation. My > point was that he probably would not do what he said he would, in short, > because it would not be feasible (which would stop him in the short > term from doing something irrational) and is unlikely to achieve his > goal (which would stop him once he manages to calm down and behave > rationally). I read Gary far differently than you did. I read him as speaking of relative priorities. Its not that he disagrees with the idea that, in principal, paying kidnappers is a bad idea. Its not that he thinks he has an inherent right to the money of other people. Its that, given that, his priorities are such that his kids' lives mean more to him than his own, to any risk of inprisonment for theft, than the wrong inherent in appeasing kidnappers, etc. After having kids for a while, one has an inherent sense of their relative importance. Given this, and taking the possibility of stealing other people's money to save the life of one's kid as a given, then saying one would take the tradeoff is a good way to communicate priorities. I don't think it should be considered an action plan. As you pointed out, the trade probably doesn't really exist. The second think worth thinking about here is the difference between your perspective and Gary's and mine. We've both have had many examples where we needed to understand our own priorities and act upon them. Of course, the situation of a kidnapped child is extreme. But, most parents who've raised children through their teenage years do have some understanding of their thinking when their child's life is at all at risk. The reason I mentioned that I was surprised was not that I didn't anticipate my child's actions. I didn't adequately anticipate how I would feel and think about things. After I had children, I had a better understanding of how I would react in various circumstances. So, calling the two views theory and experimental overstated my view; thus the smiley. However, I would agree that a parent would be in a much better position to predict their actions regarding contingencies with their children than a non-parent. Extrapolation from limited data is not nearly as good as interpellation between close data points, but its better than nothing. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
