[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Saying people who claim they would save the kid are less likely to actually do so than those claim they wouldn't is pretty crazy.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to be missing my point. My point (in agreement with OP) is that there IS NO WAY TO KNOW what we'd do and that the vast majority of our decision is made on the subconscious level. So pay careful attention to my wording. I'm referring to people who INSIST they would help.

Since I believe there is no way they could know this no matter how resolutely they claim it, all their sureness indicates to me is that they claim an irrational position. If someone said he had an 8 foot vertical leap, I would think "Hmm, humans don't have the capacity for 8 foot vertical leaps, so I wonder why he would say that?" From there, it seems more likely to me that they claim this because they'd actually be less willing to help than because they'd be more willing to help. Agree/disagree/why?

You can argue that my point only applies to their *perception* of themselves. Maybe the person who claims the 8 foot jump wishes for whatever reason that he could jump higher, but is still a great athlete. That's fine. But in general when someone claims an irrational attribute, I think it's (very slightly) more likely that they tend to actually not possess that attribute. I have no problem with "eh, I'd probably consider helping, but who knows" (since that falls within the range of what one could rationally claim).

I'm not really attached to the argument or anything though. It's probably entirely negligible. *If anything* were my key words. All I really meant was that I agreed the claims are empty.