[Bork]

[ QUOTE ]


But anyone who says they definitely would do this or they certainly would do that under such and such circumstances is deluding themselves. You are not in that choice situation. You can say anything you like now in your swivel chair, but it has little bearing on what preferences or value scale you would actually demonstrate in the actual situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

What people claim they will do has little bearing, yes. What leads them to say it (past experiences/ current beliefs) could have signifigant bearing on what they would actually do. Though it won't necessarily have any bearing.

There are a lot of hypothetical questions where what people say they will do is a good indicator of what they actually would do. Cases which involve a lot emotions and instinct aren't often among them, because it's impossible to simulate what kind of overpowering fight/flee/empathy feelings will determine what you do. (if you have in fact saved somebody in the past at great risk to yourself then I think then you may well be justified in saying you would save the child.



[ QUOTE ]
And the people who insist they'd help and that helping is so righteous are probably more likely to just be overcompensating for the fact that they're wusses who would run as soon as the situation got a little scary.

[/ QUOTE ]
Saying people who claim they would save the kid are less likely to actually do so than those who claim they wouldn't is pretty crazy. People can be and are often wrong about what they actually would do. Some even will lie about what they believe they would do. This doesn't entail or suggest the opposite correlation though. Many of the No's could be wussies too and even be answering 'no' because of that knowledge of themselves. It's odd that you think that the Nos/Probably Nots are more honest and in touch with reality, yet are more likely to save the child which they don't think they would have.