Blake, I do not know who you are talking to, but it is not me. I believe that women can take many precautions to prevent negative situations. I also believe that a person can reduce the possibility of getting hit by lightning by not bringing a umbrella into a lightning storm. In the story, the woman could be more cautious; however, she is not responsible for being stabbed. The killer is responsible because she would not have been stabbed if it weren’t for them. There may be reasons responsible for the killer’s actions; however, in the context of the story, the killer is responsible for killing the woman and we should be concerned about our own thinking if we blame the woman more than the killer.
Also, please drop the righteous indignation. It’s not conducive to the conversation.
And I find it offensive when people read one sentence and think it determines an entire worldview. Why jump to the conclusion that makes you hate the person, instead of the conclusion that the person didn’t choose the optimal wording? Why choose malice before ignorance?
And while I see no reason to put the woman ahead of the person who killed her, I do agree that, as the story is presented, the woman carries some blame. We are given enough details that I would expect any precautions she took before choosing the more dangerous route would have been mentioned. And we also know her motivation was to do something immoral. She chose to value not getting caught over her own life.
And I would also put the ferryman at fault–as one should not follow a rule when it causes more harm than good. It has nothing to do with getting involved with the coverup–because as soon as you know about it, you’re involved anyways.
Oh, and I just noticed that the PDF seems to present the Stanford Prison Experiment as a legitimate test. Oh, how much I would love to point out the bias that the experiment must have worked properly, and bring up all the faults if I were taking that test.
But I could be both what with the “and/or” qualifier. Besides, if I’ve lived long enough to be “old” then I deserve to be “senile.” I think I’ve earned both titles.
Can someone explain the term “cognitive bias” in the context of this story, and what element of the story is seen as eliciting cognitive bias in the reader?
My best guess is this: the woman’s reason for being on the wrong side of the river is taken into account when allocating responsibility for her stabbing. In fact it is irrelevant, as she would equally have been stabbed had she been there for a virtuous reason (e.g. caring for the sick). This is therefore an example of cognitive bias.
Similarly, if my allocation of blame was influenced by the race of the victim or of the stabber, that would be cognitive bias.
The version of this story familiar to me, ended with the lady drowning the river. There is crucial difference between introducing a introducing a physical event (e.g. a thunder storm), or an inanimate object (a bolt of lightening or a river) as the cause of death, as against a human agency (e.g. a highwayman or a serial killer), and it is as follows:
The inanimate object has no choice but to follow the laws of physics, and therefore the blame for the lady’s death can only be apportioned amongst the various players in the story. How the blame is divided, is then severely influenced by one’s social and cultural biases. On the other hand, if the death is caused by a human agency, then another factor comes into play, viz., the ability of the human agency to make a moral choice. Thus, the highwayman always has the choice to not stab her, the gunman the choice not to shoot, etc. . Even under extenuating circumstances, this choice, in principle, exists. And that is why the legal system, and by extension society (to the extent that its baggage of morals and prejudices will allow) must blame and punish the human agency. Of course, the blame/punishment may depend on the extenuating circumstances, but ultimately, it is the human agency which actually caused the death which will be to blame.
It is correct that much of this will depend upon the culture where the events occur. Under Sharia for instance the woman would be subject to death for having an affair anyway. The woman’s murder would more easily be seen as God’s will and if the highwayman were instead her brother, her murder would be seen as a way of restoring the family’s honor. Shame based cultures have a different hierarchy of sins and murder is not always at the top.
A rabid left winger of the US variety might be more likely to see both the highwayman and the woman as victims. Their list of six would be something like society (for not having a more casual attitude towards infidelity), George Bush (duh), global warming (for melting the glaciers and making the river too wide to swim or driving the highwayman out of his natural habitat), the capitalistic, pig dog ferryman (for valuing money over endangering a human life), the patriarchy (look at all of the men who could have helped the woman and chose not to for purely selfish reasons) and the rich (for not providing free public transportation for all and exploiting the working class thereby forcing the highwayman into his acts by desperation).
IMO the least likely group to blame the victim would be old, right wing Christians. While the other groups listed above would be acting in accordance with the creed they subscribe to, the old, right wing Christian would have to abandon their principles to blame the woman more than the murderer. Christ didn’t come up with the whole “cast the first stone” shtick as a lark. He was defending an adulterous woman from being stoned to death… and I say all of this as an atheist who doesn’t have an invisible man in the fight but who does have some knowledge of old, right wing Christians:D.
Stereotypes aside, I think this isn’t a particularly difficult problem and most people of all stripes in the US at least would have similar thoughts about how to assign blame or responsibility.