Does it make you less likely to flog the bishop?

I always wash my hands after killing kittens.

Washing is the only way to get the blood off.

"...and what is more interesting is that people who take shower before voting may be more likely to overlook political misdemeanours."

Does this mean that fifty million people didn't shower in November of 2004? That's some epic stank.

Oh...wait. Well, I screwed up that post.

Judas washed his hands, and it didn't make any difference...

what a gigantic waste of time. across the board. just a waste.. an utter waste.

Then again, some Muslim medical students in Britain are refusing to wash their hands before treating patients, so you take your pick about what is happening...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1577426/Female-Muslim-medic s-'disobey-hyg iene-rules'.html

A perfect example for a BULLSHIAT tag

If we're on the subject of animal abuse, can I wash my hands after choking the chicken?

The explanation for why French politics are so liberal.

More stunning science based on a sample of 22 people.

No way, my boss is a clean freak who showers about 3 times a day. He is a judgmental douchebag.

wASHING YOUR HANDS MAKES YOU LESS ASIAN.

I'm washing my hands of the whole affair.

Heh, I don't wash my hands. And I've been known to do 2 out of 3 things listed in the headline. Now all I need is a family dog, and I'll be 3 for 3.

Post hoc, ergo procter hoc? They really think washing your hands effects your moral standing?

Isn't it more likely that good-natured people are simply clean? Or does the cleanliness make us good-natured? Stupid article makes for great thread... AGAIN.

My dog read the headline and led me into the bathroom to wash my hands...

He's a bit paranoid, but looks tasty

Cleanliness is next to godliness.

It's good and bad no matter how you view it. You can "what if" all those situations to death. I've never seen the movie, but if they were only shown isolated scenes, none of the actions were put into perspective. So look, I'm doing a "what if" myself, because I assume they were only shown the isolated scenes. I'm supposed to assume these actions were all done in poor judgment and bad taste.

In other words, this tells me nothing. I'm with xBIGxEASYx, where's the BULLSHIAT tag.

\Also, I'm drunk
\\Ramble ramble

OniNeko: Post hoc, ergo procter propter hoc?

FTFY

Correlation != Causation

That is all.

Subby has gotten the study's meaning backwards, albeit not surprisingly, since the article itself turns the results around: cleanliness is not next to godliness, it's next to godlessness.

Sure, people are less judgmental when they are clean and thinking clean thoughts, but they are also less moral, if the study is correct.

I read another version on The Economist (new window) website Friday.

The study exposed some people to words that suggest cleanliness and others to words that suggest filth. They also showed some subjects to a clip from the movie Trainspotting (which is notoriously disgusting).

The "clean" test subjects rated immoral actions less severely, while the "dirty" test subjects rated them more severely.

Triggering thoughts of disgust would seem to trigger judgmentalism but also moral actions, while triggering thoughts of cleanliness would make the subjects more judgmental but also more likely to do evil things.

Hmmmm... the Germans are notoriously clean freaks aren't they? not to mention the British and Americans (co-inventors of the daily shower/bath).

Never had any problem with genocide, did they?

Disgust has been co-opted by the brain to make certain actions "disgusting", hence immoral, even though there is no literal "filth" involved.

Reminding people of "filth" makes them more judgmental of actions, their own or other's.

Not surprisingly, a tendency to think of yourself as "clean" and others as "filth" makes you more likely to be able to do horrible things to them.

By making test subjects feel "dirty" or simply think of "dirt", the study made them more likely to consider immoral acts as filthy and thus disgusting.

As the Economist article points out:

"The researchers report that those who were given the "clean" words or who washed themselves rated the acts they were asked to consider as ethically more acceptable than the control groups did. Among the volunteers who unscrambled the sentences, those exposed to ideas of cleanliness rated eating the family dog at 5.7, on average, on the wrongness scale whereas the control group rated it as 6.6. Their score for using a kitten in sexual play was 6.7; the control group individuals gave it 8.3. Similar results arose from the handwashing experiment.

Physical purification, in other words, produces a more relaxed attitude to morality. Perhaps it is no coincidence that Pontius Pilate is portrayed in the Bible as washing his hands of the decision to crucify Jesus. Something to think about for those who feel that purification rituals bring them closer to God."

If you are selecting a jury, you may want a jury of clean, upright, smug Pharisees. Somebody with dirty fingernails might be a little harsher on your client.

Makes you wonder if the connection between wealth, health, public sanitation, etc., and liberalism (both economic and social) isn't founded in part on increased access to clean water and soap.

The moralizing and judgmental Puritan gives way to the tolerant liberal (examples: Scandenavia, the UK, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Canada, New England) while the people with dirt on their hands (AND PROUD OF IT) are more likely to lean towards harsh punishment, the death penalty, concealed weapons, Strong Man government, etc.

Of course, the pattern is not simple: people who are easily disgusted may shun immorality more, but without disgust, people may tolerate it more, so that it may be the dirty peasants who chop the tyrant's head off, while the clean bourgeois hail him as a national hero.

It does point towards ways in which the manipulation of smugness, self-righteousness and disgust can be exploited to make people accept wrong-doing on the part of authorities, or be lead to hate and viciously attack the "unclean" part of society.

The moral is: you can be too rich and too clean.

Moderation in all things.

The real moral is that the relationship between cleanliness and godliness is more complicated than you might think.

Whoops! Flipped "less" and "more" in the following sentence:

"Triggering thoughts of disgust would seem to trigger judgmentalism but also moral actions, while triggering thoughts of cleanliness would make the subjects more less judgmental but also more likely to do evil things." (... or accept such actions in others.)

OniNeko: isn't it more likely that good-natured people are simply clean? Or does the cleanliness make us good-natured?

Or people that have good judgment about morals also have good judgment about cleaning themselves regularly?

McSherrie: Correlation != Causation

That is all.

And that is all I came in here for.

ukiah: OniNeko: isn't it more likely that good-natured people are simply clean? Or does the cleanliness make us good-natured?

Or people that have good judgment about morals also have good judgment about cleaning themselves regularly?

McSherrie: Correlation != Causation

That is all.

And that is all I came in here for.

thrice ditto.

I'm supposed to trust an online paper that spells judgment as judgement?

No Pontius Pilate references?