![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Because deep thinking is good for the mind!
I have a hypothetical question related to a conversation that I've been having...
Let's presume that there's a group of prisoners (let's say 10 of them). An executioner puts them all in a position where each individual has a 50% chance of surviving (and a 50% chance of dying). There's no chance of escape, and no chance of rescue. However, if one of the prisoners volunteers to take the 50% chance of dying, then the other prisoners are all guaranteed to survive. The question is: do you think one of them would volunteer? Do you think the size of the group would influence the outcome?
Now, a different example.
A group of people are working in an office, and someone comes in and offers them all a chance to be given a new car (a corvette). Each individual has a 50% chance of getting a new car. However, if one person agrees to take the 50% chance at the car, then everyone else is guaranteed to get a new car. Do you think someone would volunteer? Do you think people would be more or less likely to volunteer in this example versus the other example?
I think this seems like the perfect opportunity for a poll:
[Poll #1194893]
Let's presume that there's a group of prisoners (let's say 10 of them). An executioner puts them all in a position where each individual has a 50% chance of surviving (and a 50% chance of dying). There's no chance of escape, and no chance of rescue. However, if one of the prisoners volunteers to take the 50% chance of dying, then the other prisoners are all guaranteed to survive. The question is: do you think one of them would volunteer? Do you think the size of the group would influence the outcome?
Now, a different example.
A group of people are working in an office, and someone comes in and offers them all a chance to be given a new car (a corvette). Each individual has a 50% chance of getting a new car. However, if one person agrees to take the 50% chance at the car, then everyone else is guaranteed to get a new car. Do you think someone would volunteer? Do you think people would be more or less likely to volunteer in this example versus the other example?
I think this seems like the perfect opportunity for a poll:
[Poll #1194893]
no subject
no subject
no subject
I think people would be more likely to volunteer in the life-or-death situation because they've got their priorities right there in front of them. In the car situation it's basically a matter of desiring physical possessions and people don't tend to think clearly in those sort of situations, greed tends to take over and make people jealous even of things they don't have yet...
no subject
That's about as clear as I'm getting on this tonight! *G*
no subject
Anyway, thanks for answering! :)
no subject
no subject
It's definitely an interesting area of study.
no subject
no subject
no subject
I said I'd explain because I think it's more of an equal-ish mixture of wanting to be a hero, identification with the group, and genuinely altruistic feelings...The more the person can identify with the group, I'm thinking the more they might feel like dying for the group is 'worth it'
I remember this story from WWII where the Nazis had rounded up all these villages/townspeople and said that if this saboteur (sp?) didn't come forward, all of them would be shot. This man did step forward, he was hanged/shot for spying, etc and the rest of the people were allowed to go. Bottom line, he didn't do the bombing. He gave up his life for the rest of those people, and he really sort of did it for all of those reasons, (at least that was my interpretation). I sort of based my answers on that first situation based on this story...
I'd like to think that more people would volunteer in the car example because it'd be a *nice* thing to do. Besides, 50% chance of winning one is better than nothing, which my chances of getting a new car are right now. Besides, maybe I could guilt one of the winners into sharing it with me? Or maybe they have a car newer than mine and they would let me use it while they drove the hot new car. :D
no subject
That story is very interesting (and sad). I think that it takes a certain sort of person to do that, but there certainly are people around who would willingly sacrifice themselves for the greater good. John Sheppard would!
I asked a few people at my work about the car example, and I was surprised by the number of people who thought that people would be less likely to volunteer in that situation. I would like to think that more people would volunteer --- as you said, they still have a 50% chance.
no subject
Seriously, though, this is basically pretty similar to the classic prisoner's dilemma (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/prisoner-dilemma/). The choices that get made depend on who stands to benefit, and on the relationship of the people involved. Of course, people aren't always rational in real life. But in fiction, I would expect the decisions to reflect the characters.
In other words, John Sheppard would totally volunteer. Rodney McKay would figure out a different, briliant solution to the problem. ::g::
no subject
You're so right, that Sheppard would volunteer, whereas McKay would find another solution (whilst bitching and moaning the whole time!) :D
no subject
no subject
no subject
i wrote a huge amount of stuff and i got sick of my brain vomit so i deleted it all... but here are a few thoughts on the prisoner scenario:
- depends on the conditions under which they are kept... do they socialise with other prisoners or are they confined to a solitary existence.
- if the prisoners socialise within the general community, then it is more likely that a person will volunteer for the 50% chance... they may enjoy a close relationship with another member of the group and wish to see them survive... or they may be feeling pressure from members of stronger groups (most if not all groups are decided by race in prisons, so you would be able to tell who is in which group just by looking in many cases), or fearing retaliation from other, stronger groups should they not volunteer, in which case they are protecting other members of their 'clan'...
-i have other thoughts but they're not very interesting... except that in the hostage situation i feel that the person most likely to volunteer would be a caregiver of another person in the group... so i think that you would see more volunteers wherein there are small groups in a relatively small, larger whole... having a larger group is good up to a point, but after a certain point a person will feel less responsibility and think more about being able to get through the ordeal just by being a face in the crowd... my previous thought about a member of a family volunteering to take the 50% shot is more likely to work in a group consisting of, say, a family and some individuals who are strangers... multiple families in the group are just going to... bah! too many variables... i'm done with this! should you want to discuss it in person over a few hundred drinks, you know where to find me! :P
ps - if we're going to be anal, then all people in the prisoner and hostage scenario have a 100% chance of dying... unless one or more of them are immortal... but i'm just being a prick now ;)
no subject
My brother also felt the need to point out that everyone has a 100% chance of dying!
But yes, we should discuss this in more detail over many drinks! We must catch up again before I go on my trip. Maybe next weekend? We have Queens Birthday public holiday on the Monday, so we could catch up on the Sunday night? Maybe pizza and guitar hero, or a movie or something?
no subject
no subject
I'd happily volunteer with the car because, well, cars don't bother me all that much either way! *g*
no subject
no subject
Now the car one, I don't know if they would be more likely to volunteer, only a moron would and I wouldn't volunteer, because I'd be waiting for the moron. You have a 50% chance of getting the car, but also a 50% chance of NOT getting the car.
Someone would be more likely to volunteer however, because no one's life is at stake.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Prisoner example: (note, since you later mentioned hostages, I'm equating prisoner with criminal) I think someone would probably go forward, if only because, I bet some of the stronger prisoners would make the weakest one "volunteer".
I also think the kind of prisoners might make a difference in whether or not someone volunteered. If they were all in there for white collar-type crimes like tax evasion or drinking and driving, than I think there would be fewer people volunteering, since they'd probably be more self centred. If the prisoners were all part of a gang, I could see one of the lower members seeing this as a risky opportunity to rise through the ranks, or get a reputation, or else, a loyal member stepping in to save his brothers. If it were rapists, murders or serial killers, then there might be someone crazy enough to not care if they live or die, or there might be someone sane enough to feel remorse.
The more people you have, the more chances there are that there's someone in the group either wanting to die, or willing to die for someone else, so I definitely think that if it were a bigger group, someone would volunteer.
In a hostage situation, I could definitely see someone volunteer. I think then people are more willing to play the hero in that kind of situation. I know that if I were ever in that kind of situation, I'd seriously think about it (although, I'm kind of a coward, so I can't promise I'd go through with it).
In the car situation, I definitely think someone would step forward. I bet there would be an awkward silence before hand, where everyone waits to see if someone else will step forward first. I'd be one of those people waiting to see, but if it looked like no one else was jumping up, I certainly would.
no subject
The group size thing is interesting. Your argument that an individual would be more likely to volunteer in a large group (as there are more lives to save) makes sense. But it's also possible that a larger group could reduce any one individual's feeling of personal responsibility, and therefore it might reduce the chance of someone volunteering.
I agree that someone should be more likely to volunteer in the car example. They're not changing their own chances of winning, and given that they didn't have a car before, they're not exactly 'losing' anything. I've been surprised by the number of people who've argued that people would be less likely to volunteer in that situation.
Anyway, it's all very interesting! :)
no subject
I'll come back and make a more intelligent reply when I'm not using a tiny phone keypad. :D
no subject