Because deep thinking is good for the mind!

[kaaatie]

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]

Comments

[crysothemis.livejournal.com]

I'd volunteer in the car example because I don't want a corvette. ::g::

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::

[kaaatie.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that dilemma is pretty similar.

You're so right, that Sheppard would volunteer, whereas McKay would find another solution (whilst bitching and moaning the whole time!) :D