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

[paraka]

Ha, I did a lot of maybes in that post.
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.

[kaaatie.livejournal.com]

Yeah, without more information about the specific people involved, it's difficult to respond with a definite answer. Your logic certainly makes sense.

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! :)