- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
This is only superficially a prisoner’s dilemma. In a true one, you cannot get a better result for yourself no matter what the other person does, but here if you assume the other person pulled the lever, there is no reason to pull the lever yourself.
To fix this, you can have 4 relatives on the trolley, and 5 of the opposite faction way back on the middle track. Both do nothing, 1 relative of each is killed. One guy switches the lever, their relatives are all fine, other guy loses 5. Both switch, crash with all 8 relatives on the trolley dead.
I see what you’re trying to do and you’re not necessarily wrong, but you’re kinda perpetuating the attitude that inspired someone to make this meme in the first place
I’m not sure I follow. Should this meme’s creator not have been inspired?
Touche. But no, my point was more of a haphazard reflection on how both the Trolley Problem and Prisoner’s Dilemma are (by design) built on the idea of reducing human life and/or morality and empathy down to a math problem. It is a method of thought that has its purposes, sure, but I think too many people make that their default setting, which makes dehumanization more commonsublllif subconsciously. Idk man, I’m going through some stuff
Given that this problem is given during corporate interviews … it probably screens for the requisite level of sociopathy.
How much did I like that one guy really.
Are the 5 people on the opposong trolley worthy of death? Will killing them outweigh losing my loved ones?
Or is the one loved one ill save my really hot 1st cousin?
Because with the rest of the family dead, we can live happily ever after without any annoying incest complaints.
ಠ_ಠ
Do nothing that way you don’t get to jail for murder. All the pressure goes to the other guy. Sue the railway company, guy who pulled the lever and the creator. Another is find a way not to reach to that point.
Also, it’s too late to pull the lever, you’ll just provoke a crush.
They’ve already both chosen not to pull the lever at this point. Guess they didn’t want to make a wider picture.
I feel like you’re not internalizing that this is a thought experiment.
This is the dumbest thought experiment I’ve ever seen.
Or so you think
I envy you then
Questions: why doesn’t the person at the switch run and get the person off the tracks? And the people on the trolley hop off or try to the sslow the trolley?
something something about conservation of momentum, them jumping off speeds up the trolley
Not if they jump from the front of the trolley
They are tied to their chair with the only thing they can do being flipping the lever. It is the prisoner’s trolley problem
I think this exposes the sadism of philosophy the past few hundred years.
Often, it’s been some rich idle folks making up murderous fantasies in their heads while looking down at my ancestors . “Oh, you don’t know page 273 of Aristotle’s rejoinder? Haha, you must be too poor”.
The outcome from both levers pulled is so steep that it really makes no sense to pull the lever
That’s why they won’t pull the lever, and that’s why you should.
They’ll be thinking the same thing tho and if there is a greater than 20% chance of them pulling the lever it’d be worse in terms of losing family members than not pulling at all.
But in terms of overall death, not pulling the lever is 1 or 4, and pulling the lever is 4 or 13
Not really. This would all happen so fast and be emotionally, not logically, driven.
Depends on the loved one, tbh 🤷🏼♂️
Theoretically, will a collision cause a breach of the radioactive material that’s in the box with my cat? Asking for a friend.
If cat can witness the event, then Yes or No but not both.
Yes and no.
for the longest time, i did know that game theory did not have anything to do with “games” and that it is somehow connected to the prisoners dilemma, but the concept as such wasn’t very clear to me. If you are like my former me, take 30 minutes out of your day and visit https://ncase.me/trust/ to learn and play around with game theory; it’s a great webpage and it’s pretty good fun all around.
For those interested, Veritasium has a very good video on this. It also sort of tells what strategy is optimal to “win”.
I did a few game theory simulations in college and they were always real interesting. In one of them for example, it was a multiplayer game, with multiple interactions. I think it was to simulate global trade basically: you could cooperate with as many players as you want and each time you cooperate you both get a point. If you defect then you get two and they get none. However, all the players could see what the other players are doing, so if you defected they would know and probably would play (trade) with you. The best way to win was to form as many connections as possible and fully cooperate the whole time.
I formed maybe like 20-30 connections with other players and didn’t defect. Each point was worth a few cents or something. So I walked out with a check for like $20-$50 or something. Many players walked out with nothing because they cheated too many people too many times and nobody wanted to trade with them.
Therefore, clearly, the best economic policy is protectionism, tariffs, trade wars, and fucking over both allies and enemies, right? Right?!?
Your simulation seems to only punish selfish actors when that’s not always the case. Doesn’t include natural monopolies, lacks clandestine exploitation, and there’s likely no market capture or saturation. In such a case the only play is to cooperate.
Thank you for sharing the link. That webpage is amazing!
That page is very well done and interesting, thanks for sharing!
looking at the junction points on that diagram only one side of the axle would change track if the switch was pulled resulting in a derailment so you could ignore the possibility of hitting the people in the middle thereby reducing this example to two parallel but unconnected trolley problems
i choose to kill whoever calls them trolleys and not trams
The last line of these is always what the poster wants to happen
everything else is skewed rationale to make you think it is a funny
it is, in reality, anti-intellectual propaganda
I think most of these have just become self-satire and clever attempts to come up with increasingly convoluted ethical choices.
It’s not anti-intellectualism, it’s anti-trolly-problem specifically.
My favorite version is:
A trolley is approaching a junction and you have the ability to leave the switch where it is, sending the trolley into an innocent person tied to the tracks, or pull the lever sending the trolley down the tracks to someone else that is now faced with the same trolley problem.
easy pull both levers
Philosphers really just go “imagine how fucked up it would be if…” and then take it incredibly seriously
There is no such thing as an “amount of people”. It’s “number of people”. And the question given is basic game theory, just worded to be nasty.
I think it’s “amount” after the trolley is done squishing them into goo
I think these scenarios might be easier to analyze if we made them a bit more realistic.
This an analogy for military intervention. If we empower our military to be proactive, we can save one "good guy"TM by killing 3 bystanders. But if NATO’s adversaries are participating too we lose 3 of our "good guy"TM
Look at the actual Cuban Missile Crisis.
I think the abstract nature is one of the strengths. If you ask someone a question about military intervention, their pre-existing views towards military intervention will heavily bias their answer.
mercifully pulling both levers.
But then how do you kill the remaining two people?
Survivor’s guilt
