• apollo440@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Kill fewer people now is obviously the right answer, and not very interesting.

    What is interesting is that the game breaks already at junction 34, which is unexpectedly low.

    So a more interesting dilemma would have been “would you kill n people now or double it and pass it on, knowing the next person faces the same dilemma, but once all humanity is at stake and the lever is not pulled, the game ends.”. Because that would involve first of all figuring out that the game actually only involves 34 decisions, and then the dilemma becomes “do I trust the next 33-n people not to be psychos, or do I limit the damage now?”. Even more interestingly “limiting the damage now” makes you the “psycho” in that sense…

    • The Snark Urge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The fact of the game never ending is what made the choice too easy, you’re right.

      EDITED

      For this study you want sociopathy, not psychopathy. I can report from my wasted psych degree that sociopathy occurs in 1-2% of the population.

      Binary probability tells us that if you repeat a 1% chance test 32 times, you have a 95% chance of never seeing it.

      Don’t pull the lever. Sorry for the ninja edit, I misread something.