Poll: Dilemma. What will you do to protect yourself?

[Arakasi]

The thing is, though, that if you choose A, maybe your family and friends get nabbed. Well, all they need to do is press A as well, and then they'll be freed. So I dunno, you get out, send them all texts that say "Press A" or whatever.

The point is if you break it down visually, I think everyone could get the obvious choice really quick.

A + A = Everyone wins, every time!

B + A = Almost everyone wins, other guy gets maimed.

A + B = You get maimed, everyone else wins.

B + B = Both maimed, nobody wins.

B always features people getting maimed. Always. But if everyone chooses A, every time, everyone gets maximum profit. The prisoner's dilemma is not supposed to feature and "everyone wins with maximum profit" scenario, because if it did, the choice would be obvious. As it is here. Only a sociopath or someone who has not thought hard enough about it would ever choose B.

And even if you do get paired with a simpleton, then you're screwed, but hey, everyone else gets freed. So your sacrifice is not in vain.

Unless the OP comes forward with more rule changes to fix his goofy dilemma, I think I went ahead and solved it.

D:< I didn't change the rules. I clarified it once cus someone thought when I said "the game ends" it meant something other than "you are freed"

If everyone is operating under the same rules, then if everyone chooses A every time, nobody gets maimed and everyone eventually goes free. It's a prisoner's dilemma with a "maximum profit" option for all participants, where the only risk is being paired with some kind of moron. So, not really a prisoner's dilemma at all.

I solved your scenario. I'll accept my prize in the form of snack-sized Gardetto's packets, please and thank you.

One only needs to look at the poll to see that while you may have solved the scenario in a rational way, it would not work in reality.
So far almost half are some kind of moron.

 

[JoJo]

The only wise option is for everyone to choose only A.
Of course there will be some dickheads who choose B, but I won't let myself be one of them.

I disagree, the rational option from an individual perspective is to choose B. I'll explain why.

From a group perspective, it makes sense for everyone to pick A, since then everyone will benefit to some extent. For any single individual however it is advantageous to cheat and pick B since if the other person picks A they'll get the benefit of an early escape with no chance of further dilemmas and there's no way for them to be punished for this choice. As humans are not the Borg and generally act in their own self-interest, you would expect a significant number of people to choose B. It therefore is rational to choose the self-interested option B rather than the altruistic option A and risk being screwed over.

Yes, I am aware of how the dilema works.
Whatever the best strategy is depends upon the players in the game.
It depends on what you'd rather assume, that the people in your game are fuckers or that they are good people.
Maybe I have more faith in humanity than I thought I did.
At least I have more faith in myself.

Were I to die, or recieve any reprecussion from choosing only A, at least I would know I did the right thing.

You've backtracked now though, as if the best strategy does depend upon the players then "the only wise option is for everyone to choose only A" is clearly not true. I agree though, if I knew I was being matched up against friends and family then I'd pick A as I'd trust them to do the same. If it was strangers though, I wouldn't personally trust them to cooperate. I only see morality as socially-applied game theory really so I suppose that has some bearing on my answer.

If this were a scenario whereby you stuck with the same person for more than one round, it has been found that against most strategies in at least 2 simulations that I know of, either the tit for tat strategy (whereby you simply perform A until your opponent perfoms B, then do the same back) or the tit for two tat strategie (you do the same, but you pay them back doubly) were the best two.
However in this dilema you only ever face the same opponent once, so you do not get a chance to build a reputation.

Yeah, if it's the iterated prisoners dilemma then it makes sense to cooperate until they defect. Pretty much how morality works.

I see the logic in your moves, I simply cannot share them, I also think, and I apologise for this, that your kind of person is exactly why I think humanity is not worth continuing.

Well that's a strongly worded statement, though it did make me chuckle so thanks for that. I disagree though, humanity is pretty awesome in my opinion and I hope we expand and grow far into the future

Don't you see how when you don't trust someone to cooperate you become the very thing you hate?

I don't hate those who pick B though, all humans act ultimately out of their own self-interest, even those who are altrustic act to increase their own happiness, or for self-perceived glory or future rewards in the after-life.

As you can see by my choices I would not. As a society evolved beyond the days of old, we have the chance to create a conspiracy of A's. If it weren't for people like you.
This is a result of evolution, people who pick only A are likely going to get scourned (and those who share their genes) due to the selfish dicks who pick B, not only do those who pick B against A's increase largely in the population due to the nature of the game, but A's die out entirely, leaving everyone with only 1 limb. Picking only B ends up an evolutionary stable strategy, but when a society of 1 armed, no legged people meet a society of fully limbed people, well you can tell who will win that battle.

Being a product of evolution we are almost doomed to end up being B's, unless a conspiracy of A's form. If you are't a part of the solution you are a part of the problem.

No society would be cheat-proof unless it's people had no free will, and so I'd rather live in society where people have the freedom to be B's, even if that makes the society weaker in some way.

And yes, even those who chose A would be acting in their own self-interest as it would be protecting their perceived moral self-image, or protecting themselves from guilt, or keeping their place in heaven according to their beliefs etc.

I have no need for a moral self image, I don't believe in heaven, or any afterlife.
I do it only because I percieve it to be the only right thing to do.
However I am, in essence, evolutionarily maladaptive in this sense.

Also I would not suggest using the terms free will and freedom interchangably.

So tell me, what is your reason for doing something because it is the "right thing" to do?

A mix of upbringing and genetic predispositions, just like everything else.

Why then I ask would you allow yourself risk being grievously injured for the sake of morality, if it's nothing more than a tradition from upbringing and a genetic urge? Choosing B will benefit yourself and your family and the only thing you'll lose is breaking an arbitrary set of rules.

 

[itsthesheppy]

The thing is, though, that if you choose A, maybe your family and friends get nabbed. Well, all they need to do is press A as well, and then they'll be freed. So I dunno, you get out, send them all texts that say "Press A" or whatever.

The point is if you break it down visually, I think everyone could get the obvious choice really quick.

A + A = Everyone wins, every time!

B + A = Almost everyone wins, other guy gets maimed.

A + B = You get maimed, everyone else wins.

B + B = Both maimed, nobody wins.

B always features people getting maimed. Always. But if everyone chooses A, every time, everyone gets maximum profit. The prisoner's dilemma is not supposed to feature and "everyone wins with maximum profit" scenario, because if it did, the choice would be obvious. As it is here. Only a sociopath or someone who has not thought hard enough about it would ever choose B.

And even if you do get paired with a simpleton, then you're screwed, but hey, everyone else gets freed. So your sacrifice is not in vain.

Unless the OP comes forward with more rule changes to fix his goofy dilemma, I think I went ahead and solved it.

D:< I didn't change the rules. I clarified it once cus someone thought when I said "the game ends" it meant something other than "you are freed"

If everyone is operating under the same rules, then if everyone chooses A every time, nobody gets maimed and everyone eventually goes free. It's a prisoner's dilemma with a "maximum profit" option for all participants, where the only risk is being paired with some kind of moron. So, not really a prisoner's dilemma at all.

I solved your scenario. I'll accept my prize in the form of snack-sized Gardetto's packets, please and thank you.

One only needs to look at the poll to see that while you may have solved the scenario in a rational way, it would not work in reality.
So far almost half are some kind of moron.

Which is unfortunate. But that's life, isn't it? Just because some of us are clever enough to figure out this (rather simple) scenario, so many people are dopey that you run the risk of dying anyway. I've never driven my car intoxicated and never will, but someone else could and crash into me and kill me at almost any time. That's the risk we all take.

Choose A. It's the clear best option. If you get blown up, at least you'll be remembered as a hero by all the people that go free, and the guy who blew you up will have to go on multiple news programs to explain how he was such a moron that he couldn't figure out such a simple an obvious solution.

 

[RobfromtheGulag]

Not answer. These colors don't run.

 

[Arakasi]

The only wise option is for everyone to choose only A.
Of course there will be some dickheads who choose B, but I won't let myself be one of them.

I disagree, the rational option from an individual perspective is to choose B. I'll explain why.

From a group perspective, it makes sense for everyone to pick A, since then everyone will benefit to some extent. For any single individual however it is advantageous to cheat and pick B since if the other person picks A they'll get the benefit of an early escape with no chance of further dilemmas and there's no way for them to be punished for this choice. As humans are not the Borg and generally act in their own self-interest, you would expect a significant number of people to choose B. It therefore is rational to choose the self-interested option B rather than the altruistic option A and risk being screwed over.

Yes, I am aware of how the dilema works.
Whatever the best strategy is depends upon the players in the game.
It depends on what you'd rather assume, that the people in your game are fuckers or that they are good people.
Maybe I have more faith in humanity than I thought I did.
At least I have more faith in myself.

Were I to die, or recieve any reprecussion from choosing only A, at least I would know I did the right thing.

You've backtracked now though, as if the best strategy does depend upon the players then "the only wise option is for everyone to choose only A" is clearly not true. I agree though, if I knew I was being matched up against friends and family then I'd pick A as I'd trust them to do the same. If it was strangers though, I wouldn't personally trust them to cooperate. I only see morality as socially-applied game theory really so I suppose that has some bearing on my answer.

If this were a scenario whereby you stuck with the same person for more than one round, it has been found that against most strategies in at least 2 simulations that I know of, either the tit for tat strategy (whereby you simply perform A until your opponent perfoms B, then do the same back) or the tit for two tat strategie (you do the same, but you pay them back doubly) were the best two.
However in this dilema you only ever face the same opponent once, so you do not get a chance to build a reputation.

Yeah, if it's the iterated prisoners dilemma then it makes sense to cooperate until they defect. Pretty much how morality works.

I see the logic in your moves, I simply cannot share them, I also think, and I apologise for this, that your kind of person is exactly why I think humanity is not worth continuing.

Well that's a strongly worded statement, though it did make me chuckle so thanks for that. I disagree though, humanity is pretty awesome in my opinion and I hope we expand and grow far into the future

Don't you see how when you don't trust someone to cooperate you become the very thing you hate?

I don't hate those who pick B though, all humans act ultimately out of their own self-interest, even those who are altrustic act to increase their own happiness, or for self-perceived glory or future rewards in the after-life.

As you can see by my choices I would not. As a society evolved beyond the days of old, we have the chance to create a conspiracy of A's. If it weren't for people like you.
This is a result of evolution, people who pick only A are likely going to get scourned (and those who share their genes) due to the selfish dicks who pick B, not only do those who pick B against A's increase largely in the population due to the nature of the game, but A's die out entirely, leaving everyone with only 1 limb. Picking only B ends up an evolutionary stable strategy, but when a society of 1 armed, no legged people meet a society of fully limbed people, well you can tell who will win that battle.

Being a product of evolution we are almost doomed to end up being B's, unless a conspiracy of A's form. If you are't a part of the solution you are a part of the problem.

No society would be cheat-proof unless it's people had no free will, and so I'd rather live in society where people have the freedom to be B's, even if that makes the society weaker in some way.

And yes, even those who chose A would be acting in their own self-interest as it would be protecting their perceived moral self-image, or protecting themselves from guilt, or keeping their place in heaven according to their beliefs etc.

I have no need for a moral self image, I don't believe in heaven, or any afterlife.
I do it only because I percieve it to be the only right thing to do.
However I am, in essence, evolutionarily maladaptive in this sense.

Also I would not suggest using the terms free will and freedom interchangably.

So tell me, what is your reason for doing something because it is the "right thing" to do?

A mix of upbringing and genetic predispositions, just like everything else.

Why then I ask would you allow yourself risk being grievously injured for the sake of morality, if it's nothing more than a tradition from upbringing and a genetic urge? Choosing B will benefit yourself and your family and the only thing you'll lose is breaking an arbitrary set of rules.

1. I don't care about my family any more than I care about the average person.
2. I don't care about myself any more than I care about the average person.

I willingly don't take part in evolution.
I may be the product of it, but I will not play its game.
I rebel against evolution using the weapons evolution provided me.

 

[spartan231490]

I think you have a misunderstanding here, I wouldn't end up in this situation, because I would protect myself earlier. That aside, I would mash B like there's no tomorrow. Chances are, I'm gonna get freed along with all my friends and family either losing no limb, or one limb. Which would suck, but it's better than the alternative.

 

[blazearmoru]

The thing is, though, that if you choose A, maybe your family and friends get nabbed. Well, all they need to do is press A as well, and then they'll be freed. So I dunno, you get out, send them all texts that say "Press A" or whatever.

The point is if you break it down visually, I think everyone could get the obvious choice really quick.

A + A = Everyone wins, every time!

B + A = Almost everyone wins, other guy gets maimed.

A + B = You get maimed, everyone else wins.

B + B = Both maimed, nobody wins.

B always features people getting maimed. Always. But if everyone chooses A, every time, everyone gets maximum profit. The prisoner's dilemma is not supposed to feature and "everyone wins with maximum profit" scenario, because if it did, the choice would be obvious. As it is here. Only a sociopath or someone who has not thought hard enough about it would ever choose B.

And even if you do get paired with a simpleton, then you're screwed, but hey, everyone else gets freed. So your sacrifice is not in vain.

Unless the OP comes forward with more rule changes to fix his goofy dilemma, I think I went ahead and solved it.

D:< I didn't change the rules. I clarified it once cus someone thought when I said "the game ends" it meant something other than "you are freed"

If everyone is operating under the same rules, then if everyone chooses A every time, nobody gets maimed and everyone eventually goes free. It's a prisoner's dilemma with a "maximum profit" option for all participants, where the only risk is being paired with some kind of moron. So, not really a prisoner's dilemma at all.

I solved your scenario. I'll accept my prize in the form of snack-sized Gardetto's packets, please and thank you.

One only needs to look at the poll to see that while you may have solved the scenario in a rational way, it would not work in reality.
So far almost half are some kind of moron.

Which is unfortunate. But that's life, isn't it? Just because some of us are clever enough to figure out this (rather simple) scenario, so many people are dopey that you run the risk of dying anyway. I've never driven my car intoxicated and never will, but someone else could and crash into me and kill me at almost any time. That's the risk we all take.

Choose A. It's the clear best option. If you get blown up, at least you'll be remembered as a hero by all the people that go free, and the guy who blew you up will have to go on multiple news programs to explain how he was such a moron that he couldn't figure out such a simple an obvious solution.

You're not a monitor. Secondly according to the polls at this very moment, given the numbers are nearly dead even... A's are fucked fucked while Bs have gained immunity for their family and friends while they themselves get to escape. :|

 

[Arakasi]

The thing is, though, that if you choose A, maybe your family and friends get nabbed. Well, all they need to do is press A as well, and then they'll be freed. So I dunno, you get out, send them all texts that say "Press A" or whatever.

The point is if you break it down visually, I think everyone could get the obvious choice really quick.

A + A = Everyone wins, every time!

B + A = Almost everyone wins, other guy gets maimed.

A + B = You get maimed, everyone else wins.

B + B = Both maimed, nobody wins.

B always features people getting maimed. Always. But if everyone chooses A, every time, everyone gets maximum profit. The prisoner's dilemma is not supposed to feature and "everyone wins with maximum profit" scenario, because if it did, the choice would be obvious. As it is here. Only a sociopath or someone who has not thought hard enough about it would ever choose B.

And even if you do get paired with a simpleton, then you're screwed, but hey, everyone else gets freed. So your sacrifice is not in vain.

Unless the OP comes forward with more rule changes to fix his goofy dilemma, I think I went ahead and solved it.

D:< I didn't change the rules. I clarified it once cus someone thought when I said "the game ends" it meant something other than "you are freed"

If everyone is operating under the same rules, then if everyone chooses A every time, nobody gets maimed and everyone eventually goes free. It's a prisoner's dilemma with a "maximum profit" option for all participants, where the only risk is being paired with some kind of moron. So, not really a prisoner's dilemma at all.

I solved your scenario. I'll accept my prize in the form of snack-sized Gardetto's packets, please and thank you.

One only needs to look at the poll to see that while you may have solved the scenario in a rational way, it would not work in reality.
So far almost half are some kind of moron.

-snip- But that's life, isn't it? -snip-

Yes. Yes it is.
And people wonder why I have no faith in humanity.

 

[2xDouble]

Why then I ask would you allow yourself risk being grievously injured for the sake of morality, if it's nothing more than a tradition from upbringing and a genetic urge? Choosing B will benefit yourself and your family and the only thing you'll lose is breaking an arbitrary set of rules.

...and one or more limbs.

 

[itsthesheppy]

The thing is, though, that if you choose A, maybe your family and friends get nabbed. Well, all they need to do is press A as well, and then they'll be freed. So I dunno, you get out, send them all texts that say "Press A" or whatever.

The point is if you break it down visually, I think everyone could get the obvious choice really quick.

A + A = Everyone wins, every time!

B + A = Almost everyone wins, other guy gets maimed.

A + B = You get maimed, everyone else wins.

B + B = Both maimed, nobody wins.

B always features people getting maimed. Always. But if everyone chooses A, every time, everyone gets maximum profit. The prisoner's dilemma is not supposed to feature and "everyone wins with maximum profit" scenario, because if it did, the choice would be obvious. As it is here. Only a sociopath or someone who has not thought hard enough about it would ever choose B.

And even if you do get paired with a simpleton, then you're screwed, but hey, everyone else gets freed. So your sacrifice is not in vain.

Unless the OP comes forward with more rule changes to fix his goofy dilemma, I think I went ahead and solved it.

D:< I didn't change the rules. I clarified it once cus someone thought when I said "the game ends" it meant something other than "you are freed"

If everyone is operating under the same rules, then if everyone chooses A every time, nobody gets maimed and everyone eventually goes free. It's a prisoner's dilemma with a "maximum profit" option for all participants, where the only risk is being paired with some kind of moron. So, not really a prisoner's dilemma at all.

I solved your scenario. I'll accept my prize in the form of snack-sized Gardetto's packets, please and thank you.

One only needs to look at the poll to see that while you may have solved the scenario in a rational way, it would not work in reality.
So far almost half are some kind of moron.

Which is unfortunate. But that's life, isn't it? Just because some of us are clever enough to figure out this (rather simple) scenario, so many people are dopey that you run the risk of dying anyway. I've never driven my car intoxicated and never will, but someone else could and crash into me and kill me at almost any time. That's the risk we all take.

Choose A. It's the clear best option. If you get blown up, at least you'll be remembered as a hero by all the people that go free, and the guy who blew you up will have to go on multiple news programs to explain how he was such a moron that he couldn't figure out such a simple an obvious solution.

You're not a monitor. Secondly according to the polls at this very moment, given the numbers are nearly dead even... A's are fucked fucked while Bs have gained immunity for their family and friends while they themselves get to escape. :|

Well, they're either blowing each other's limbs off, or horribly maiming one person to save themselves, rather than thinking. The point is, this scenario has a clear "everyone wins" option, all it proves is that people like this guy:

...I would mash B like there's no tomorrow....

... don't know how to think critically. And this is why so many innocent people every year suffer at the hands of the morons of the world. If only their ineptitude harmed only themselves; but that's not the world we live in.

So congratulations, I guess. You have demonstrated that in any random sampling of humanity, it would appear that about half of them don't know how to think. It's a shame.

 

[Arakasi]

I did a quick simulation based from the even numbers.
With me picking A I did a flip to see if I was lucky enough to save myself, and the my opponent. I escaped unharmed.
I then did a flip for JoJo.
First flip he lost a limb, second flip he saved himself and his family from the game.

Take that however you will.

 

[blazearmoru]

The thing is, though, that if you choose A, maybe your family and friends get nabbed. Well, all they need to do is press A as well, and then they'll be freed. So I dunno, you get out, send them all texts that say "Press A" or whatever.

The point is if you break it down visually, I think everyone could get the obvious choice really quick.

A + A = Everyone wins, every time!

B + A = Almost everyone wins, other guy gets maimed.

A + B = You get maimed, everyone else wins.

B + B = Both maimed, nobody wins.

B always features people getting maimed. Always. But if everyone chooses A, every time, everyone gets maximum profit. The prisoner's dilemma is not supposed to feature and "everyone wins with maximum profit" scenario, because if it did, the choice would be obvious. As it is here. Only a sociopath or someone who has not thought hard enough about it would ever choose B.

And even if you do get paired with a simpleton, then you're screwed, but hey, everyone else gets freed. So your sacrifice is not in vain.

Unless the OP comes forward with more rule changes to fix his goofy dilemma, I think I went ahead and solved it.

D:< I didn't change the rules. I clarified it once cus someone thought when I said "the game ends" it meant something other than "you are freed"

If everyone is operating under the same rules, then if everyone chooses A every time, nobody gets maimed and everyone eventually goes free. It's a prisoner's dilemma with a "maximum profit" option for all participants, where the only risk is being paired with some kind of moron. So, not really a prisoner's dilemma at all.

I solved your scenario. I'll accept my prize in the form of snack-sized Gardetto's packets, please and thank you.

One only needs to look at the poll to see that while you may have solved the scenario in a rational way, it would not work in reality.
So far almost half are some kind of moron.

Which is unfortunate. But that's life, isn't it? Just because some of us are clever enough to figure out this (rather simple) scenario, so many people are dopey that you run the risk of dying anyway. I've never driven my car intoxicated and never will, but someone else could and crash into me and kill me at almost any time. That's the risk we all take.

Choose A. It's the clear best option. If you get blown up, at least you'll be remembered as a hero by all the people that go free, and the guy who blew you up will have to go on multiple news programs to explain how he was such a moron that he couldn't figure out such a simple an obvious solution.

You're not a monitor. Secondly according to the polls at this very moment, given the numbers are nearly dead even... A's are fucked fucked while Bs have gained immunity for their family and friends while they themselves get to escape. :|

Well, they're either blowing each other's limbs off, or horribly maiming one person to save themselves, rather than thinking. The point is, this scenario has a clear "everyone wins" option, all it proves is that people like this guy:

...I would mash B like there's no tomorrow....

... don't know how to think critically. And this is why so many innocent people every year suffer at the hands of the morons of the world. If only their ineptitude harmed only themselves; but that's not the world we live in.

So congratulations, I guess. You have demonstrated that in any random sampling of humanity, it would appear that about half of them don't know how to think. It's a shame.

Not really... According to the polls, you maimed yourself and risk the maiming of your loved ones. >-> Not sure that's the smartest plan...

Also you's right about there being a "everyone wins" solution. The problem is that this happens to be reality and such a solution is only delusion.

 

[JoJo]

The only wise option is for everyone to choose only A.
Of course there will be some dickheads who choose B, but I won't let myself be one of them.

I disagree, the rational option from an individual perspective is to choose B. I'll explain why.

From a group perspective, it makes sense for everyone to pick A, since then everyone will benefit to some extent. For any single individual however it is advantageous to cheat and pick B since if the other person picks A they'll get the benefit of an early escape with no chance of further dilemmas and there's no way for them to be punished for this choice. As humans are not the Borg and generally act in their own self-interest, you would expect a significant number of people to choose B. It therefore is rational to choose the self-interested option B rather than the altruistic option A and risk being screwed over.

Yes, I am aware of how the dilema works.
Whatever the best strategy is depends upon the players in the game.
It depends on what you'd rather assume, that the people in your game are fuckers or that they are good people.
Maybe I have more faith in humanity than I thought I did.
At least I have more faith in myself.

Were I to die, or recieve any reprecussion from choosing only A, at least I would know I did the right thing.

You've backtracked now though, as if the best strategy does depend upon the players then "the only wise option is for everyone to choose only A" is clearly not true. I agree though, if I knew I was being matched up against friends and family then I'd pick A as I'd trust them to do the same. If it was strangers though, I wouldn't personally trust them to cooperate. I only see morality as socially-applied game theory really so I suppose that has some bearing on my answer.

If this were a scenario whereby you stuck with the same person for more than one round, it has been found that against most strategies in at least 2 simulations that I know of, either the tit for tat strategy (whereby you simply perform A until your opponent perfoms B, then do the same back) or the tit for two tat strategie (you do the same, but you pay them back doubly) were the best two.
However in this dilema you only ever face the same opponent once, so you do not get a chance to build a reputation.

Yeah, if it's the iterated prisoners dilemma then it makes sense to cooperate until they defect. Pretty much how morality works.

I see the logic in your moves, I simply cannot share them, I also think, and I apologise for this, that your kind of person is exactly why I think humanity is not worth continuing.

Well that's a strongly worded statement, though it did make me chuckle so thanks for that. I disagree though, humanity is pretty awesome in my opinion and I hope we expand and grow far into the future

Don't you see how when you don't trust someone to cooperate you become the very thing you hate?

I don't hate those who pick B though, all humans act ultimately out of their own self-interest, even those who are altrustic act to increase their own happiness, or for self-perceived glory or future rewards in the after-life.

As you can see by my choices I would not. As a society evolved beyond the days of old, we have the chance to create a conspiracy of A's. If it weren't for people like you.
This is a result of evolution, people who pick only A are likely going to get scourned (and those who share their genes) due to the selfish dicks who pick B, not only do those who pick B against A's increase largely in the population due to the nature of the game, but A's die out entirely, leaving everyone with only 1 limb. Picking only B ends up an evolutionary stable strategy, but when a society of 1 armed, no legged people meet a society of fully limbed people, well you can tell who will win that battle.

Being a product of evolution we are almost doomed to end up being B's, unless a conspiracy of A's form. If you are't a part of the solution you are a part of the problem.

No society would be cheat-proof unless it's people had no free will, and so I'd rather live in society where people have the freedom to be B's, even if that makes the society weaker in some way.

And yes, even those who chose A would be acting in their own self-interest as it would be protecting their perceived moral self-image, or protecting themselves from guilt, or keeping their place in heaven according to their beliefs etc.

I have no need for a moral self image, I don't believe in heaven, or any afterlife.
I do it only because I percieve it to be the only right thing to do.
However I am, in essence, evolutionarily maladaptive in this sense.

Also I would not suggest using the terms free will and freedom interchangably.

So tell me, what is your reason for doing something because it is the "right thing" to do?

A mix of upbringing and genetic predispositions, just like everything else.

Why then I ask would you allow yourself risk being grievously injured for the sake of morality, if it's nothing more than a tradition from upbringing and a genetic urge? Choosing B will benefit yourself and your family and the only thing you'll lose is breaking an arbitrary set of rules.

1. I don't care about my family any more than I care about the average person.
2. I don't care about myself any more than I care about the average person.

I willingly don't take part in evolution.
I may be the product of it, but I will not play its game.
I rebel against evolution using the weapons evolution provided me.

Most moral impulses are the product of evolution, indeed social groups can only exist in the long run with some form of tit-for-tat morality and so it's certainly useful for keeping society in functioning and in order. That doesn't mean that it's in one's self-interest to stick to a society's morality all the time however, I live purely for my own happiness. I do generally help people and am friendly though because it pleases me to do so.

Now we see however why choosing A would be in your self-interest, you see yourself as a rebel against perceived humanity selfishness and so selecting B would break that self-image and with it much of your identity.

 

[JoJo]

Why then I ask would you allow yourself risk being grievously injured for the sake of morality, if it's nothing more than a tradition from upbringing and a genetic urge? Choosing B will benefit yourself and your family and the only thing you'll lose is breaking an arbitrary set of rules.

...and one or more limbs.

Multiple posts in this thread have already covered this, while both A and B have good and bad outcomes, B has compatatively better good and bad outcomes for the individual than A. At this point the poll shows it's quite clear that choosing A will almost certainly make a martyr of you and your family.

 

[2xDouble]

Why then I ask would you allow yourself risk being grievously injured for the sake of morality, if it's nothing more than a tradition from upbringing and a genetic urge? Choosing B will benefit yourself and your family and the only thing you'll lose is breaking an arbitrary set of rules.

...and one or more limbs.

Multiple posts in this thread have already covered this, while both A and B have good and bad outcomes, B has compatatively better good and bad outcomes for the individual than A. At this point the poll shows it's quite clear that choosing A will almost certainly make a martyr of you and your family.

No fair, you changed the outcome by measuring it.

 

[JoJo]

I did a quick simulation based from the even numbers.
With me picking A I did a flip to see if I was lucky enough to save myself, and the my opponent. I escaped unharmed.
I then did a flip for JoJo.
First flip he lost a limb, second flip he saved himself and his family from the game.

Take that however you will.

You have to flip three times if you select A before you freed, that means if we assume even numbers of A and B then your chances of escape are 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 = 1/8. Not great odds to be honest.

 

[Arakasi]

The only wise option is for everyone to choose only A.
Of course there will be some dickheads who choose B, but I won't let myself be one of them.

I disagree, the rational option from an individual perspective is to choose B. I'll explain why.

From a group perspective, it makes sense for everyone to pick A, since then everyone will benefit to some extent. For any single individual however it is advantageous to cheat and pick B since if the other person picks A they'll get the benefit of an early escape with no chance of further dilemmas and there's no way for them to be punished for this choice. As humans are not the Borg and generally act in their own self-interest, you would expect a significant number of people to choose B. It therefore is rational to choose the self-interested option B rather than the altruistic option A and risk being screwed over.

Yes, I am aware of how the dilema works.
Whatever the best strategy is depends upon the players in the game.
It depends on what you'd rather assume, that the people in your game are fuckers or that they are good people.
Maybe I have more faith in humanity than I thought I did.
At least I have more faith in myself.

Were I to die, or recieve any reprecussion from choosing only A, at least I would know I did the right thing.

You've backtracked now though, as if the best strategy does depend upon the players then "the only wise option is for everyone to choose only A" is clearly not true. I agree though, if I knew I was being matched up against friends and family then I'd pick A as I'd trust them to do the same. If it was strangers though, I wouldn't personally trust them to cooperate. I only see morality as socially-applied game theory really so I suppose that has some bearing on my answer.

If this were a scenario whereby you stuck with the same person for more than one round, it has been found that against most strategies in at least 2 simulations that I know of, either the tit for tat strategy (whereby you simply perform A until your opponent perfoms B, then do the same back) or the tit for two tat strategie (you do the same, but you pay them back doubly) were the best two.
However in this dilema you only ever face the same opponent once, so you do not get a chance to build a reputation.

Yeah, if it's the iterated prisoners dilemma then it makes sense to cooperate until they defect. Pretty much how morality works.

I see the logic in your moves, I simply cannot share them, I also think, and I apologise for this, that your kind of person is exactly why I think humanity is not worth continuing.

Well that's a strongly worded statement, though it did make me chuckle so thanks for that. I disagree though, humanity is pretty awesome in my opinion and I hope we expand and grow far into the future

Don't you see how when you don't trust someone to cooperate you become the very thing you hate?

I don't hate those who pick B though, all humans act ultimately out of their own self-interest, even those who are altrustic act to increase their own happiness, or for self-perceived glory or future rewards in the after-life.

As you can see by my choices I would not. As a society evolved beyond the days of old, we have the chance to create a conspiracy of A's. If it weren't for people like you.
This is a result of evolution, people who pick only A are likely going to get scourned (and those who share their genes) due to the selfish dicks who pick B, not only do those who pick B against A's increase largely in the population due to the nature of the game, but A's die out entirely, leaving everyone with only 1 limb. Picking only B ends up an evolutionary stable strategy, but when a society of 1 armed, no legged people meet a society of fully limbed people, well you can tell who will win that battle.

Being a product of evolution we are almost doomed to end up being B's, unless a conspiracy of A's form. If you are't a part of the solution you are a part of the problem.

No society would be cheat-proof unless it's people had no free will, and so I'd rather live in society where people have the freedom to be B's, even if that makes the society weaker in some way.

And yes, even those who chose A would be acting in their own self-interest as it would be protecting their perceived moral self-image, or protecting themselves from guilt, or keeping their place in heaven according to their beliefs etc.

I have no need for a moral self image, I don't believe in heaven, or any afterlife.
I do it only because I percieve it to be the only right thing to do.
However I am, in essence, evolutionarily maladaptive in this sense.

Also I would not suggest using the terms free will and freedom interchangably.

So tell me, what is your reason for doing something because it is the "right thing" to do?

A mix of upbringing and genetic predispositions, just like everything else.

Why then I ask would you allow yourself risk being grievously injured for the sake of morality, if it's nothing more than a tradition from upbringing and a genetic urge? Choosing B will benefit yourself and your family and the only thing you'll lose is breaking an arbitrary set of rules.

1. I don't care about my family any more than I care about the average person.
2. I don't care about myself any more than I care about the average person.

I willingly don't take part in evolution.
I may be the product of it, but I will not play its game.
I rebel against evolution using the weapons evolution provided me.

Most moral impulses are the product of evolution, indeed social groups can only exist in the long run with some form of tit-for-tat morality and so it's certainly useful for keeping society in functioning and in order. That doesn't mean that it's in one's self-interest to stick to a society's morality all the time however, I live purely for my own happiness. I do generally help people and am friendly though because it pleases me to do so.

Now we see however why choosing A would be in your self-interest, you see yourself as a rebel against perceived humanity selfishness and so selecting B would break that self-image and with it much of your identity.

I don't rebel against selfishness, I am almost the epitome of selfishness in many other areas. Simply not this one.

It is also true that my identity does mean more to me than my limbs, maybe even my life, however that does not make me selfish, those are both options which do not include others.

By picking A against you, I not only get to keep my idenity, but I get to save both you and your family.
In reality for me it is only a choice of limbs versus identity.

 

[blazearmoru]

I did a quick simulation based from the even numbers.
With me picking A I did a flip to see if I was lucky enough to save myself, and the my opponent. I escaped unharmed.
I then did a flip for JoJo.
First flip he lost a limb, second flip he saved himself and his family from the game.

Take that however you will.

You have to flip three times if you select A before you freed, that means if we assume even numbers of A and B then your chances of escape are 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 = 1/8. Not great odds to be honest.

o.o brains!!! XD

 

[Arakasi]

I did a quick simulation based from the even numbers.
With me picking A I did a flip to see if I was lucky enough to save myself, and the my opponent. I escaped unharmed.
I then did a flip for JoJo.
First flip he lost a limb, second flip he saved himself and his family from the game.

Take that however you will.

You have to flip three times if you select A before you freed, that means if we assume even numbers of A and B then your chances of escape are 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 = 1/8. Not great odds to be honest.

Yep I derped there.
Anyhow, let me rexamine the situation as it now stands:

I did a quick simulation based from the even numbers.
With me picking A I did a flip to see if I was lucky enough help save myself and my opponent, and the my opponent. I flipped yes once, lucky enough to add 1 point to my opponent and my own freedom, the second time I flipped tails, saving my opponenent and his/her entire family.
I then did a flip for JoJo.
First flip he lost a limb, along with his opponent, second flip he saved himself and his family from the game, whilst condemning someone else to losing all their limbs and adding one of their family members to the game.

Again, take that as you will.

 

[Darken12]

The safest choice is for everyone to choose A. The rest is just obfuscation meant to trick the kind of people who fall for pyramid schemes and waste money gambling or in the lottery. Which is sadly a large percentage of the population.

I'd pick A repeatedly and hope for the best.