Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ChairmanPoo]

Yeah, I know. That's what I brought up when this topic sprung up - there is no correct decision here; it's basically a pseudo-dillema between two identical options, and it all comes down to the particular wording.

[Flying Dice]

The wording as originally stated is off, though. "20% chance to save all of the hundred thousand people" suggests that the second vaccine has a 20% chance of saving everyone versus an 80% chance of saving no one, rather than what was probably the intent. As stated, however, the options aren't equal; you're trying to decide between saving a guaranteed smaller group of people or gambling with the odds to save the entire infected population. Which is actually more of a moral dilemma than "you can do X as stated in form A, or you can do X as stated in form B".

[ChairmanPoo]

The options are equal. As it's stated both in the Cracked article he used as a source, and elsewhere, it basically pans out to this:

- Do X: 1/3 of the population lives, 2/3 die
- Do Y: 1/3 odds of everyone living, 2/3 of everyone dying.

If you realize, for a sufficient number of populational interventions, the tendency will be for both Dr X and Dr Y to end up saving roughly the same number of people, with Dr Y's results having a higher variance.

[Bauglir]

Though scrdest did alter the question in the most recent post, to a 30% chance to save everyone vs a certainty of saving 20% of everyone.

[ChairmanPoo]

Scrdest misread the question, then. As posted in cracked:

They gave the participants an ethical puzzle: Say there was a disease that would kill 600,000 lives. Is it better to develop an antidote that would save a guaranteed 200,000 lives, or one that had a 1/3 chance of saving everybody but a 2/3 chance of doing nothing? Most people chose the first option -- there's less risk involved.

[Bauglir]

I did say "altered" for a reason; this was a change from how he originally worded it. Why, I don't know.

The problem was about whether to take a vaccine that is guaranteed to save twenty thousand people or one with 20% chance to save all of the hundred thousand people infected with the deadly disease.

This wording doesn't, you're right. But 30% of 100 000 vs. guaranteed 20 000 does have a more rational (not necessarily more moral, but more rational) answer, and I might've screwed up the wording.

[scrdest]

I did say "altered" for a reason; this was a change from how he originally worded it. Why, I don't know.

The problem was about whether to take a vaccine that is guaranteed to save twenty thousand people or one with 20% chance to save all of the hundred thousand people infected with the deadly disease.

This wording doesn't, you're right. But 30% of 100 000 vs. guaranteed 20 000 does have a more rational (not necessarily more moral, but more rational) answer, and I might've screwed up the wording.

I changed it because I might have misremembered it the first time, but as it turns out I haven't.

[Flying Dice]

The options are equal. As it's stated both in the Cracked article he used as a source, and elsewhere, it basically pans out to this:

- Do X: 1/3 of the population lives, 2/3 die
- Do Y: 1/3 odds of everyone living, 2/3 of everyone dying.

If you realize, for a sufficient number of populational interventions, the tendency will be for both Dr X and Dr Y to end up saving roughly the same number of people, with Dr Y's results having a higher variance.

I realize that. I explicitly stated that. What I was getting at was that the way scrdest stated it, the second option implied that the 20% chance applied to the population as a single entity ("save all of") as opposed to each individual within the population ("save each of").

[Vorthon]

I just realized that I'd be happy to live in geared-to-income housing, relying on my disability checks, and volunteering at the local library as a life. It's kind of perturbing to realize my parameters for happiness are so... low.

[Jopax]

That's being a low maintenance person for you. I think I'd be similar to that, since pretty much all I really need is basic food and a room that has decent internet access, and maybe some spare change on the side for the occasional drink or something.

[LordSlowpoke]

now if someone could provide that so you don't need to leave your cozy habitat ever :v

[Graknorke]

I don't want to be able to show off five overpriced sportscars, or have a house filled with expensive things.

I have to say, those would both make me happy. Well, conditionally. As long as they're the kind of expensive thing that you can also use.

[MaximumZero]

I just realized that I'd be happy to live in geared-to-income housing, relying on my disability checks, and volunteering at the local library as a life. It's kind of perturbing to realize my parameters for happiness are so... low.

Sometimes I wish I could get disability checks. Problem is, I can't afford the doctor's visits to get the necessary documents from the doctor that say I should get the checks.

[Helgoland]

What about wanting a house filled with family? Do I still count as low-maintenance?

[Korbac]

That's being a low maintenance person for you.

Thing is, the happyness could be something high-maintenance at some point. Presently, I'm happy with a computer, friends, that sort of thing. In the future, though, I MAY want some kind of sports car.

Question : If being a low - maintenance person prevents you from being ambitious, is that bad?