the fuck...
It depends if self-preservation is your primary objectiveTy wrote:
A more interesting question: The world is going to end. There are two ways you can attempt to stop the world's destruction. The first has a 40% chance of being successful and will not result in your death, (unless the world ends obviously.) The second has a 80% chance of being successful but will result in your death. Which one do you pick?
On a related note with something that is not as lame as the OP, at uni today we had a look at some game theory, more specifically the Prisoner's Dilemma. For those not familiar with it, answer me this:
Two suspects are arrested by the police. The police have insufficient evidence for a conviction, and, having separated both prisoners, visit each of them to offer the same deal.
If one testifies (defects from the other) for the prosecution against the other and the other remains silent (cooperates with the other), the betrayer goes free and the silent accomplice receives the full 10-year sentence. If both remain silent, both prisoners are sentenced to only six months in jail for a minor charge. If each betrays the other, each receives a five-year sentence.
Each prisoner must choose to betray the other or to remain silent. Each one is assured that the other would not know about the betrayal before the end of the investigation.
How should the prisoners act?
They should both remain silent. However, it is a huge risk.
You're looking at 5-10 years if the other guy yaps. And you have to really trust that other person.
You're looking at 5-10 years if the other guy yaps. And you have to really trust that other person.
Haha, wrong answerAussieReaper wrote:
They should both remain silent. However, it is a huge risk.
You're looking at 5-10 years if the other guy yaps. And you have to really trust that other person.
Edit: in the sense that they don't know what the other will do, so they must act in a way that will be most beneficial to themselves.
You can't be wrong in an open ended question. Numpty.mcminty wrote:
Haha, wrong answerAussieReaper wrote:
They should both remain silent. However, it is a huge risk.
You're looking at 5-10 years if the other guy yaps. And you have to really trust that other person.
Edit: in the sense that they don't know what the other will do, so they must act in a way that will be most beneficial to themselves.
You can according to game theoryAdams_BJ wrote:
You can't be wrong in an open ended question. Numpty.mcminty wrote:
Haha, wrong answerAussieReaper wrote:
They should both remain silent. However, it is a huge risk.
You're looking at 5-10 years if the other guy yaps. And you have to really trust that other person.
Edit: in the sense that they don't know what the other will do, so they must act in a way that will be most beneficial to themselves.
Judging by this, testifying is the most intelligent thing to do. Although the ideal outcome would be both prisoners remaining true to each other, (a shared 1 year as oposed to a shared 10,) on a personal level there is less to risk and more to gain by testifying.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Lol, we have a winner XDTy wrote:
http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f266/ … ilemma.png
Judging by this, testifying is the most intelligent thing to do. Although the ideal outcome would be both prisoners remaining true to each other, (a shared 1 year as oposed to a shared 10,) on a personal level there is less to risk and more to gain by testifying.
Yeah, if neither testify against the other then they reach an optimal outcome.. but since they can't collude (and that's why we were looking at it - collusion between firms in an oligopoly) then you must assume that they will do what is best for them. They will assume that the other person testifies (in attempt to get the shortest sentence), so then they MUST testify to avoid the 10 year prison term. Eventually, both people decide it is in their best interest to testify. This choice is a Nash Equilibrium - a "best choice" given the other people's options and choices.
Oligopolies are quite interesting, actually. Much more fun that perfect competition and monopolies...mcminty wrote:
Lol, we have a winner XDTy wrote:
http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f266/ … ilemma.png
Judging by this, testifying is the most intelligent thing to do. Although the ideal outcome would be both prisoners remaining true to each other, (a shared 1 year as oposed to a shared 10,) on a personal level there is less to risk and more to gain by testifying.
Yeah, if neither testify against the other then they reach an optimal outcome.. but since they can't collude (and that's why we were looking at it - collusion between firms in an oligopoly) then you must assume that they will do what is best for them. They will assume that the other person testifies (in attempt to get the shortest sentence), so then they MUST testify to avoid the 10 year prison term. Eventually, both people decide it is in their best interest to testify. This choice is a Nash Equilibrium - a "best choice" given the other people's options and choices.
Lol, perfect competition is so.. well pointless isn't the right word, but nothing is ever like the model. You know what I mean, right? It's just not.. real.Jenspm wrote:
Oligopolies are quite interesting, actually. Much more fun that perfect competition and monopolies...mcminty wrote:
Lol, we have a winner XDTy wrote:
http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f266/ … ilemma.png
Judging by this, testifying is the most intelligent thing to do. Although the ideal outcome would be both prisoners remaining true to each other, (a shared 1 year as oposed to a shared 10,) on a personal level there is less to risk and more to gain by testifying.
Yeah, if neither testify against the other then they reach an optimal outcome.. but since they can't collude (and that's why we were looking at it - collusion between firms in an oligopoly) then you must assume that they will do what is best for them. They will assume that the other person testifies (in attempt to get the shortest sentence), so then they MUST testify to avoid the 10 year prison term. Eventually, both people decide it is in their best interest to testify. This choice is a Nash Equilibrium - a "best choice" given the other people's options and choices.
You wouldn't live long enough for the whole world to blow you.[-DER-]Omega wrote:
first i'd require a bj from everyone in the world. thats right, everyone. then i'd think about it.
Unless... you last under 30''
Last edited by Metal-Eater-GR (2009-09-21 04:35:27)
yeah, just a theory.mcminty wrote:
Lol, perfect competition is so.. well pointless isn't the right word, but nothing is ever like the model. You know what I mean, right? It's just not.. real.Jenspm wrote:
Oligopolies are quite interesting, actually. Much more fun that perfect competition and monopolies...mcminty wrote:
Lol, we have a winner XD
Yeah, if neither testify against the other then they reach an optimal outcome.. but since they can't collude (and that's why we were looking at it - collusion between firms in an oligopoly) then you must assume that they will do what is best for them. They will assume that the other person testifies (in attempt to get the shortest sentence), so then they MUST testify to avoid the 10 year prison term. Eventually, both people decide it is in their best interest to testify. This choice is a Nash Equilibrium - a "best choice" given the other people's options and choices.
but the theory is lame.
Imagine how boring it would be if you were the only one surviving in the world, for that reason I would kill my self out of being so bored.
However killing myself to save the world I don't know if I would... I would like to think so but you never know.
However killing myself to save the world I don't know if I would... I would like to think so but you never know.
Would you not enjoy raping dead people?teek22 wrote:
Imagine how boring it would be if you were the only one surviving in the world, for that reason I would kill my self out of being so bored.
However killing myself to save the world I don't know if I would... I would like to think so but you never know.
id walk around nekkid 24/7, that would be pretty coolteek22 wrote:
Imagine how boring it would be if you were the only one surviving in the world, for that reason I would kill my self out of being so bored.
However killing myself to save the world I don't know if I would... I would like to think so but you never know.
Ty, in response to the additional information:
For me, personal survival would be more important.. cause if I kill myself to give an 80% chance for everyone else... I'm still dead! So I'd take the option where there is a chance for my personal survival. :pAs to self-preservation, it depends on the individual. I guess the crux of the problem is the willingness to die for higher but not certain chance of success. - Ty.
I'd be like, fuck off as sif that's going to happen.
Then the world ends and I'm like holy shit... ohh well too late now.
Then the world ends and I'm like holy shit... ohh well too late now.