Created by jtjumper
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You've been appointed to be a military commander... Which do you choose?
12636 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Marshall, Michigan
Offline
Posted 11/21/14 , edited 11/25/14
You've been appointed to be a military commander and have been given a dangerous mission for your squad.
In reviewing your information, you come to the conclusion that you can either :
1) Send two squad members to serve as a distraction, will the others complete the mission and guaranteeing their success and escape while dooming the two serving as a distraction
or
2) Use the whole squad to do the mission. Without a distraction, there is a 50% rather than 0% chance of the squad getting caught.

In both cases, the mission is guaranteed to be accomplished, whether the squad lives or dies.
Which do you choose?
30236 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
It doesn't matter.
Offline
Posted 11/21/14
I think only 1 needs to die as a distraction.
But I'd want 1 to die on every mission.
23500 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
102 / M
Offline
Posted 11/21/14
I chose the second option because there's the other 50% chance that the whole squad might live.
30773 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Fraxinus
Offline
Posted 11/21/14
Is there a 99% the whole squad might die? I'd still take that one percent over knowingly sending troops to their death.
35035 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 11/21/14 , edited 12/15/14
Considering the mission is guaranteed to be successful regardless I will leave a call like that to the men. If two want to offer themselves up to die for the sake of assuring the safety of the others they can, but if no one wants to do that then we're going with Plan B and I'll support them in getting in and out to the best of my ability and resources. This isn't a situation where I have to make that call unilaterally.
13496 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Scotland
Offline
Posted 11/21/14
I'm almost heartless (I've only felt for somebody else once in my life) so I picked the first option. Mission success is more important.
234 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / seattle
Offline
Posted 11/21/14 , edited 11/22/14
ANSWER:
This is the typical statistics/ psychology question that one learns upon taking an intro level course at the college level. If you set the number of lives saved as a measurement of success, it is always the better option to take option 1. ~25% death rate. Conversely if you take option 2, the death rate is double that of the first option ~50% however this is the option that most people still choose over the first option regardless of the logics of statistics and probability. Why do people ignore the clear cut logic and take on a option that is double the fatality? This is the question that is asked by researchers in psychology. People want to avoid losses and rather than view it as 6 lives saved they feel like they are losing 2 lives. In other words people view it from a perspective of losses rather than lives saved as a measurement of success. If presented the opportunity to minimize all losses and save all members of a group, they will tend to take that irrational choice even when the fatality is double that amount. Long answer short- option 1 is the best possible answer.
Source:
I took a psychology course on this very subject LOL. JTjumper nice one this fun

For those talking about morality, and choosing option 2, I've killed twice as less people than you in the long run. You need to consider the risk of losing as well as winning because they are EQUAL chance. People tend to glorify helping the two additional, but are forgetting that failure results in everyone- ALL 8 dying. You risk 6 people to save just two. Endangering the safety of everyone in a twice as deadly fatality- I am not the one who is being heartless. You are. Don't talk to me about morality.
234 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / seattle
Offline
Posted 11/21/14 , edited 11/22/14
that's the correct answer though

I noticed there is a poll on this if you're doing a statistical test, the answer stated before will influence poll results. In an unbiased test where participants are unaware of the psychology behind the test, the poll results are skewed in favor of option 2.
23469 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Iowa >.>
Offline
Posted 11/21/14
depends on what the mission is, they way I see it a squad is like a family I wouldn't leave one or two men to die
Posted 11/21/14 , edited 11/21/14
50% thing. We in this together, we gon' die together.
11725 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M
Offline
Posted 11/21/14
In strategy games, I prefer to play dirty and sacrifice troops to win but if I did that in real life, my own troops would have my head on a pike before the enemies even reach us.

I would take #1 but if my troops are sensitive to underhand strategies then fuggit.
Posted 11/22/14
no action lol
5906 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / 38.2500° N, 85.76...
Offline
Posted 11/22/14 , edited 11/22/14
Prepare and practice so you have a best chance for all to survive. that's why we have AC130s drones and all other forms of force multipliers so people have a chance to finish the mission and come home.
8077 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
17 / M / Playing Joust
Offline
Posted 12/12/14
Sacrifice a few to save a lot. Not the most honorable way but it's better than everyone.
72866 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Central KY.
Offline
Posted 12/13/14
It depends. I'd need to know all given variables before I could make an answer.
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.