Odd thoughts

09.13.2005

Sometimes, when I can't quite fall asleep, I end up letting my mind wander. Often, it's just tangential flow of consciousness. Other times, it's some sort of weird "dilemma" I play around w/ to see if it has a solution. Here's one from three nights ago that I'm still kicking around.

Imagine there's a group of ten people. They're trapped in a room w/ three doors. One door leads to safety, the other door forces a second choice, the third door leads to death. Only one person can open a door at a time, if he opens the "death" door, he forfeits his life. The other people can see the choices. The doors aren't marked, but they don't change.

The first person to choose a door has a 1-3 chance of picking the "safe" door on his first try. If he picks the "try again" door, he then has a 1-2 chance of picking the "safe" door.

Bottom line: The first person might die. But the remainder will survive. Why? Because the other nine will see what door(s) the first chose, and select accordingly. If he died w/ his first choice, the next person will pick another door.

On what criteria should the first person to select the door be chosen? After all, he's the only person who risks death to ensure the life of the other nine (he, too, could also survive, of course). So. What (objective) criteria should be used for selecting the first "volunteer"?

Posted by Miguel at 01:55 AM

Comments

In the military, this is an actual scenario with chemical warfare. One person has to remove his mask first in order to determine whether or not the chemical has dissipated. It is determined by lowest ranking, and one of those things they don't mention in the recruiter's office is that if necessary, the rest of the group will hold down the lowest ranking preson and rip the mask off his head.

I would imagine in your scenario, unless someone feels a kin to the rest, or at least to one of the others and feels his or her sacrifice is worth the life of someone else, it will come down to the weakest member being forced to choose a door at the behest of the rest of the group. We'd like to think the personal choice would be the situation, but I seriously doubt that would happen.

Posted by: Duane Gundrum at September 13, 2005 08:46 AM

I'd volunteer, eliminating the other's necessity to choose. I think that derives not from any heroism, but my obsessive tendency to want to get on with things. I don't think I'm extremely impatient, but I usually choose the shortest route between two points, the easiest solution, the least controversial means to build team cohesion, etc..

Posted by: j.scott barnard at September 13, 2005 11:18 AM

You've some peculiar dreams, my friend. Verry rational.

My dream last night consisted of me hanging out with Bill Clinton at his Pres library, talking Americorps; and me defending myself against an assailant using nothing but a sharpened carrot.

Posted by: tom at September 13, 2005 03:53 PM

"sharpened carrot" - Freud help him! N.

Posted by: Nenad at September 14, 2005 07:29 AM

There was nothing phallic about said carrot. It resembled a knife. I recently finished some edged-weapons training.

Keep that quack Freud away from this!

Posted by: tom at September 14, 2005 02:09 PM

"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

Posted by: Miguel [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 14, 2005 03:08 PM