NationStates Jolt Archive

Here it is. The Ultimate 2 types of people in the world question.

Are you more important than the person standing next to you? I think we can all see in what sort of direction this question can go. If you consider yourself more important than the person next to you, theoretically, that person suffers. If you consider the person next to you as important as you, you suffer. This is it. Your response is noted in the afterlife if an afterlife does in fact exist.

Are you more important than the person standing next to you?
*pats air around him*
I don't actually think there is someone standing next to me. Unless you know something that I don't.

Here it is. The Ultimate 2 types of people in the world question.

Are you more important than the person standing next to you? I think we can all see in what sort of direction this question can go. If you consider yourself more important than the person next to you, theoretically, that person suffers. If you consider the person next to you as important as you, you suffer. This is it. Your response is noted in the afterlife if an afterlife does in fact exist.
I couldn't let someone suffer for my decision, so the person next to me is just as important.

Actually...can we be more specific? Is the person next to me a gay hating, holy book thumping, you're going to hell type?

Here it is. The Ultimate 2 types of people in the world question.

Are you more important than the person standing next to you? I think we can all see in what sort of direction this question can go. If you consider yourself more important than the person next to you, theoretically, that person suffers. If you consider the person next to you as important as you, you suffer. This is it. Your response is noted in the afterlife if an afterlife does in fact exist.

Depends on who I'm standing next to no?

It comes down to the dichotomy that, in one sense, we're an insignificant speck in the vast fabric of space and time yet, in the same instant, we're the most important person in that universe because we're... 'me', right here, right now.

I am more important than they are.

I benefit more overall, since if I say they are equal to me, they can say they are more important than me and cause me to suffer while they don't. However, if I say I am more important they suffer and one of two things occurs:

1. I suffer equally with them since we both consider ourselves to be superior
2. I don't suffer since they consider themselves to be equal

I win or break even this way, whereas the other option is to either break even or to lose.

*pats air around him*
I don't actually think there is someone standing next to me. Unless you know something that I don't.

Dude - Right over there. No not there, THERE. A little to the right. Yes, there!

Here it is. The Ultimate 2 types of people in the world question.

Are you more important than the person standing next to you? I think we can all see in what sort of direction this question can go. If you consider yourself more important than the person next to you, theoretically, that person suffers. If you consider the person next to you as important as you, you suffer. This is it. Your response is noted in the afterlife if an afterlife does in fact exist.

What? No, that does not make sense.

If you were more important than the person, I can see how that would cause them to suffer slightly.

But if they are as important as you, note that you say "as important", not moreso; I fail to see how that causes you to suffer.

I tend to look at everyone as either equal in skill and potential compared to me, or better. This way I don't underestimate anyone.

Edit: Plus, we all know there are 10 types of people in the world.

Dude - Right over there. No not there, THERE. A little to the right. Yes, there!
OMGNOES!!!!!!!!

In seriousness, however, are we assuming that this other guy is an everyman-sort? And is the part about an afterlife pending on my beliefs as I would use them when making a moral decision (so if I'm an atheist, for the purposes of this question there isn't one?) or is it pending on a coin toss to be performed later?

...and there are three choices. Hm.

beer > all

To be specific, for example, I manage the 2 people next to me so again the dichotomy. In one sense I am more important than them because I manage them, they answer to me, in another they're more important than me because they do all my work.

Yay capitalism!

There are two types of people in the world, those who divide people into two types and those who don't.

I really wish I could remember who I stole that from...


AAaaannyway, I don't neccisarily buy that I suffer if I consider the person next to me 'more important,' and I don't know why I shouldn't consider him 'just as.'

...and there are three choices. Hm.

The cookie goes to you, friend. But keep it secret.

I am more important than they are.

I benefit more overall, since if I say they are equal to me, they can say they are more important than me and cause me to suffer while they don't. However, if I say I am more important they suffer and one of two things occurs:

1. I suffer equally with them since we both consider ourselves to be superior
2. I don't suffer since they consider themselves to be equal

I win or break even this way, whereas the other option is to either break even or to lose.

The edit version: I'm a bit drunk so I erased the sentence which this sentence has replaced. See note. The person next to you is completely random. He is not from Georgia but he could be. Or is he a she? Or is he, who may be a she, not even from this Earth?

Note: I think your reasoning is sound. In fact, I think this is actually how it works in the real world and why your reasoning is so appealing. But the thing is, if everyone thought this way the suffering which would result would bring us to a dystopia which Orwell in his wildest dreams could not conceive of.

To be specific, for example, I manage the 2 people next to me so again the dichotomy. In one sense I am more important than them because I manage them, they answer to me, in another they're more important than me because they do all my work.

Yay capitalism!

I think you took me too literally but I feel this is philosophically significant. Half a cookie and a sip of milk for you.

How does lesser importance = suffering?

The happiest person in the world may be the most insignificant.

Number one assumes that the person next to you considers themselves superior. The person next to you is completely random. He is not from Georgia but he could be. Or is he a she? Or is he, who may be a she, not even from this Earth?

I lose more if I consider them an equal in this case, since I can't be sure of their belief and so I have to pick the option that is the safest for me. I stand to lose more and gain nothing by considering them equal in this case.

Are you more important than the person standing next to you?

Ahhhhhhhh... I get it. It's a trick question. No one stands in my presence.

Ahhhhhhhh... I get it. It's a trick question. No one stands in my presence.

You are scary and I accept you as my leader. Lead on.

I lose more if I consider them an equal in this case, since I can't be sure of their belief and so I have to pick the option that is the safest for me. I stand to lose more and gain nothing by considering them equal in this case.

You have responded to something which I deny I have ever said.

I couldn't let someone suffer for my decision, so the person next to me is just as important.

Actually...can we be more specific? Is the person next to me a gay hating, holy book thumping, you're going to hell type?

Why would it matter?

If I get you right, the implication is that you will make the judgement according to your opinion of what is good or not, ergo you are more important.

You have responded to something which I deny I have ever said.

:confused:

You said the person was completely random, right? I can't be confident in their intentions, especially when they are presented with that kind of power themselves. That forces me to take the action that benefits me the most, rather than the one that would be considered the most ethical one. When given power over others, people's ethics can decay very rapidly to a point of complete sadism (think of the Stanford prison experiment).

I have to protect myself against that situation, and the only way to really do it is to cause them to suffer as well. It's a version of MAD, if you will.

You are scary and I accept you as my leader. Lead on.

Did I say you could stand?

How does lesser importance = suffering?

The happiest person in the world may be the most insignificant.

Possible. Depending on the situation. But it is about you in relation to them. If one person must suffer, choose between you and that person. Whether he is the President of the World or Captain of the Trash Cans behind a 7-11 in Trenton, New Jersey.

I win or break even this way, whereas the other option is to either break even or to lose.

No. The other option is only "break even or to lose" if you start from the assumption that you are better than the other person.

Your whole framework is based on YOUR benefit.

No. The other option is only "break even or to lose" if you start from the assumption that you are better than the other person.

Your whole framework is based on YOUR benefit.

Yes, and in the situation given that is the only real option. It is possible that that other person, when presented with that kind of power will make me suffer out of any number of reasons. So, I have to pick the option that maximizes the benefit for me, since the only other option is to suffer with no gain.

At the same time, if they know that I am as likely to make them suffer as they are to make me suffer, both of us may end up being less likely to make that decision.

:confused:

You said the person was completely random, right? I can't be confident in their intentions, especially when they are presented with that kind of power themselves. That forces me to take the action that benefits me the most, rather than the one that would be considered the most ethical one. When given power over others, people's ethics can decay very rapidly to a point of complete sadism (think of the Stanford prison experiment).

I have to protect myself against that situation, and the only way to really do it is to cause them to suffer as well. It's a version of MAD, if you will.

I completely get you and I say that with as much conviction as I can given my present state of inebriation. So, let me change things up on you again in an effort to get my basic ethical point across. Lets say you are faced with this question and the person next to you is not. Remove the equal power from them.

You got a bit ahead of me. Damn you Bass Ale and tasty Red Stripe.... there is no defense against you.

Did I say you could stand?

Sorry, Leader. *sits*

In the prisoner's dilemma, we generally choose to make the other person suffer

Yeah, that experiment almost made me lose faith in humanity.

In the prisoner's dilemma, we generally choose to make the other person suffer

I completely get you and I say that with as much conviction as I can given my present state of inebriation. So, let me change things up on you again in an effort to get my basic ethical point across. Lets say you are faced with this question and the person next to you is not. Remove the equal power from them.

Then I would consider myself equal to them. I would never hurt an innocent person for my own gain; my decisions are motivated entirely by self-defense.

You got a bit ahead of me. Damn you Bass Ale and tasty Red Stripe.... there is no defense against you.

Red Stripe is pretty good, IMO.

Then I would consider myself equal to them. I would never hurt an innocent person for my own gain; my decisions are motivated entirely by self-defense.



Red Stripe is pretty good, IMO.

Oh, good. I knew I liked you. Thanks for getting to the root of the matter.

Yes, and in the situation given that is the only real option. It is possible that that other person, when presented with that kind of power will make me suffer out of any number of reasons. So, I have to pick the option that maximizes the benefit for me, since the only other option is to suffer with no gain.

No. You're still making the same assumption.

According to your framework, there are four possibilities:

1. You consider yourself more important. So do they. No one wins.
2. You consider yourself more important. They don't. You win, they lose.
3. You consider yourself equally important. They don't. They win, you lose.
4. You consider yourself equally important. So do they. No one wins.

Expressed like this, if you start from the assumption that your welfare and theirs are equally important, EITHER method gets you the same result. If you start from the assumption that you are more important, of course you'll choose the option that you're more important.

Of course, that isn't how it actually works, either. Equality is not servility. You can consider someone equally important to you while still resisting if they decide to screw you over. Your framework applies only if the choice is between "more important" and "less important."

(And the entire question is pointless without consideration of relative power, which is where it starts to really matter.)

(And the entire question is pointless without consideration of relative power, which is where it starts to really matter.)

When I'm more powerful than them:
1. I act selfishly. So do they. I win, they lose.
2. I act selfishly. They don't. I win, they lose.
3. I treat them as an equal. They don't. No one wins.
4. I treat them as an equal. So do they. No one wins.

When I'm less powerful than them:
1. I act selfishly. So do they. I lose, they win.
2. I act selfishly. They don't. No one wins.
3. I treat them as an equal. They don't. I lose, they win.
4. I treat them as an equal. So do they. No one wins.

When I'm as powerful as them:
1. I act selfishly. So do they. No one wins.
2. I act selfishly. They don't. No one wins.
3. I treat them as an equal. They don't. No one wins.
4. I treat them as an equal. So do they. No one wins.

So, if I act selfishly, I win twice and lose once. They lose twice, and win once.

If I treat them equally, I never win, and lose once. They never lose, and win once.

If I start from the assumption that they are equal to me, I will always choose the second, because losing tends to be worse than winning is good.

If I start from the assumption that I am better than them, I will always choose the first, because though the losses are equal, I win twice that way, as opposed to never.

Expressed like this, if you start from the assumption that your welfare and theirs are equally important, EITHER method gets you the same result. If you start from the assumption that you are more important, of course you'll choose the option that you're more important.

But when faced with a decision in which you may suffer based upon your decision, how could you consider their welfare to be equally important? If someone may possibly do you harm, it makes the most sense to take the defensive stance and put your own interests first thereby preventing yourself from suffering.

But when faced with a decision in which you may suffer based upon your decision, how could you consider their welfare to be equally important?

Why couldn't you?

If someone may possibly do you harm, it makes the most sense to take the defensive stance and put your own interests first thereby preventing yourself from suffering.

You can treat their interests equally while still protecting your own... and even if you couldn't, at most it would mean that the two options are equal.

If you "put your own interests first," they might lose. If you let them run over you, you might lose. If you start from the assumption that they are equal, there is no difference.

Why couldn't you?



You can treat their interests equally while still protecting your own... and even if you couldn't, at most it would mean that the two options are equal.

If you "put your own interests first," they might lose. If you let them run over you, you might lose. If you start from the assumption that they are equal, there is no difference.

My mind: Officially Blown.


I will never, ever post anything like this again unless I am fully in possession of my mental... uh... whatstheword... stuff.

Faculties - gimme the other half of the cookie!

You deserve it, Sir! And an extra cookie for staying on top of this thread!

My mind: Officially Blown.


I will never, ever post anything like this again unless I am fully in possession of my mental... uh... whatstheword... stuff.

Faculties - gimme the other half of the cookie!

There are only 10 kinds of people in the world, those who get binary, and . . .

When I'm as powerful as them:
1. I act selfishly. So do they. No one wins.
2. I act selfishly. They don't. No one wins.
3. I treat them as an equal. They don't. No one wins.
4. I treat them as an equal. So do they. No one wins.


Wait a minute, on the third option why don't they win.

Action needs to be taken, if they take action and you don't, they win no?

Action needs to be taken, if they take action and you don't, they win no?

I'd take action. Why would I let them run over me? I think they're my EQUAL - not my superior.

You deserve it, Sir! And an extra cookie for staying on top of this thread!

In the interests of this thread, I give the second cookie to the person standing next to me.

In the interests of this thread, I give the second cookie to the person standing next to me.

You win at life. You get internet cookies anytime you desire them but mind you... they are immaterial and taste like your tongue on the roof of your mouth.

Gotcha - then I suppose that 'more important' is irrelevant.

It is, when the power level is equal.

But if I'm in a position of power over someone else, it's very relevant.

I'd take action. Why would I let them run over me? I think they're my EQUAL - not my superior.

Gotcha - then I suppose that 'more important' is irrelevant.

...which is why, in the prisoner's dilemma, you not allowed to know what decision they're taking. Then it does matter whether you think they're more or less important than you.

For reference - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma

...which is why, in the prisoner's dilemma, you not allowed to know what decision they're taking. Then it does matter whether you think they're more or less important than you.

Yes.

In the Prisoner's Dilemma, if you think they're equal to you, you will always cooperate with them.

If you only consider yourself, you never will.

Yes.

In the Prisoner's Dilemma, if you think they're equal to you, you will always cooperate with them.

..but you may lose.

Better to take the free or 2 years option than risk the 10 year option, hence better to consider your own interests first.

Sorry for editing :(

..but you may lose.

Better to take the free or 2 years option than risk the 10 year option.

You forget - we're presupposing equality.

So the two options are:

1. Cooperate. If the other person cooperates, too, you both get six months. If she defects, you get ten years, but she goes free.
2. Defect. If the other person defects, too, you both get two years; if the other person cooperates, you go free, but she gets ten years.

Taking into account BOTH people's welfare, it is always better to cooperate. In both cases, if the other person does the opposite of what you do, someone goes to jail to ten years (and since you think your partner is equal to you, you don't care who it is) - but six months is less than two years, which makes for the difference.

I guess I'm the second one, but I take it further. I tend to think that I'm less important than the person next to me. I have self-esteem issues and an inferiority complex. I also tend to blame myself for everything.

I guess I'm the second one, but I take it further. I tend to think that I'm less important than the person next to me. I have self-esteem issues and an inferiority complex. I also tend to blame myself for everything.

But are you that way out of a sense for the random person next to you or out of a sense of misdirected egotism?

But are you that way out of a sense for the random person next to you or out of a sense of misdirected egotism?

I'm sorry, could you dumb that down a bit?

Yet here Vetalia's point is valid - I can't presuppose that the other person considers me equal to them.

I didn't. Read my post again.

Edit: It's true that if I have good reason to believe that my partner is going to defect, I should defect, too - whether or not I accept equality.

But if it's a complete unknown, I should always cooperate (again, presupposing equality.)

You forget - we're presupposing equality.

So the two options are:

1. Cooperate. If the other person cooperates, too, you both get six months. If she defects, you get ten years, but she goes free.
2. Defect. If the other person defects, too, you both get two years; if the other person cooperates, you go free, but she gets ten years.

Taking into account BOTH people's welfare, it is always better to cooperate. In both cases, if the other person does the opposite of what you do, someone goes to jail to ten years (and since you think your partner is equal to you, you don't care who it is) - but six months is less than two years, which makes for the difference.

Yet here Vetalia's point is valid - I can't presuppose that the other person considers me equal to them.

I see the distinction of not caring, but that only comes into effect if one feels more important than the other, else we'd have made the same decision.

I agree that cooperation is best - but I can't be sure that it's an agreed state on both sides, hence I need to consider myself.

To clarify - I agree that if the question pertains to all of us, better to consider ourselves equal

Apologies, which one? Just the number will do :)

#50.

I didn't. Read my post again.

Apologies, which one? Just the number will do :)

It's clear that you're more important than me as your posts are always placed above mine :)

Not more important. Just quick to reply.

Stupid Jolt....

Originally Posted by Soheran

#50.

It's clear that you're more important than me as your posts are always placed above mine :)

Not more important. Just quick to reply.

Stupid Jolt....

When I'm as powerful as them:
1. I act selfishly. So do they. No one wins.
2. I act selfishly. They don't. No one wins.
3. I treat them as an equal. They don't. No one wins.
4. I treat them as an equal. So do they. No one wins.

Hence I come back to here.

If it's a complete unknown then there's a 50/50 chance.

At this point, you can't defend yourself in option 3, hence you lose. So to change it's...

When I'm as powerful as them:
1. I act selfishly. So do they. No one wins. (2 years)
2. I act selfishly. They don't. I win (I go free)
3. I treat them as an equal. They don't. I lose (10 years)
4. I treat them as an equal. So do they. Both win (6 months)

Better to act selfishly than risk 10 years.

Now, if I take myself as equal then yes, it doesn't matter who takes the 10 years and I shouldn't care for that consideration except that the consequence is that there's a 50/50 chance that I do take 10 years, I lose.

Edit to clarify: the 50/50 chance means that there can be a 0% chance, a 50% chance or a 100% chance. 50% is more than 0%, therefore the risk is an effect.

Now, if I take myself as equal then yes, it doesn't matter who takes the 10 years and I shouldn't care for that consideration except that the consequence is that there's a 50/50 chance that I do take 10 years, I lose.

Yes.

But the alternative is that there's a 50/50 chance that THEY get the ten years - and since I don't care who gets it, I will have to decide on the basis of the other possibility.

Defect and defect: Two years.

Cooperate and cooperate: Six months.

I should cooperate.

Yes.

But the alternative is that there's a 50/50 chance that THEY get the ten years - and since I don't care who gets it, I will have to decide on the basis of the other possibility.

Defect and defect: Two years.

Cooperate and cooperate: Six months.

I should cooperate.

Okay, I popped out for lunch.

Yet you would care no?

So the question comes down to the consequence, and I suppose, since the ultimate consequence from the OP) is noted in terms of going to heaven and hell (I have to assume the judgement is based on 'causing suffering to others' though of course we can't know that), then yes, better to cooperate.

Yet if the ultimate consequence is that you simply suffer, then isn't it better not to cooperate?

Yet you would care no?

Most people probably would, because most people are selfish to a greater or lesser degree.

Someone who actually valued everyone equally, however, would cooperate.

Most people probably would, because most people are selfish to a greater or lesser degree.

Someone who actually valued everyone equally, however, would cooperate.

Got you.

I'd like to meet that person, I'm guessing it would have to be God.

Even if one says they value everyone equally, I doubt, in practice, anyone acts consistently as such.

Thus the very first answers apply, depends on who you're standing next to.

I doubt, in practice, anyone acts consistently as such.

Of course not.

Can't I have the last word?

EDIT: Yay!

FURTHER EDIT: Does that imply there's 16 untruthful people on this poll? Note: I chose option 3.

FURTHER EDIT: Does that imply there's 16 untruthful people on this poll?

No.

While I accept that the person next to me is as important as me, sometimes (very often) I fail to act on that principle.

No.

While I accept that the person next to me is as important as me, sometimes (very often) I fail to act on that principle.

You may say you do but it's just a principle not a fact, by your actions it's clear you don't (not you personally).

EDIT: Actually that statement implies you personally I must confess

You may say you do but it's just a principle not a fact, by your actions it's clear you don't

We act against what we think is true all the time.

Ever made a decision you knew was unwise?

We act against what we think is true all the time.

Ever made a decision you knew was unwise?

Of course.

Yet my actions, if not fully, at least partly account for who I actually am, no matter who I think I am, therefore, if I act selfishly then I, at least partly, consider my interests as more important than others.

Yet my actions, if not fully, at least partly account for who I actually am, no matter who I think I am,

Indeed.

therefore, if I act selfishly then I, at least partly, consider my interests as more important than others.

Perhaps I care more about my interests than those of others.

But I consider them to be equally important - that is, I think I should care about them equally. I just don't.

It may depend on who is standing next to me. Some may be more important than me (am I standing next to Einstein, or Ghandi, or someone like that). Most are probably as important (all of my friends, family (tho same may be more important), most decent human beings) and some are less important (paris hilton, for example). But we all have the same intrinsic value as human beings.

Also, everyone knows there are 3 Kinds of people in the world:
1) People who can count
3) People who cannot count.

Indeed.



Perhaps I care more about my interests than those of others.

But I consider them to be equally important - that is, I think I should care about them equally. I just don't.

OK, I'll concede the point though I'm not sure I accept it.

You win at life. You get internet cookies anytime you desire them but mind you... they are immaterial and taste like your tongue on the roof of your mouth.

is it weird that i just raised my tongue to taste the roof of my mouth?

is it weird that i just raised my tongue to taste the roof of my mouth?

Not at all, it's a common psychological reaction

Not at all, it's a common psychological reaction

really? And here I thought I was special. *scowls at short bus for having lied*

Du bist nicht besser als der neben Dir
Niemand hat das Recht Menschen zu regier'n!

From: Ton Steine Scherben - die letzte Schlacht

Du bist nicht besser als der neben Dir
Niemand hat das Recht Menschen zu regier'n!

From: Ton Steine Scherben - die letzte Schlacht

regier'n?

You are no better than any other
No one has rights, people are too ?

This poll won't reveal anything. Here's why.

A. Everyone knows what the right answer is. And consciously or subconsciously are going to want to choose it.

B. It all depends. A scientist who's working on the cure for cancer might think they are more important than the willfully uneployed welfare guy. In otherwords, everyone thinks they are better than someone else.

C. Given a situation where there are two people and only one can live, most people will choose themselves (taking the friends, family, children out of the scenario) over a random stranger with the same family situation (ie kids/no kids ect).

since i really only relate to others on a superficial level on a day to day basis (after all its not like we are standing in line waiting to get into auschwitz) i find that everything goes better if we both acknowledge that we are both "important". when either of us acts as if the other is unimportant, we have to fight over inconsequential things like "who gets the better seat". the stupid bastard who insists that he get the first and best of everything makes public life unpleasant.

I am more important.

There are several reasons for this. First, I have more reason to believe that I exist. Also, if I were concerned about his welfare, there wouldn't be anything I could do about it because I can't know his best interests as well as I can know mine.

That second point is really important. Even if I thought that we were equally important, I couldn't credibly choose to aid him in any way. As such, valuing him at all makes no material difference, so why bother doing it?