Why do people have such problems with hypothetical questions?

[Dejawesp]

I'm sure all internet users have seen this over the years.

One of the first examples of this I saw was in a thread about 9 years ago when someone asked

"If you caught Bin Ladin and he offered you 10 million dollars to let him go. Would you?" (This was before there was a bounty on him)

This followed by about 5 pages of "I would kill him and take the money"

But this way of thinking still lives on. Even some very educated and smart people can never and will never accept or be able to imagine a hypothetical scenario. So they avoid the question. Demand more alternatives. Make up their own alternatives. Reject the scenario all together but still wish to participate.

Its the same people who demand third options in polls like "Don't care either way"

 

[BonsaiK]

I guess it's just because hypotheticals are kind of dull, people try to think outside the square to make them more interesting.

 

[spartan231490]

I'm sure all internet users have seen this over the years.

One of the first examples of this I saw was in a thread about 9 years ago when someone asked

"If you caught Bin Ladin and he offered you 10 million dollars to let him go. Would you?" (This was before there was a bounty on him)

This followed by about 5 pages of "I would kill him and take the money"

But this way of thinking still lives on. Even some very educated and smart people can never and will never accept or be able to imagine a hypothetical scenario. So they avoid the question. Demand more alternatives. Make up their own alternatives. Reject the scenario all together but still wish to participate.

Its the same people who demand third options in polls like "Don't care either way"

The example you listed isn't a problem with hypothetical scenarios, it's a problem with unrealistic scenarios. If he's paying you to let him live, then you can obviously kill him, and if he has the money to pay you, you can take it. If you don't like people choosing alternative options, then make up a realistic situation that would restrict the choices to the ones you want to discuss.

 

[Scabadus]

I've noticed this too, and while I don't have any idea why people insist on doing it I know it's been around longer than the internet.

There's a clasic psychology test involving a train speeding down a track about to hit someone; you can divert it onto another track but there's another person, animal or thing on the other track. The test's interesting but not really the point here: the point is how the test is worded. The test always has a few pharagraphs at the beginning saying that the tracks are entirely fenced off, there's no way to go through, over, under or aroudn the fence. There's no way to contact the train driver and get them to stop. There's no way for you to adjust the tracks so the train misses both people, etc, etc.

My point is that the people taking this test have always tried to find another way out; an option that wasn't readily avalible. Whether this is some evolutionary trait to find an option nobody else thinks of or simply a desire to out-smart the person posing the test, I'm not sure. But it's always been there.

 

[Shadow-Phoenix]

preferably i'd just take the money.

 

[Dejawesp]

I'm sure all internet users have seen this over the years.

One of the first examples of this I saw was in a thread about 9 years ago when someone asked

"If you caught Bin Ladin and he offered you 10 million dollars to let him go. Would you?" (This was before there was a bounty on him)

This followed by about 5 pages of "I would kill him and take the money"

But this way of thinking still lives on. Even some very educated and smart people can never and will never accept or be able to imagine a hypothetical scenario. So they avoid the question. Demand more alternatives. Make up their own alternatives. Reject the scenario all together but still wish to participate.

Its the same people who demand third options in polls like "Don't care either way"

The example you listed isn't a problem with hypothetical scenarios, it's a problem with unrealistic scenarios. If he's paying you to let him live, then you can obviously kill him, and if he has the money to pay you, you can take it. If you don't like people choosing alternative options, then make up a realistic situation that would restrict the choices to the ones you want to discuss.

And here we go. The whole point of the question is not the scenario itself but would you let a person like that go for the sake of the money. That is the whole point. How to make a fake scenario has nothing to do with it. Its the question itself that matter. If its too hard to grasp then make up your own scenario. Its the content. Not the wrapper that is the point.

 

[Xenetethrae]

In my experience, people generally think they are far more clever then they actually are. They want their answer to be origional or they strive to attain the perfect answer (which never exist in hypotheticals as who would choose anything else) so that no one would think less of them for it.

I would divert the train to kill the mechanic to save the lives of the five kids on the other set of tracks. (or whatever iteration of this moral dilemma you know)

The example you listed isn't a problem with hypothetical scenarios, it's a problem with unrealistic scenarios. If he's paying you to let him live, then you can obviously kill him, and if he has the money to pay you, you can take it. If you don't like people choosing alternative options, then make up a realistic situation that would restrict the choices to the ones you want to discuss.

This is a common reason why people choose not to stay within the bounds of hypotheticals. They simply cannot accept the choices presented to them because they aren't reasonable or becuase they don't make sense . To those people I say, where's your sense of imagination? Why can't you imagine some series of realistic limitations in the scenario that make only the presented options a possibility? Why can't you imagine that Bin Laden has a secret safe that will only open after a certain amount of time and only if Bin Laden is alive and at least 50 miles away. If he ever dies, then the safe is closed forever.

There, does that scenario suit you more?

 

[burningdragoon]

If you set up the scenario where there actually are only the options given, then you might get better answers, but when you present a person with a choice that clearly has more than the two options given, most people are going to question why those are the only two options. Some types of questions are just asking for people to work around them.

What I find a little silly is people trying to become more inventive with certain types of hypothetical but don't address how silly it is in the first place

 

[lordnemos]

I think most people fear being judged on their answer, a politically correct answer might not be a logical one, in certain scenarios. People don't want to admit that they might be greedy or bigoted, I think hypothetical questions force people to think about things they would rather not, it scares them.

 

[Dejawesp]

On another forum the question was "Would you kill an innocent person with your bare hands to save 5 innocent people" Most people answered "no" because they argued that then they would personally be responsible for that one death but failure to act would not make them responsible for the 5 other deaths. We went through scenario after scenario and people rejected one after another with "ways out of it" In the end the only persistent one we could make up was.

"You are the doctor in a field hospital. You have 6 bleeding patient and only enough blood to sustain 5 people for 1 hour. in 1 hour a transport will arrive with more blood but if you give the blood to all 6 patients then all 6 will be dead before the transport arrives but if you give it to 5 and then none to the 6th person then the 5 would survive.

A majority of the people said they would give the blood to all 6 and "Hope for the best" Personally I believed that makes them personally responsible for 6 deaths but they argued that in trying to save all 6 they where not at fault and that "They couldn't be sure that the 6 would die"

In the end people will do everything in their power to avoid having to ask themselves questions they find uncomfortable.

Everything except just staying out of the thread that is.

If you set up the scenario where there actually are only the options given, then you might get better answers, but when you present a person with a choice that clearly has more than the two options given, most people are going to question why those are the only two options. Some types of questions are just asking for people to work around them.

What I find a little silly is people trying to become more inventive with certain types of hypothetical but don't address how silly it is in the first place

The problem is that no matter how you phrase the question. People will always find ways to avoid.

And that's where the big question comes to me. Why do people have such a hard time with it? Why can they not simply settle for the answer. "I don't know what I would do" Thats a fine answer. Its not always an easy question or a simply answer. But changing the parameters set by the original question makes you answer a different question. A question that was never asked.

See below for an example.

 

[spartan231490]

In my experience, people generally think they are far more clever then they actually are. They want their answer to be origional or they strive to attain the perfect answer (which never exist in hypotheticals as who would choose anything else) so that no one would think less of them for it.

I would divert the train to kill the mechanic to save the lives of the five kids on the other set of tracks. (or whatever iteration of this moral dilemma you know)

The example you listed isn't a problem with hypothetical scenarios, it's a problem with unrealistic scenarios. If he's paying you to let him live, then you can obviously kill him, and if he has the money to pay you, you can take it. If you don't like people choosing alternative options, then make up a realistic situation that would restrict the choices to the ones you want to discuss.

This is a common reason why people choose not to stay within the bounds of hypotheticals. They simply cannot accept the choices presented to them because they aren't reasonable or becuase they don't make sense . To those people I say, where's your sense of imagination? Why can't you imagine some series of realistic limitations in the scenario that make only the presented options a possibility? Why can't you imagine that Bin Laden has a secret safe that will only open after a certain amount of time and only if Bin Laden is alive and at least 50 miles away. If he ever dies, then the safe is closed forever.

There, does that scenario suit you more?

No, cuz I doubt any safe like that exists, and if it does, I could break into it eventually, no matter what defenses it has. I know there's 10 million in there so I can buy what i need to get into it on credit.
As to why I don't come up with realistic limitations, it's because I'm not posing the question. I can, I did in fact, wire transfer, instead of cash, or he buried it and is trading location via phone call. If you want to ask me a question, i'll answer it based on the question you posed, not the question I could have posed in your place.

 

[spartan231490]

I'm sure all internet users have seen this over the years.

One of the first examples of this I saw was in a thread about 9 years ago when someone asked

"If you caught Bin Ladin and he offered you 10 million dollars to let him go. Would you?" (This was before there was a bounty on him)

This followed by about 5 pages of "I would kill him and take the money"

But this way of thinking still lives on. Even some very educated and smart people can never and will never accept or be able to imagine a hypothetical scenario. So they avoid the question. Demand more alternatives. Make up their own alternatives. Reject the scenario all together but still wish to participate.

Its the same people who demand third options in polls like "Don't care either way"

The example you listed isn't a problem with hypothetical scenarios, it's a problem with unrealistic scenarios. If he's paying you to let him live, then you can obviously kill him, and if he has the money to pay you, you can take it. If you don't like people choosing alternative options, then make up a realistic situation that would restrict the choices to the ones you want to discuss.

And here we go. The whole point of the question is not the scenario itself but would you let a person like that go for the sake of the money. That is the whole point. How to make a fake scenario has nothing to do with it. Its the question itself that matter. If its too hard to grasp then make up your own scenario. Its the content. Not the wrapper that is the point.

People are going to answer the question you ask, not the question you meant, because they can't read your mind. That's what I was saying. If all you want is "would you let someone like that go for money?" then ask that. would you allow someone like bin laden to live for $10million dollars. That's easier than coming up with a hypothetical, and takes less time to write down too.
Also, yes I would let him live for money, humanity will always have depravity and evil within it, I might as well profit a little from it.
Also, I usually answer hypotheticals in both ways, something like. "I'd kill him and take the money. but to answer the question you wanted, yes I would take the money." I was just pointing out why people answer the way they do in the context of the example you used.

 

[Penguinness]

The alternatives just create more discussion which is a good thing to me. But I agree with you about the third option posters, who go to topics about X only to say "I haven't watched X, where's my poll option" because they shouldn't be in the discussion. I would stick with only the yes/no poll options sure, but I'm fine about those who want to expand on a topic.

 

[Geo Da Sponge]

As to why I don't come up with realistic limitations, it's because I'm not posing the question. I can, I did in fact, wire transfer, instead of cash, or he buried it and is trading location via phone call. If you want to ask me a question, i'll answer it based on the question you posed, not the question I could have posed in your place.

No, you're just being awkward. It's obvious what the person means when they pose a hypothetical question like that, and it's obvious that they're interested which of the two suggested answers you'll give. It's quite pointless when your third, new answer is basically 'I get the best of both options with no penalties'. Anyone would take that option.

 

[Leon Last Lord Shyle]

From what I have found it is not they have a problem with the question itself just what the answer entails, take the real situation with your question if it did happen you would get 10 million pounds for letting him live you gained a monumental thing.

Then look at it hypothetically you still put across the same sentiment to people

"yea I would fuck over thousands to get the money"

but you do not get the gain.

It is a form of self preservation in which you manage to keep some amount of moral fibre in the eyes of other people but still in the hypothetical scenario would gain.

and on the case of that question... kill him I'm already somehow near Osama bin laden with a gun I think my life is pretty interesting without the money.

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

This annoys me too, when people twist the rules to get out of answering you direct question. Just play the fucking game or don't bother commenting.

(Also I wouldn't let him go)

 

[spartan231490]

As to why I don't come up with realistic limitations, it's because I'm not posing the question. I can, I did in fact, wire transfer, instead of cash, or he buried it and is trading location via phone call. If you want to ask me a question, i'll answer it based on the question you posed, not the question I could have posed in your place.

No, you're just being awkward. It's obvious what the person means when they pose a hypothetical question like that, and it's obvious that they're interested which of the two suggested answers you'll give. It's quite pointless when your third, new answer is basically 'I get the best of both options with no penalties'. Anyone would take that option.

I dislike the fact that you think I answer hypotheticals like that. I was just pointing out why I thought answers like that are given, because people look at the question and see no realistic reason why they can't get the best of both worlds. I was also pointing out that I think if you put some thought into how you word your question you can create a situation which forces people to give one of the answers your interested in.
If I had been asked this hypothetical, i would have answered something like this:

I would kill him and take the money. but to answer the question you wanted answered, I would take the money.
Because I'm a jerk and like to point out that the question could be worded better.

As a matter of fact I just answered the question in that way on the thread about giving up emotions for more int. I pointed out that that isn't what happened in the example he was talking about(tranquil from DA: origins) and then said that if I was presented with those choices I would keep my emotions.

 

[Dejawesp]

Again. There is no way you could word the question on a public forum that would not have people making up answers to get out of it. In the end its about the mindset of the people. If they are willing to play the game or not. However people not willing to play the game will still insist on participating in it despite throwing out all pre-established rules.

Maybe its a psychological thing about rules really. Perhaps this is the forum equivalent of playing soccer and picking up the ball with your hands and running into the goal with it then accusing the people who host the match of poorly designing a game where such a thing is physically possible.

 

[Ganthrinor]

There's always more than two options, unless you're in a tunnel running from magma and it splits into two passages. In most hypothetical situations, there's usually a third, more attractive (to some) option.


A classic one is this: To find the Cure For Cancer would you sacrifice the life an innocent child or the lives of a hundred prostitues?


It's a hard choice for some people. Personally? Sucks for you, kiddo.




As for the question posed in the OT: Bin Laden's death probably wouldn't affect the situation as much as we'd like to think, so I'll take the cash, thank you.

 

[Jack and Calumon]

It's called thinking outside the box. People like to do it. The key is, is to make a hypothetical scenario where the only options are the ones given. For example:

Spoiler: WARNING! Very Dark Example

"You're locked in a metal room with another person and a knife. You both have nothing, not even clothes. You are going to be locked in this room for a very long time. You have running water that's safe to drink, but you aren't getting food. You're going to be locked in here long past Starvation. The only chance of you surviving is killing the other person in the cell. He speaks a different language to you, but has threatened you many times with the knife whilst you've been in there, and even cut your arm to have some blood from it, so him killing you seems likely. He is asleep and you are starving, literally. The knife is away from him and he is asleep. You are suffering alot.

What do you do next? Kill the man, Kill yourself or wait for the man to kill you?"

The best hypothetical scenarios are the ones without set answers. For example:

Spoiler: WARNING! Very Silly Example

What would you do if your arms turned into two Penguins that hated each other?

Calumon: Some say "Why would that happen?" but they just had a bad day and need a hug. :3