SJs: Most (but not all) answered the question at face value. This is probably due to a willingness to stick to the rules, even with a hypothetical question. The majority of those who chose to "cut" were not choosing death, though. They thoroughly believed that the rescue group would come back. And if the rescue crew had an SJ leader, this suggests they actually would. It would not occur to them to give up on a life out there. Also, the SJs saw the stupidity in cutting the rope at all. They would just let go.
NFs: Also thought cutting the rope was stupid and asked a lot of questions. One was willing to jump unless pregnant, which is interesting. Talk about thinking it through, who would even think of that? NFs wanted to know who was on the ladder, and displayed a willingness to knock off people they harbored a hatred towards. They also wondered why they would have to sacrifice themselves, why they had to be the hero. Suggestions were made regarding rope order (fittest would be in last place), which would increase chances of survival should the worst happen. None seemed to question the fact that the rescue crew wouldn't come back (correct me if I'm wrong... I'm unwilling to read the entire thread again). Perhaps NFs have seen enough of humanity's dark side to expect such things. "We all have feet made of clay" is supposedly an SP type saying, but maybe that's also true of NFs.
NTs: Immediately picked at holes in the scenario, requiring them to be filled in, only to be defied by a work around of some kind. When their problem-solving was discouraged and they were urged to answer the question at face value, they said the question was pointless because any question that attempts to measure moral fiber is all talk, we all think we would act one way, when we would actually have to be there in that moment to find out what we would do in reality. NTs showed a lot of avoidance regarding knocking others off (in my opinion), though they didn't disregard it as a possibility in the heat of the moment. NFs actually seemed to be more aggressive in that manner, claiming that they would be willing to leave someone else on the mountain if it was someone who deserved life less than themselves. One NT claimed they would make sure all of them stayed so that they could kill them off, take their clothes and use them to insure their survival. I think this was a demonstration of their ability to work through the situation using only cold logic, not to be taken at all seriously.
SPs: The STPs wanted to know what gear they had and chances of survival. Picked at holes in the hypothetical situation. Stated that they wouldn't be there in the first place. One said he'd make the whole group stay, since it's easier to survive within a group (he didn't seem to be considering them as potential sources of nourishment). The SFPs also questioned the situation. One said they'd stay if they knocked another guy down for food to survive until the rescue crew came back. Another said they wouldn't be on the bottom in the first place and they'd basically do whatever it took to survive. All SPs questioned the stupidity of the crew in one form or another for the most part, except Jeffster, who yelled something rather random in the thread and then didn't say anything further. Once the clarifying questions had been answered and the problem-solving was through the thread became boring and irrelevant due to the SPs coming to the exact same conclusion as the NTs regarding questions about morality. This may be due to the fact that only STPs replied afterward.
What do you NTs think?