[NT] Cut the rope? NT only

[Virtual ghost]

Actually there is no problem if you think outside of the box.


If you are stranded on a mountain with four other guys during the storm of the century the logical answer is obvious.

Instead of cuting that rope with that knife you use that knife to kill other 4 guys.
But you must plan this so that you catch them by suprise with that knife.

Once they are dead you will have enough warm clothing to complety cover yourself beneath a very thick layer of cloths. So that you have a chance to survive the storm.

When the storm passes you can take your time and dig a deep hole in snow or better soil if there is any. So that you can bury your comrades and their cloths.

Once you are done you can get off the mountain and claim that you got seperated from the group and that you don't know what happened to them and you have survived by pure luck since you have managed to hide between the rocks. What in a way is true it just that you have wrap yourself in half a meter of very warm cloths.


Most people who are climbing on this kinds of mountains are not doing it in their country so no one will be suprised if you move far away from the crime scene indefinitively.
Also many of those mountains are in third world countries so they will probably not even start a search to find the missing corpses. If you are in a developed country then you must make everything faster with more calculation. But you will know in which part of the world are you so this should not be a problem.


Even if you get caught someway what is not too likey your chances of survival are stil much better then in the helicopter case where you surely die.


So judging from the thread I dare to say that NTs failed at logic COMPLETELY!

 

[Sollas]

So the rescue chopper lowers a rope ladder. Ladder can only support 4 people.

Ladders are meant to be climbable. If they weren't then the rescue attempt is pointless.

What is wrong with the top person climbing all the way into the chopper? 5 rescued, 4 on the ladder and no one dies.

 

[thisGuy]

So the rescue chopper lowers a rope ladder. Ladder can only support 4 people.

Ladders are meant to be climbable. If they weren't then the rescue attempt is pointless.

What is wrong with the top person climbing all the way into the chopper? 5 rescued, 4 on the ladder and no one dies.

weather worsening, people climbing faster...ladders long that the first person is only halfway up there while you are already on it...

 

[matmos]

I saw a similar scenario in the film Stalingrad.

The last plane out of Potomnik has, if I can remember correctly, an SS sergeant kicking hangers-on in the face as the plane tries to taxi to leave.

The scenario actually makes a great deal of sense. The question is: who fancies doing the kicking?

 

[jenocyde]

weather worsening, people climbing faster...ladders long that the first person is only halfway up there while you are already on it...

Hey, you can't keep altering the situation! You had your chance in the OP to present the scenario...

 

[Tallulah]

How about simply not wanting to stupidly sacrifice any precious life until we know for absolute sure that this is the only way??? There has to be more than just 2 choices...

This, this, THIS is the point for most NTs. We are not going to accept that there are just two solutions, both disastrous, and sacrifice ourselves or others without exploring other options. You HAVE to think in terms of alternate scenarios, you HAVE to poke holes in the seeming evitability of the situation. You have to exhaust every single question, no matter how trivial or implausible or ridiculous, if it's a matter of life and death. I am not going to accept "die or let everyone die" in a split second, and then realize after the helicopter leaves, that I could have simply done [x].

Of course I look for alternatives. However, I do understand the purpose of thought experiments, and, as such, am able to temporarily disregard loopholes. The question here asks for a binary moral decision; it's not a puzzle. If the experiment were meant to be a puzzle, I would have solved it like one.

I think most NTs reject the idea of the plain moral hypothetical. It's boring. Make it a little more complex, where you could actually imagine being IN the situation, and what variables you could manipulate, and it becomes more interesting. We'll answer your moral dilemma in the process, but you have to give us something meaty to work with for our trouble. Simply, "Would you sacrifice your life to save your child?" is kinda boring. Everyone knows what you're supposed to answer.

This kind of thing always bugs me in movies. I'm a smart person, of course I KNOW that the point is that the hero sacrificed himself to save the rest of the party or his girlfriend or whatever, and that the point is that we're supposed to feel a big emotional payoff from the self-sacrifice, but I can't help but go, "But....he should have tried x! He could have done y!" If the sacrifice hasn't proved to be absolutely, positively inevitable, with no ways to work around it, it ceases to be "brave and noble" for me, and just seems stupid.

 

[Shimmy]

This kind of thing always bugs me in movies. I'm a smart person, of course I KNOW that the point is that the hero sacrificed himself to save the rest of the party or his girlfriend or whatever, and that the point is that we're supposed to feel a big emotional payoff from the self-sacrifice, but I can't help but go, "But....he should have tried x! He could have done y!" If the sacrifice hasn't proved to be absolutely, positively inevitable, with no ways to work around it, it ceases to be "brave and noble" for me, and just seems stupid.

Gran Torino... I loathe my friends for liking that movie just for this exact reason.

 

[INTPatricia]

i'm ready to die, the others may not be. it would be terrible to be afraid to die and be in their position. i'd cut it and take the fall.

 

[Orangey]

Gran Torino... I loathe my friends for liking that movie just for this exact reason.

Thank God, finally someone agrees with me! The ending was absolutely pointless.

 

[ThatGirl]

Why can't it lift the first 4 people, then lower again to pick me up?

Lol, this was exactly my first thought too. The question is absurd.

And if the weather was good enough to send out one helicopter at the moment, why couldn't they send out two? Same as making a round trip. Or They could have thought of that and sent a better ladder.

At any rate didn't read the rest of the thread.

 

[SaltyWench]

My observations:

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?

 

[jenocyde]

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.

It sounds pretty damn accurate.

This quote was kind of funny (regarding NFs)...

Talk about thinking it through, who would even think of that?

... because it's very obvious that you view N type thinking as something completely foreign - but it seems so natural to me to think of things like that. All the possibilities...

 

[entropie]

You really have to cut the rope, you really have to , girl !!

 

[thisGuy]

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/other-psychology-topics/18285-cut-rope-cnd.html#post704309

Conclusions and Discussions

 

[Valiant]

I assume the rope is tied around me? Otherwise it would be stupid to cut it...
The answer is yes, I would cut the rope if they agreed to come back and get me if it was humanly possible.

 

[Feops]

Knowing nothing of the other people, and assuming that the only two valid responses are to:

1. Cut the rope and die, but the others live
2. Do not cut the rope and everyone dies

Then I would cut the rope. This isn't a very difficult dilemma when you have nothing to gain. The harder questions I've seen are the ones that consider how much suffering you would be willing to inflict for your own benefit. For example, would you let four people you dislike die to save yourself? Four strangers? Four acquaintances? Four friends? Four family members?

 

[forzen]

Cut the rope. I was going to do it later anyways. Mind as well look heroic.

 

[violet_crown]

My observations:

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.

This is a good reminder of why NFs are the only type that make me nervous.

 

[ThatGirl]

This is a good reminder of why NFs are the only type that make me nervous.

See thread "Why Fers give me the creeps".

 

[blackhole]

This question can be answered by the following questions:

Are you James Bond?
What is your level of fear of death?
Would you sacrifice your life for a greater cause?


this is similar to the black duide in alien ressurection who cut the rope in order to save the cyborg from drowning.

Whats more funny though is would the helicompter crash because it run of fuel after you cut the rope? then who has a greater chance to being alive?