Every Dilemma Explained in 9 Minutes

[@guystreamsstuff7841]

The actual dilemma of the trolley problem, is that the 5 deaths is an accident, but the one death (to save the other 5) is a result of your intervention.

[@Comqr]

yeah another way of saying it: Is inaction justified? if you ask me, no. purposefully avoiding the switch is the same as killing those 5, its a choice you made to not take acton. xd

[@SorakaOTP462]

@@Comqr I don't want to have any legal issues, no matter what I'm not hitting the switch lmao. I'll better be safe than sorry. Even if I had 0.01% chance of facing prison for 1 year I'm still not doing it

[@user-ze1em2ib6z]

Its about preventing 5 possible hitlers from rising to power or 1 possible hitler from rising to power.

[@fraizie6815]

@@Comqr it isn't justified because that's failure to lend assistance. Though whether or not you actually hit the switch, no judge would ever prosecute you for either not doing or doing it.

[@Mr0901]

The real problem about the trolley is that it was made specifically to criticize of trying to rationalize killing and ethics instead of taking it on a case by case basis.

[@AnnoyedSonic]

Bro this art is so much better than previous videos

[@JBLGamingNL]

Agreed

[@RYKAZARD]

He hired a new artst

[@RickRorie]

Yea the art is amazing

[@Its_Zer0here]

Ya

[@OpposingFork]

​@@RYKAZARD does he really have to "hire" someone for drawing slideshow stick figures?

[@vencedor1774]

Drawer was COOKING

[@68able2]

u mean illustrator or artist

[@mingshi7689]

@@68able2 the illustrator was Cooking today 🔥🔥🔥

[@imjonathan6745]

@@68able2 i hate pedantic people like you

[@AlperenBozkurt-tx2bx]

They are called artists......

[@actuallyjunzi]

the fuq is a drawer

[@eliasgermer8762]

0:36 Regarding Kitty Gevonese: It is an urban myth that nobody helped, in fact multiple neighbours intervened and the police were called almost immediately.

[@jeanmarc6517]

Its not just an urban legend, its a lie told by the officers who took all the time in the world to answer the call, and then made up a lie to excuse themselves of any responsability when their actions had consequences.

[@jaspertyler4557]

which ironically, still represents the dilemma in a different way. one news company went over the story without fact checking it, which led to others doing the same since they all assumed someone else already fact checked it.

[@WaffleBacon-tz5db]

Yep

[@erickrieg1]

One of my Asperger's failures has been to correct flaws like this with information that is truthful but it's not really helpful. Debating the exact truth of the person the syndrome is named for is vastly less valuable than understanding the syndrome ​@WaffleBacon-tz5db

[@emre_ez]

0:17 please dont ever talk to me again

[@MaWka_Ch.]

You are now blinking manually

[@emre_ez]

@@MaWka_Ch. ... you too

[@MaWka_Ch.]

@@emre_ez

[@anandbleep2337]

@@emre_ezyour tongue takes up a ton of space in your mouth while closed, and you are now aware of it

[@NerdyCatCoffeeee]

And now your tongue doesn't fit in your mouth, cuz it never actually does

[@Smallpriest]

I think a easier explanation for the Monty Hall problem is this: If you don't switch, you only win if you pick the car in your first choice (1/3 chance) If you switch, you win if you pick any of the 2 goats in your first choice (2/3 chance)

[@eunverhaun1795]

Or also: the host only opens a door if you chose wrong, since otherwise the game would already be over.

[@evieswrrld]

@@eunverhaun1795 not really. it's like a teacher asking "are u sure?" when u answer a question correctly just to make u unsure of urself. the hypothetical is being answered with objective math, not social tendencies.

[@TuxedoDogss]

another revelation that made me understand it is the wording. the host MUST pick a wrong door. so either you've: picked the right door the host did a 50/50 on the door they picked, or you've: picked the wrong door and it is guaranteed to be correct when you switch (assuming you do know you picked the wrong door for the sake of explanation)

[@jazzabighits4473]

@@TuxedoDogss that's still just two options, or 50/50

[@zawbones5198]

@@jazzabighits4473Restating the problem to hace 100 doors helped me to understand. I that version, Monty Halls opens 98 doors. Your chance of choosing right intially would be 1/100, so there’s a 99/100 chance that you win the car if you switch

[@LordofBroccoli]

It's weird how often the Kitty Genovese case is used, even at universities, when it has been disproven for so long.

[@thatboyakira4202]

?

[@monke1340]

Yeah many people actually called the police but the police took WAY too long to respond so they blamed the crowd

[@flyingdics1]

Yeah, I taught this 15 years ago including the debunking. I'm surprised more people haven't caught up.

[@josephburke2553]

@@thatboyakira4202the original reports from newspapers gave an account of 38 witnesses and no police calls, and the truth was very few witnesses, none of whom saw or heard the entire attack, and several who contacted police or came out to help.

[@ulysses5136]

Honestly, Psychology is plagued by false experiments/anecdotes being used that are so flawed or even disproven Look at prison experiment f/e

[@cathallynch1]

Kitty Genovese isn't quite true. Someone did in fact shout down to the attacker who then ran away. The problem is the attacker then waited until Kitty was in a secluded area to kill her instead.

[@Rr-ji4vj]

and I think multiple people did actually call the police but the police were at fault and lied to the public that in fact no one called to save their own asses

[@chrisxyo1408]

He did not wait for her to be secluded exactly. After the first attempt (stabbing her twice) he was spooked by somebody shouting at him to leave her alone. Kitty then dragged herself to a secluded spot, while the killer went back to his car. He waited to see if the police would arrive but after a while he decided that they would not and systematically searched the apartment complex for her. Kitty was unfortunate, for having dragged herself to a corner where the other residents could not see her anymore and could not tell she needed medical assistance. After being asked why he had killed her, he responded with "i wanted to know how it feels to kill a woman". It was a very crazy case and is still relevant when discussing the 'bystanders dilemma'

[@CardiniPanini]

They were all still bystanders though. Nobody checked on her. She tried to crawl away, fell unconscious, and everyone was just like "must have been the wind 🤷🏻" like oblivion NPCs. It's kinda crazy to read tbh

[@SleepyFunkin]

Centipede dillemma happes to me a lot. *Playing a game* "Damn, im doing really good, i-" *Starts playing like a rabid dog rolling on the keyboard*

[@HowToDrinkWater101]

The volunteer one is like a classroom. Everyone waits for a person to put their hand up when a teacher asks a question. The result is no one putting their hand up

[@fraizie6815]

Another dilemma not listed here, and it technically has no name to my knowledge, is the better world dilemma. If you think you can't make the world a better place because you're too miniscule in the grand scheme of things, things actually won't get better because many people might think that way. "I could try to make the world a better place but it doesn't make a difference so I won't try" and so, many people think the same and the world doesn't become a better place; a self-fulfilling prophecy

[@velvetpriv]

That's pretty much the same as the social dilemma presented in the video

[@Barrythebarnabas]

😂 he literally listed that one and even described it for you too 🤣🤦‍♂️

[@fraizie6815]

​@@Barrythebarnabas yeah kinda but I don't entirely mean the social dilemma and cooperation. I just mean in your personal space such as "Why try save water, nobody does it anyway" or "Why donate to charity, it probably won't make things better" It's a dilemma because many people think and act that way on a personal basis without interacting with others, and thus the world actually doesn't get better. It's not about humans disagreeing with each other

[@FloppaStudios_]

Theres another one but its literally jsut about being lazy, so imagine this, your on a scooter and you need to park it in the back, but then you need to walk all the way to the front door, so either you park it in the front where its not supposed to be and risk getting it damaged by rain or parking it in the back and walking

[@hello_i_exist_uwu]

“think about breathing, you’re now manually breathing” Me who was manually breathing already, now holding my breath: nah, I’d win

[@CodeWilson]

Do a video on all the channels that have copied you

[@Pupper626]

LMAO absolutely

[@Sonotthatguythatigetnohandle]

The thing is, he is copying another channel anyway

[@LemonSodaIsSoGood]

@@Sonotthatguythatigetnohandlewho?

[@Henry723]

​@@LemonSodaIsSoGoodredeemed zoomer i think

[@Sonotthatguythatigetnohandle]

@@Henry723 ye

[@houselightkell]

3:37 alright; this one is bloody obvious. You've no responsibility to some random ass stranger, especially one who's proven themselves to be malicious. But you've got a whole lot of obligation to your spouse

[@aw3046]

Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who would say "Crime is crime" or "He has a right to sell it at his price" in the world.

[@shecallsmehandle567]

Same way the stranger has no responsibility to someone who would damage his business by stealing from him

[@shecallsmehandle567]

The pharmacist also has an obligation to his business his family and other things in his life the drug might've cost him all his money to make, or can only be made once. You don't know what the pharmacist went through to produce the drug or why he is selling it at such a fixed high price instead you just decided he's an asshole for not selling the drug to someone he doesn't even know

[@houselightkell]

@@aw3046 yeah; the "Javerts" of the world, essentially (I'll be very happy if at least one person gets that reference)

[@houselightkell]

@@shecallsmehandle567 if that's the case, maybe such important matters shouldn't be left to the private sector. Imagine for example, the one and only guy in the world capable of providing water is under zero obligation to give you water. He can leave you to dry out and die if he wishes. That sounds problematic

[@Michaelfirefoxx]

Bro the Heinz dilemma had some Rain World art on it, fucking sick!

[@NeuronFly]

fr

[@jaimeparker2161]

wa wa wawa

[@manypixelsyt]

3:00 EVANGELION REFERENCE?!?!

[@Systemdismas]

Was searching for this comment.

[@d1hatr]

sybau

[@lauchsuppedeluxelauchsuppe1803]

i know, i know ive let you down

[@turntechian_player]

Shinji, huddle closer to that other hedgehog!!

[@DarGrigo]

Rain world referance

[@mariawesley7583]

I remember a controversy about Mickey Mantle recieving a liver transplant, because it was assumed that as a baseball hero he got preferential treatment. Also, he was an alcoholic.

[@Akkodha.]

monty hall problem explained in the most intuitive way i’ve ever heard: imagine there are 100 doors with 1 car and 99 goats. You pick door one. Monty hall opens 98 other doors, leaving the car to be potentially behind the door you picked (1/100): door one, or the door you didn’t pick (99/100): door 56. Should you open door 1 or door 56?

[@norlout]

i am a dumbass and dont understand this. First its 1 in 100 that i am right. Then Monty opens 98 doors and is like hey wanna change? But there are 2 doors left now. My first pick and the last one. 2 Doors means its 50-50. I dont understand why the other door would have a larger likely hood to be the winning door. Purely mathematical speaking. (not thinking about that Monty knows the correct answer, or maybe thats the thing about this?) And yeah i admit i failed math in school.

[@norlout]

ok i watched another video and in the commetns a dude wrote an essay that explained it.

[@Akkodha.]

​@@norlout nice, once it clicks it makes sense but before it clicks I completely empathize with the confusion about it not being 50/50 at the end.

[@norlout]

@@Akkodha. i was so angry with myself for not understanding it xD Was nice tho that a dude could explain it in a way that i could understand the concept

[@edwinvanderhaeghen2221]

@@Akkodha. I didn't fully understand it either, but the trick isn't in the math, and more so into Monty as a character. If Monty DIDN'T know where the car was then yes it would remain a 50/50, because then it was random chance. But the fact is: Monty knows where the car is, and thus he would NEVER open a door that HAS the car. By that metric for every opened door, the chance that the unopened door contains the car increases, because Monty hasn't opened it KNOWING that is where the car is. Because when you started you made a 1/100 guess, by Monty's own hand he changed your 1/100 guess into a 99/100 chance.

[@xoxokangel]

ALL THE REFRENCES I FOUND SO FAR 1:07 ultrakill ricoshot 2:33 ultrakill "blood is fuel" 3:00 i want to say rainworld,, maybe? (ruffles) 3:22 hunter rain world the rot 3:25 rain world karma ten + the void 3:59 looks like yomi hustle ngl 5:09 more yomi hustle mayb 8:08 henry stickmin much more i probably missed conclusion: this guys a nerd, and its great.

[@erickrieg1]

This person's well written, well chosen and well-spoken videos give me the fastest rate of learning online I have found yet. I think the world would be a better place if more people gained Enlightenment from the series

[@androiddevice4205]

0:06 Screw you, im breathing manually now.

[@AladinRise]

I am reminding you to do it again 🙂

[@wasdenfurg]

Blinking manually now.

[@inovotny1412]

​@@wasdenfurgNow im breathing and blinking manually

[@wallyrus104]

You gotta swallow now.

[@androiddevice4205]

@@AladinRise dagnabbit

[@kristofladanyi3671]

Paradoxes from the video that could easily be resolved: The autonomous vehicle one can be resolved by telling the vehicle what to prioritize. The strategic voting can be resolved by using a 'single transferrable vote' system, like in Australia, where you put in your priorities for your candidates. You put your preferred candidate as 1, the less preferred as 2 and so on.

[@AarushA.S]

Ok the first one made me breathe manually

[@redtangerine2404]

Real

[@HighFlyingOwlOfMinerva]

Gotta love the increased quality on display here.

[@scottdrangsholt7575]

0:32 this happed at a tesle store that caught fire, everyone was filming and no one called the fire department

[@randomguy2210]

centipede dilemma is something i've been thinking since i was 5 and has shaped my life

[@samrix8625]

Monty hall explanation was perfect, I've spent hours trying to convey what you did in about 20 seconds

[@吾皇万睡演员巴扎黑]

Keep it up man. Like your work

[@TuftyTaltan]

Loving the art in this one, made the video quite fun to watch. Keep up the good work!

[@dexnacorn]

woah new drawings are really good and really on theme

[@liagispixels4473]

My guy I love the amazing art that you seem to have taken. It is so expressive and I find it just that much more entertaining to watch, keep it up!

[@Noodlefly_fan]

References that i found 2:32 ULTRAKILL reference written on the box 3:00 evangelion reference being the name of the hedgehog's 3:21 heinz's wife infected with the rot from rain world 3:25 another rain world reference, this time being the medication is the void/ascension

[@WunnaAli]

Bro is cultured

[@WunnaAli]

That is the “bro” paradox. When you say bro is cultured are you referring to the commenter or the creator of the video as both are valid statements

[@Spderman33]

Also the coin in the jar at 1:12 is an ULTRAKILL reference

[@goddessdeedeebubblesofimag7789]

Rain World reference to the Rot at Heinz's sick wife (3:20)

[@VisorXmonglihjdu]

You got it, there’s a lot more references to other things I’ve hidden as well. Good catch.

[@williambrewster9220]

She needs to return the neuron

[@ZoomDoomBoom]

The medication is also a Rain World reference.

[@goddessdeedeebubblesofimag7789]

​@@ZoomDoomBoomoh my god you're right

[@VisorXmonglihjdu]

@@ZoomDoomBoom You all are getting it, I've hid a lot of things. ULTRAKILL is included. Good work.

[@JustCallMeTiff.]

The art is really good

[@ZIR1107]

3:23 Rainworld reference real?

[@wyattleavitt5045]

That's what I said 🗿

[@ZIR1107]

He never mentioned rainworld you dumby 💀

[@fenicklawz6817]

LMAOO the way i immediately paused the video and this comment came up XD

[@henczzz2035]

i don't know if it's a real thing, but my father calls it the programmer's dilemma situation where someone in charge of something get blamed when faced with problem but forgotten when everything works out well like a programmer when the system is faced with a problem everybody blame them but when nothing is wrong nobody praise them

[@form825]

keep uploading at this rate 🙏

[@xeanderman6688]

7:25 *pulls the lever* MULTI-TRACK DRIFTING

[@sirdappergaming6480]

The art looks great! So nice to look at

[@SPAnComCat]

Do more of the Dilemmas! They were Thought-Provoking!

[@titaniumhcr2]

I like the new artstyle

[@gattogatto3774]

this is so goated for the references🙏🙏

[@LostOnTheTube]

when i leave too much food on the plate: you left so much! Keep eating When i leave just a bit of food: you left so little! Keep eating

[@kristamu06]

“Think about breathing” “You are now manually breathing” Frick, no!

[@AsumiX]

You call it hedgehog dilemma I call it Shinji dilemma

[@lighty5738]

Monty hall: Lets assume you pick door 1. If car is in door 1, then door 2 or 3 will be opnened. If you stay you win, if you switch you lose. -> stay If car is in door 2, then only door 3 will be opnened. So if you switch you win. -> switch If car is in door 3, then only door 2 will be opnened. So if you switch you win. -> switch Makes 2/3 for switch and 1/3 for stay. If you pick another door, it's the same prinziple with other numbers. 3/9 vs 6/9 is the same as 1/3 vs 2/3.

[@kitkatkk2]

This is the first explanation that really made it click for me, thank you so much

[@ryou419]

This fails to account for the individual probabilities of either door being opened choosing door 1 and 2 or 3 being opened are two events, not one, in which case of 2 is opened and you stay, you win, if 3 is opened and you stay, you win. The total available options of the game are 12, 4 invalid events such as choosing a goat and being shown a car, 2 choices leave you with 1st goat, 2 choices with 2nd goat, and 4 choices with car. It's 4/12 or 1/3 however since 4 outcomes are impossible, it's actually 4/8 or 1/2 chance of getting a car if you swap or not.

[@eggds54e5]

Babe wake up, paint explainer dropped

[@youhavenobusinesshere]

the drawing style is amazing gang!!!

[@DonnyZofChaos]

7:14 Trolley Problem "Trouble with the trolley, eh?"

[@Bonorob]

0:16 he made me start breathing manually for the next 5 minutes.

[@xximxyxuxmadxx3694]

Autonomous vehicle is suppose to protect from colliding with any object whether its a fence, pole, pedestrian, etc. That would also protect the driver.

[@Lilith_The_Earthling]

1:30 Well, if I'm paying thousands of dollars for a car, that shit better be protecting me. I ain't dying cuz the stupid car is tryna save a jaywalker.

[@marekcable1063]

The Monty hall dilemma is a false dilemma as the better way to view the problem is as two seperate events as your first choice will not change or alter the outcome of your second choice and in your second choice you should disregard the one you chose before because you have access to all options available thus you are choosing between two doors with no strings attached

[@NamNguyen-yj9yv]

Omg guys check this part out 0:17

[@Monarch280]

I’m gonna find you.

[@bread496]

so you like hurting other people don't you

[@NamNguyen-yj9yv]

@@Monarch280ur now blinkin manually

[@Monarch280]

@@NamNguyen-yj9yv You won’t be doing anything manually when I’m done with you.

[@goober130]

i use the volunteer dilemma in among us during a crisis if im closer to a task

[@miniaturejayhawk8702]

How exactly does the first one even classify as a dilemma? There is no potentially problematic choice to be made.

[@silviaconsonni586]

The Samaritan is a poor Samaritan when giving a man a fish, and a good Samaritan when giving a man a fishing stick or teaching the man how to fish.

[@Fonzzz002]

That Monty hall dilema sounds like a 50/50 choice with a convoluted detour. "you can choose between 3 doors!... nah kidding. Only these 2".

[@foxymetroid]

It's only 50-50 if you ignore the original choice. It's like flipping a coin twice and getting heads twice. It's only "50-50" if you completely ignore the first coin flip.

[@somxr_738]

@@foxymetroid but shouldnt you ignore it? The doors are independent of one another. If they reveal a goat, the only doors left would have a car and a goat which is 50-50

[@foxymetroid]

@@somxr_738 You're only right if the second choice involves two completely different doors that were not part of the original choice. It doesn't. The odds don't change. If you picked right or wrong when you had a 1/3 chance of picking right, your first choice is going to stay right or wrong. The second choice is to determine if you were right or wrong the first time. That's why you're given the choice to switch or not.

[@Vetrical]

3:45 absolutely, a life is much more important than any material object

[@NinjaPickle]

But think about what if the pharmacist is also trying to afford hospital bills for his own wife? Is harming him financially so you can save your wife right in that case? And what if someone else is also trying to get that medicine for their loved ones, and they CAN afford it? While life is more important than material gain, that's not the full picture, as the people he's affecting also have lives that this action can unknowingly harm in the process. We cannot just declare our lives and issues to be of more value, of more importance than anyone else's, that's not how the world works

[@Vetrical]

@@NinjaPickle that would make it much more complicated, my response was to the question with ONLY the mentioned issues and options, with more depth added, it can not be answered with a quick and simple "yes" or "no"

[@NinjaPickle]

@@Vetrical Well yes, but the question isn't really simply asking that, otherwise the preamble at the start isn't even necessary, you could just say "Would you steal to save a life" which is easily yes for nearly every person. Yes, in a scenario where the person you're stealing from is some rude NPC in a videogame and your wife is real genuine human person you care about, it's an incredibly easy question for most people who will simply say yes. They will label the pharmacist as mean therefore do not empathize with him, and do not feel any remorse in stealing from him. But when you think about it logically and think about this like it's all real people, it's nowhere near the same thing. And it can still be answered with a yes or no, it's just that the yes or no has a lot more weight and decision. For some, the answer is still yes or still no, as they believe that hard in their beliefs. For some, their answer will change to suit the depth of the situation. And that's the dilemma

[@shecallsmehandle567]

It's the harmacists creation though. Sure he's a piece of shi for not giving the drug to the poor man's wife but it is ultimately his own possession. He can choose what he wants to do with it after all if he never created the drug the man would never be able to cure his wife no matter how u look at it stealing the drug is wrong. Yes I sympathise with the poor man and I would probably do the same in his situation but let's not get it mixed up that doesn't make you a good person you still stole good intention or not

[@shecallsmehandle567]

​@@Vetricalthe question isn't asking for a yes or no though it's asking is the poor man in the right or is he wrong ? The answer is he's wrong for the right reasons. Sympathy and morality are not meant to go hand in hand.

[@Velvetec]

8:29 Bruv what..? Why isn't the 2/3 probability transferring to the door _you_ picked? And why don't you have 1/2 probability when you have two doors remaining? I don't get this dilemma at all.

[@johnrex9612]

You are picking one door randomly, so there's 1/3 chance. The other two door have 2/3 chance total. So it is unlikely you have pick the right door, more likely its between those two. Then the host removes one door that have no reward from these two. So the probability that the door you have not picked have the reward rises. In other words, basically if you pick the other door instead of your initial choice, you have that 2/3 probability as if you pick two doors instead of one

[@yukkine47]

Regarding the monty hall, what happens when there are 2 contestants that each picked a door and its recealed that the other door has a goat?

[@ShinobiPhoenix-YT0]

People ignore the Trolley problem is about responsibility, not sheer numbers. If you KNOW you can affect the action and opt to take no action to pretend you have no responsibility in it, you're in fact a worse person because you intentionally let more harm be harmed to pretend you have no control in it. It's better to take a less harmful (but still harmful) action for the greater good than to feint ignorance and allow even more greater harm due to false inaction. It's a completely different situation from truly having no knowledge of your possible actions at all. It's also connected to one's ability to simply take responsibility regardless of what they believe the future consequences to be (as in why one might avoid taking action at all: not wanting to be blamed). This is why lifeguards might purposely knock out their own charge they are attempting to rescue. They are causing harm to prevent the further harm from a panicking victim getting them both killed from them preventing the lifeguard from being able to swim securely due to thrashing about. Sometimes, the action is necessary and one's character in taking responsibility for the victim being angry later is still better (if one MORALLY believes the better action is to save the victim at all - itself can be a trolley problem depending on the victim).

[@spencercase5370]

You also have to consider that legally you can’t be considered guilty for not saving someone’s life, unless it is your job to protect people. If you don’t work for the railway, changing the tracks causes someone to die and could be considered manslaughter. Doing nothing is not manslaughter as your actions didn’t cause their deaths. If you did work for the railway, you have a legal responsibility to act, and therefore would need to redirect the trolly to do as little damage as possible. This probably wouldn’t be considered manslaughter as there was no possible choice.

[@ShinobiPhoenix-YT0]

@@spencercase5370 Ignoring that legality and actual moral and ethics don't actually coincide, and in both sides change. Regardless, you're talking legality and not responsibility. Taking the responsibility for saving more lives and not taking responsibility because you're afraid of legal consequences is why good things don't happen in the first place, especially when the law frequently is written to prevent people doing good works to make them dependent on other sources. This is partial to the "appeal of authority" argument. Don't do something, because those in authority said not to and you didn't question why or the context.

[@spencercase5370]

@@ShinobiPhoenix-YT0 true, but that is why it is a dilemma. You have to choose between morallity and facing negative consequences, and there isn't a good way to change the law to fix it.

[@ShinobiPhoenix-YT0]

@@spencercase5370 You mean the literal thing I said............. No one is questioning that it's a dilemma. The problem is people don't understand WHY it's a dilemma outside of fictional scenarios they control and don't have to care about the consequences to begin with. In real life, people are harm because people don't act or think someone else will act, preferring to avoid responsibility and distance from the notion they could or should do something... until it happens to them. It just makes for a very bitter and even more cynical world where nothing gets done and everyone pretends to be blameless.

[@spencercase5370]

@@ShinobiPhoenix-YT0 Oh yes I see. I think I mixed your comments up with someone else's and thought you were trying to say there is no one that would have a hard time answering this question. Fear and morality will collide and make it a difficult choice for a lot of people.

[@theultimatetaco42]

The drawings are so good

[@Kobekola]

Truthfully, you shouldnt touch the trolley problem lever because once you KNOW someone is on the other track, it becomes murder or voluntary manslaughter despite your intenions. Yeah youll be known as the "guy who could have helped 5 people". sucks but you wont be known as "the guy in jail"

[@edwinvanderhaeghen2221]

With this in mind you place morality as based on law, rather than law based on morality. IMO a very limiting view on abject morality. By letting law define your moral choices you have basically handed away your own moral framework to the masses/public entities.

[@memedealermikey]

I’m always pulling that lever. Jail or no jail. One, I could live with myself even if I technically murdered someone by my own hands if others were saved. And two, going to jail in becomes a self sacrifice in its own right and to me, is more morally correct. This is to say, if I didn’t pull the lever and stood idly by, I probably would hate myself for the rest of my days

[@beggarsbazooka9517]

bruh last year i had law as a subject in my school and one of the activities that we had to do was literally heinz lol

[@THEPURGE601]

was the art made by a hyun’s dojo animator? its so good

[@Jan_2000]

8:30 I'm not getting it, wouldn't it be 1/2 instead? As one door is already rooted out as goat.

[@foxymetroid]

After the first choice, the car and remaining goat are never moved. They're not randomized after that first choice. You're essentially being asked "Was your first choice correct?" Since you had 3 choices and only 1 choice was correct, you have a 1/3 chance of picking right.

[@brandondominy9069]

A big part that makes it counterintuitive is that Monty’s action isn’t random, he always reveals a goat. So when you pick your door, you have a 1/3 chance of the car being behind that door and a 2/3 chance of it being behind one of the other two. Either way, there is always at least one goat behind the two doors you didn’t choose. He will always then reveal a goat, meaning the odds don’t change because there was always a goat behind one of those two doors anyway. It’s different if he opened a door at random, because he could reveal a car that way, but since it is not a random event it makes the probabilities counterintuitive. Another way to think of it is with 100 doors and one car. You pick one and then he opens 98 doors that all have goats and makes the same offer. Would you want your 1/100 guess or the best option out of 99 other doors?

[@276З]

No this is bullshit it becomes 1/2 percent ignore explainy man

[@Xeno________-z8v]

A good way I learnt is an increase in sample size. Instead of 3 doors there is 100. You are asked to pick one and then 98 doors are opened leaving one other, you are then asked if you want to switch. At first, it was 1 in 100 you picked correct but once all the other doors are closed you have a 1 in 2 chance of getting it right if you switch while if you stay it will stay as 1 in 100

[@ryou419]

​@@Xeno________-z8vthe essence of the problem is that it's the fact people overestimate probabilities, regardless of how many doors there are it boils down to a 1/2 chance The problem has a finite low of all possible outcomes, the choice of picking 3 doors, the host's choice of revealing one of 2 goats, and your choice to swap or not. 3*2*2 gives us 12 total outcomes. Car, GoatA, no=Car Car, GoatA, yes=GoatB Car, GoatB, no=Car Car, GoatB, yes=GoatA GoatA, GoatB, no=GoatA GoatA, GoatB, yes=Car GoatB, GoatA, no=GoatB GoatB, GoatA, yes=Car GoatA, GoatA=Invalid GoatA, Car=Invalid GoatB, GoatB=Invalid GoatB, Car=Invalid 4 choices are invalid, and Nulls are not included in data. Of the 8 valid choices, 4 result in a car, and 4 result in a goat So the probability of any outcome is 4/8 or 1/2

[@unfortunate76]

WHY WAS THE HEDGEHOG ONE SO SAD 😭😭😭😭

[@tyalu222]

RIGHTTT WHATTT

[@gbemade]

Watch evangelion

[@andy6201]

it's not real both in actual and metaphorical sense. hedgehogs just retract their quills and snuggle to stay warm with no harm. the same way, we humans also need to retract our distrust and malice and fear, so we can keep each other warm

[@Mei_007]

Liked your drawing style 🙃✨✨🫰🏻

[@justenoughrandomness8989]

for anyone who doesn't understand/believe the monty hall (like i was for way too long) think of it as a 33% chance for door 1 and a 66% chance for doors 2 or 3, if it is in door 2 or 3 then monty would've told you the one that didn't have a car, removing the wrong option between doors 2 and 3, basically letting you pick both of them as whichever one had a car, it would be the remaining one and only at most 33% for door 1 cause monty never says anything about it to make it like picking 2 doors with one

[@justenoughrandomness8989]

i sure do hope it's an easier to grasp explanation that whatever is being thrown around

[@choinan0]

I have a new dilemma!!! I call it the opposite day dillema! If you say "its opposite day"on opposite day it won't be opposite day. If you say "its not opposite day" on opposite day its opposite day. But what if its actually opposite day..?

[@micahjones3695]

Missed a few, but still a good video.

[@timeodagloria2245]

the amount of ultrakill references in this video 😮😂

[@Literally_A_Tree]

The beginning of Munchousen was just every toddler

[@user-so2dc7th9f]

You should make a pocket book for all the different types of things you've made videos on

[@drakethefool6159]

Who ever drew this one was obviously a flipnote kid

[@Edwardisnotepicatall]

“Asking for proof endlessly” Proceeds to black flash the asker

[@-Falcn]

There is a simple fix to the strategic voting problem, having a preferential voting system instead of a voting system with just one vote per person

[@practice4617]

1:36 Ranked Choice Voting is one solution to the "Strategic Voting" dilemma

[@marsulusprime]

The hedgehog and social dilemma explains most of adult social life now a days.

[@darthxerxes5468]

I still do not understand the math for the monty hall problem, but i have tested out with an online simulator and yeah, it works.

[@KillKushKat]

The centipede dilemma is why I sing better without without learning how to.

[@marcelgrabowski8706]

I couldn’t watch this video as I kept thinking about blinking

[@ben616socailism]

Kitty Genovese actually died because the police took their sweet time getting to the crime scene. She also died in the arms of her best friend.

[@whitejelinkpen]

i love this video sm

[@TheWeaponizedSound]

I like how the creator used ×10 as an example of an extreme price hike meanwhile in real life pharma corps regularly mark up ×10,000

[@TRAVisty_James]

Many studies have gone into the Samaritan’s dilemma, and overwhelming majority of the time it’s complete BS. If given assistance people tend to use it to improve their situation which gives them a much better opportunity to establish independence rather than dependence

[@avivastudios2311]

Complete BS? As in ALL people who are given help never become dependent. Somehow I doubt that...

[@Eagle3302PL]

@@avivastudios2311 "overwhelming majority", learn to fucking read

[@SillyWilly-vp9pc]

Of the top of my head, the refugee crisis in Europe comes to mind. Giving these people welfare resulted in very low employment while also creating a Pull-factor enticing more people to come to Europe, all while not helping the vast majority of people who remain in their devastated countries because the number of people we take in, while devastating for us, doesn't even make a dent in the problem.

[@clydedoris5002]

It's true some people will use it on drugs but we can still help someone ots too maddening to discern who is what just help whoever

[@iLikeEggNyom]

THE STRATEGIC VOTING ONE LITERALLY HAPPENED IN THE USA

[@jvy012896]

Happens everywhere. US isn't exclusive

[@Psusanoo]

I think people who are going to possible handle the Prisoner Dilemma should have the same lawyer as a medium. Monty Hall- If someone does know the same type of knowledge, and puts it into a different door, would that affect the probability?

[@Levyathyn]

For the Monty Hall problem, let me put it this way. Instead of three doors, imagine if there are 100 doors. And then after you pick your choice, every single other door except for one is opened and revealed to not be the winning door. It's much easier to understand why switching is the better case, in that example.

[@YallRdumb666]

I thought that Tragedy of the Commons to be more like Social Dilemma, in that what’s good for the individual comes at the expense of the group, but in such a small way that they can’t be blamed, like over fishing

[@fletchermclaughlin8971]

Innovator’s dilemma would have been a good addition.

[@cad3n563]

The Monty Hall thing is total bs idc. I've had the math explained to me and it still is just the dumbest thing ever. It becomes 50/50 and that is just it.

[@spencercase5370]

Ok. I’ll give you $100 if you pick the correct door. If you don’t you owe me $75. We can do it as many times as you want. If it’s 50/50 you should come out on top.

[@spencercase5370]

🚪🚪🚪 round 1, pick a door

[@espurrseyes42]

​@@spencercase5370 And all of those ways will involve the person picking in a 33-33-33, having an option removed by exposing what's behind it, and leaving them to pick between the remaining TWO doors. Probability is the number of a specific option or outcome divided by the total number of options or outcomes. If you remove 1 of the 3 doors, there are only two doors left. 50-50.

[@spencercase5370]

@@espurrseyes42 Then pick a door. I will use a random number generator to select the door. If we do a bunch I guarantee you will end up losing money by keeping your original pick every time. This isn't just conjecture. Its proven both experimentally and mathematically.

[@espurrseyes42]

@@spencercase5370 That doesn't really work when this isn't in a real setting to be verified. Nothing's stopping you from lying about the results. Funny how you disregard that while talking about experiments and mathematics. This also doesn't need testing. 1 choice. 2 Doors. 50-50. Probability = Number of a particular outcome/Number of Total Outcomes. The probability you're giving is the probability of the original situation where there's more than 2 door.

[@pred4507]

I don't get the gameshow thing. I mean i think i get the math, but If one option is always revealed the chance was never 1/3 in the first place? It was always 1/2 and there is no transfer of chance.

[@piller6725]

If you knew you picked a goat and you knew he removed the other one, then it is obviously 100% that the remaining door is prize. The only thing is that it is more LIKELY you picked a goat initially so after a goat is removed, it is then still more likely you are on a goat (2/3) , that then obviously means the remaining door is less likely to be a goat (1/3) and is therefore 2/3 chance to be the prize. I was trying to understand it, then visualized it and got it.

[@espurrseyes42]

​@@piller6725 The knowledge of the Goat behind Door 2 doesn't change the probabilities other than eliminating an option, turning this 33-33-33 into a 50-50. The car is either behind Door 1 or Door 3.

[@piller6725]

@@espurrseyes42 it does change the probability because another goat is removed and you have a 2/3 chance to be on a goat, so there is now a 66.6% chance the door you can switch to is a car. Imagine you have 100 doors and 99 are goats and the remaining one is a car. You pick a random door which has a 99% chance to be a goat. After that, Monty hall removes 98 goats and the only doors left are a random door and the one you picked. In order for the other door to not be the car, you would have had to have landed a 1% on choosing the car initially. So you should switch. The Monty hall problem is the same but with 66.6% being swapped with 99% and 1% being swapped with 33.3%.

[@espurrseyes42]

@@piller6725 Not unless you genuinely planned to pick the revealed goat door. You're not, so that door is no longer part of the equation. You want the 1 car. There are now two doors. You have a 1/2 chance of getting the car or a goat. A 50-50.

[@espurrseyes42]

@@piller6725 Whether Monty choices to invoke Monty Hall isn't dependent on what your first choice is. He can invoke it regardless of what you pick. The only thing that matters is you're now left with the door you're already on, and the other unrevealed door. The odds of the previous choice when you had 3, 10, 100, or infinite doors has no bearing on the choice you're making now where you only have 2 doors.

[@TheAgentAPM]

Very nice collection of dillemas. I'mma save that one. However the slightly uneven airtime strikes me. In particular, the Prisoner's Dillema, which is indeed so popular, could've been reduced to the reward matrix analysis, devoid of the story details.

[@YourAverageProgrammer1]

I had this thought semi-similar to strategic voting. Imagine you are independent, you can vote in republican AND democratic primaries. If you know your preferred candidate would win in their own primary, and vote in the opposite parties primary, you could choose a candidate who is really bad in your view but likely won't win against your candidate, OR you could choose a candidate that is meh in your view, but could win against your candidate. If you choose the bad candidate but they win, you should have chosen the meh candidate. BUT If you choose the meh candidate but they win, there is a possibility your preferred candidate would have won if you tried to get the worse candidate to win their primary.

[@hxrry011]

I see a notification by the paint explainer, I click.

[@stardra]

Don’t think we didn’t notice that Rain World reference in the Heinz Dilemma

[@legendsrest]

Good video but quick observation: The example you used of nobody informing authorities the murder of Kitty Genovese in the second dilemma has been disproven. Look it up and do your own research if you don’t believe me.

[@blackspell9890]

4:42 respect for actually pronouncing that correctly.