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.

[@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

[@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

[@OrdinarySonicfanMmKay]

Ya

[@OpposingFork]

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

[@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.

[@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

[@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

[@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

[@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

[@manypixelsyt]

3:00 EVANGELION REFERENCE?!?!

[@donutman7407]

Was searching for this comment.

[@d1hatr]

sybau

[@lauchsuppedeluxelauchsuppe1803]

i know, i know ive let you down

[@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

[@StuckInALockerRoom]

@@Sonotthatguythatigetnohandlewho?

[@Henry723]

​@@StuckInALockerRoomredeemed zoomer i think

[@Sonotthatguythatigetnohandle]

@@Henry723 ye

[@xeanderman6688]

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

[@unfortunate76]

WHY WAS THE HEDGEHOG ONE SO SAD 😭😭😭😭

[@tyalu222]

RIGHTTT WHATTT

[@gbemade]

Watch evangelion

[@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

[@Michaelfirefoxx]

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

[@NeuronFly]

fr

[@scottdrangsholt7575]

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

[@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.

[@AarushA.S]

Ok the first one made me breathe manually

[@redtangerine2404]

Real

[@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

[@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

[@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*

[@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.

[@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.

[@LinTheColin]

3:23 Dude I was NOT expecting the Rain World reference, that’s amazing

[@Noodlefly_lover]

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

[@samrix8625]

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

[@JustCallMeTiff.]

The art is really good

[@tamantanniru514]

1:31 if there's someone in the self driving car & if the conditions are ideal, the car could stop without hitting the pedestrian and the car's occupant

[@randomguy2210]

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

[@HighFlyingOwlOfMinerva]

Gotta love the increased quality on display here.

[@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.

[@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

[@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

[@TuftyTaltan]

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

[@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

[@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!

[@titaniumhcr2]

I like the new artstyle

[@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

[@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.

[@iLikeEggNyom]

THE STRATEGIC VOTING ONE LITERALLY HAPPENED IN THE USA

[@SPAnComCat]

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

[@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.

[@realshaperio]

3:22 rain world

[@theultimatetaco42]

The drawings are so good

[@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.

[@ZoiusGM]

1:24 Why would a dictactor want to know what the people think? Why is it a dilemma?

[@CommonBread-nq8jl]

Like why Stalin died, he told his people not to come in and then died and no one came in

[@kristamu06]

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

[@dexnacorn7807]

woah new drawings are really good and really on theme

[@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

[@practice4617]

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

[@eggds54e5]

Babe wake up, paint explainer dropped

[@cleverballoon6535]

I hate the monty hall problem so much. The odds change to 50/50 when he reveals a goat. Knowing the other goat shouldn't act as a collective peobability since one is determined. Because if you did switch hoping to gain 2/3 odds instead of 1/3, that means you could also switch back to 2/3 instead of 2/3, which is impossible and hence its 50/50 since they are the same proportions. I dont know, i watched the scene where they explain in 21 and ive watched it over like 15 times and i truly feel like i understand it and that its just bullshit but please someone explain to me how it logically makes sense. Making you second guess yourself shouldn't do some quantum superposition scenario with the car's location

[@piller6725]

Let's say you have 100 doors. 1 door has an ABG (Asian baby girl), and the other 99 have diddlers. You pick door number one, but then 98 diddlers are removed and it's just one ABG and one diddler. In order for your chosen door to be an ABG, you would have had to have landed a 1% chance, there is a 99% chance a diddler is on your door and therefore a 1% chance a diddler is on the other (meaning 99% chance an ABG is on it) You should switch to bag an ABG. Monty hill is the same but with a 66.6% chance the other one is a car and 33.3% you are on a car.

[@espurrseyes42]

​@@piller6725 No. If you pick Door 1, and get Monty'd, then you know what's behind 98 of those doors and WON'T pick them knowing they're wrong. Those options are excluded, leaving you with the door you're already on and the other unrevealed door. You're at a 50-50.

[@piller6725]

​@@espurrseyes42You don't know the value of the 98 doors until you pick you pick a door (and he doesn't reveal the value of the door you picked). So all you know is that there is a 99% chance you have a goat and the remaining door has a 1% chance of being a goat. All knowing that the value of your door remains the same.

[@espurrseyes42]

@@piller6725 And then I pick a door, get Monty'd, find out 98 of the doors are worthless, and am left with the door I'm on and the remaining door. You're right, the value of your door doesn't change. It's still unknown. The probability however does. Because again, probability is Number of a particular outcome/Number of total outcomes. You picked 1 outcome out of the 100, now you're picking 1 out of the 2 outcomes after 98 of them got removed.

[@johnDoeshaveajob]

​@@espurrseyes42you can easily learn that it isn't a 50/50 by playing with a friend. Take three cups, one has a ball underneath, you friend chooses one and you then reveal one of the remaining cups that you know doesn't have a ball. If he always switch, he will win ~66% of the time.

[@youhavenobusinesshere]

the drawing style is amazing gang!!!

[@Childish207]

The trolley question is actually kinda easy. Letting the train run over 5 people means you didn’t touch it, which means the blood is not on your hands. However you could go to jail for pulling the lever as it’s illegal to pull train levers and you committed murder.

[@sirdappergaming6480]

The art looks great! So nice to look at

[@Literally_A_Tree]

The beginning of Munchousen was just every toddler

[@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

[@user-so2dc7th9f]

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

[@ArtOfRuin981]

Prisoner dilemma. Bloods vs crips babyyyy

[@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.

[@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..?

[@donkylefernandez4680]

Centipede's Dilemma perfectly encapsulates why it's so hard to activate Flow State

[@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.

[@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

[@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.

[@blackspell9890]

4:42 respect for actually pronouncing that correctly.

[@hxrry011]

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

[@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

[@8MinutesExplainer]

So refreshing to see a video without a pointless intro ❤

[@thatboyakira4202]

Most videos don't even have intros anymore.

[@BongoThe]

sweet artstyle.

[@form825]

keep uploading at this rate 🙏

[@drakethefool6159]

Who ever drew this one was obviously a flipnote kid

[@Gramoler]

2:37 ULTRAKILL REFERENCE?!?!

[@rainworldmonk]

3:22 there’s no way that wasn’t a rain world reference

[@wanjoris]

THE ROT CONSUMES RAAAAHHHHHHHH

[@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?

[@isuckatnames6033]

I can't believe you didn't make an Evangelion reference with the hedgehog's dilemma

[@luismendes7838]

You could make a video explaining all the games that are common in a Casino

[@OSCRandom]

The prisoner one is basically "steal or split" from Mr. Beasts challenges.

[@Alexandre-yp1uy]

5:30 this one can be illustrated with the game "The evolution of trust"

[@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.

[@kamataros5172]

Münchhausen dilemma is funny, because i learned during my studies that in essence all math is built on the concept of a "set". And, well, "set" is not properly defined.

[@-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

[@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.

[@Bonorob]

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

[@veinnovika]

help i've been manually breathing since the start of the video

[@TheDanteBoots]

Fed over by Morton's Fork yet again.

[@VoidDoesVideos]

"You're now manually breathing" get out.

[@laraleon8]

Bro the centipede one with blinking goes hard

[@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.

[@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.

[@caywo_]

I just discovered that I didn't know what a dilemma was

[@ar1456]

Multiple people did call the police for Kitty Genovese and one person yelled at the guy after the first attack. Many people in the area did not know that a crime was taking place. The criminal who killed her followed her to a secluded area after being driven away. Not saying the bystander effect wasn’t at play or isn’t real (there are better examples) but it was not as simple and everyone standing around doing absolutely nothing.

[@DrumrollPlease]

2:59 evangelion reference !!

[@VisorXmonglihjdu]

There were not any intended references in there, but I suppose that’s nice.

[@Anhyst]

munchhausens trilemma fucks me up so much. like what now

[@daddyken]

You should make a video about more game theory ideas, I think that would be a good video

[@way_2_saucy848]

The Monty hall one will never make sense for me 😭😭

[@way_2_saucy848]

Nvm some dudes comment just made it make sense

[@FrostyTheSnowPickle]

The “mathematical proving” of the Monty Hall problem isn’t actually a good proof, though. It’s based on the idea that even though you know one of the unchosen doors is wrong, it still counts towards your likelihood of choosing the right door. This is ridiculous. As soon as that door is eliminated, you’re no longer making your old choice. You now have a new choice, with a 50/50 chance of getting it right. As soon as that third door is shown to be incorrect, you can remove it from the problem entirely. You are choosing between two doors, each of which has an equal chance of being the correct door.

[@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.

[@brendensmith3083]

Bockenforde Dilemma is the most interesting, because it's fundamentally the question of "How does a free people remain free?" The dilemma applies this question to secular liberalism, but it's a great question generally. The answer you give depends on what you believe liberty is for.

[@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

[@marcelgrabowski8706]

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