Interesting side story, the Kitty murder did not happen the way the police described. There were barely any onlookers, it was dark and hard to make out what was happening ...and most important of all. People DID ring the police. There was several phone calls into the police after the first attack on her. The police did the whole "apathetic public" story to cover up a) their incredibly slow reaction time to the calls about her murder & b) the fact that they arrested 2 people for the same murder
@stuffedk I know if you have a three player game and everyone takes turns, the first player should shoot his bullet into the ground. The second player then shoots the third player since the first player is of no threat, and so only the third player dies.
@nahaymath Expected utilities are scale-able (TH-cam search "expected utility transformation"), so making the payoffs for Kitty's death a very negative value instead of zero is equivalent to making the cost parameter C very small. But no matter how small C is, as long as there is some cost, no one calls with positive probability.
@rockuser28 It's just an assumption here. There were about 40 people who witnessed the murder, some of whom yelled at the attacker to get away. This is also the simplest form of the game. I do an n-person one in the book.
@RamekoFX Yup, the story has grown more and more fictional through the decades. I talk about it in the book. That's also who I call the book a "parable," since the story is more parable than truth now.
just want to point out that psychology textbook never assumed the witnesses were mean-spirited but instead came up with the bystander effect that is super interesting and explains the silence of the witnesses with three different reasonings
The point seems to be that if there is very little to lose, and very much to gain, by calling the police, then we should call the police. According to Utilitarianism, one should incur the tiny burden of calling the police, if it could bring that much more good to someone else.
One factor that gets overlooked is the fact that good Samaritans are very often punished under the law. (And even when they are not, they become subject to revenge from the criminals) Just being a bystander is enough to have you convicted as an accessory to a crime. And actually involving yourself in any way can only make things worse. Even calling the police is a bad idea. For example, male victims of domestic violence are more likely to be arrested after calling the police. I'd be curious to see a re-make of this video that takes these factors into account. wordpress.clarku.edu/dhines/files/2012/01/Douglas-Hines-2011-helpseeking-experiences-of-male-victims.pdf
@JimBobJenkins You have already seen my logic regarding the p1 who hits 1/3 times, p2 who hits 2/3 and p3 who hits 3/3. please elaborate as to where my logic is flawed.
I like your videos. One question. What would you think about expanding this dilemma (current situation assuming that the witnesses are in an apartment where they cannot see one another) to include a case which people can actually see one another, but still having this dilemma. Would it make a difference?
@ICarnag3I Wouldn't everyone exept p3 try to kill p3, since if they killed someone else they would stand alone against him and face certain death? Also p3 would try to kill p2 since he would rather stand alone against p1. Easy :)
@rockuser28 Watch again in the morning? If you have never seen a Nash equilibrium in your life, go to my website and watch the first few lessons? Buy my book and support my campaign for world domination? ;-)
Interesting side story, the Kitty murder did not happen the way the police described. There were barely any onlookers, it was dark and hard to make out what was happening ...and most important of all. People DID ring the police. There was several phone calls into the police after the first attack on her.
The police did the whole "apathetic public" story to cover up a) their incredibly slow reaction time to the calls about her murder & b) the fact that they arrested 2 people for the same murder
@stuffedk I know if you have a three player game and everyone takes turns, the first player should shoot his bullet into the ground. The second player then shoots the third player since the first player is of no threat, and so only the third player dies.
@nahaymath Expected utilities are scale-able (TH-cam search "expected utility transformation"), so making the payoffs for Kitty's death a very negative value instead of zero is equivalent to making the cost parameter C very small. But no matter how small C is, as long as there is some cost, no one calls with positive probability.
@rockuser28 It's just an assumption here. There were about 40 people who witnessed the murder, some of whom yelled at the attacker to get away.
This is also the simplest form of the game. I do an n-person one in the book.
@RamekoFX Yup, the story has grown more and more fictional through the decades. I talk about it in the book. That's also who I call the book a "parable," since the story is more parable than truth now.
@stuffedk Oh, and everyone has perfect aim in that formulation. I think it would be the same if some players could miss, though.
based on the title, i thought this would be about schrödinger's cat.
just want to point out that psychology textbook never assumed the witnesses were mean-spirited but instead came up with the bystander effect that is super interesting and explains the silence of the witnesses with three different reasonings
The point seems to be that if there is very little to lose, and very much to gain, by calling the police, then we should call the police. According to Utilitarianism, one should incur the tiny burden of calling the police, if it could bring that much more good to someone else.
One factor that gets overlooked is the fact that good Samaritans are very often punished under the law. (And even when they are not, they become subject to revenge from the criminals) Just being a bystander is enough to have you convicted as an accessory to a crime. And actually involving yourself in any way can only make things worse. Even calling the police is a bad idea. For example, male victims of domestic violence are more likely to be arrested after calling the police. I'd be curious to see a re-make of this video that takes these factors into account. wordpress.clarku.edu/dhines/files/2012/01/Douglas-Hines-2011-helpseeking-experiences-of-male-victims.pdf
@ICarnag3I Do you mean a trual?
Apart from interesting anecdotes, awesome video, keep up the good work.
@JimBobJenkins You have already seen my logic regarding the p1 who hits 1/3 times, p2 who hits 2/3 and p3 who hits 3/3. please elaborate as to where my logic is flawed.
Can you show me the calculation when there are more players/bystanders?
So how do you proceed when N (number of bystanders) increases?
did you ever figure this out? Would love to know how this can be done
I like your videos. One question. What would you think about expanding this dilemma (current situation assuming that the witnesses are in an apartment where they cannot see one another) to include a case which people can actually see one another, but still having this dilemma. Would it make a difference?
I can share slides.
@ICarnag3I Wouldn't everyone exept p3 try to kill p3, since if they killed someone else they would stand alone against him and face certain death? Also p3 would try to kill p2 since he would rather stand alone against p1. Easy :)
@Chiraliffy There will be a place for you in my rubber stamp parliament.
@ICarnag3I aka a Mexican Standoff.
@rockuser28 Watch again in the morning? If you have never seen a Nash equilibrium in your life, go to my website and watch the first few lessons? Buy my book and support my campaign for world domination? ;-)
that's not how you pronounce genovese
lmao americans xD