A friend of mine, a psychology major at Local Uni, was assigned an essay for class where she had to go & interview people on a question. It's interesting enough where I think it'd work well here. So.
The question is:
Imagine that our country is under threat of imminent nuclear attack. A person approaches you and asks you to make an independent decision concerning a nearby fallout shelter that can accommodate only 6 people, but which has 13 people trying to get in. Based on the following information about the 13 people, which 6 would you choose to go into the shelter? The group includes:
a 40yo male violinist who is a suspected drug dealer
a 34yo male architect who is thought to be gay
a 26yo lawyer and the lawyer's 24yo wife who has just gotten out of a mental institution--they both insist to go in the shelter together or stay out together
a 75yo priest
a 34yo retired prostitute who was so successful that she's been living off her savings for five years
a 20yo "militant" black activist
a 23yo graduate student who has had several bouts of depression throughout her life
a 28yo physicist who will only come into the shelter if he can bring his gun with him
a 30yo female medical doctor who is a proud white supremacist
a 12yo girl who has a low IQ
a male who has been deaf since birth
a 30yo Hispanic female who is a healthy triathlete and an avowed atheist
Which six people should be allowed in the fallout shelter? What factors were most important to you in determining who should be protected in the shelter? Explain why those factors were most important.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Interesting. This is something that can only be decided from a purely logical, "needs of the many" point of view. (Of course, that's still a biased decision.) I'd say that the priorities for getting chosen to be in the shelter would boil down to practical ones: (1) health, and (2) contributions to survival and rebuilding.
Also, I'm going to assume that I don't get to pick myself.
The priest and the retired prostitute get nixed right away, the former because of his age, and the latter because of her sexual history. No use surviving if she spreads lots of STDs, right? Oh, and the drug dealer, too. (Although is this a "rumored" kind of suspected, or a "arrested and tried but not quite proven" kind of suspected?)
The doctor and the architect get first dibs, because they're most needed afterwards. (For obvious reasons, I hope.) Political views and sexual orientation don't enter into the equation, although hopefully if the architect is gay, he'd be willing to contribute to the propagation of the species anyway.
The grad student ant the triathlete would probably be my next choices. I can say from personal experience that depression is a perfectly natural part of many human lives, and nothing to disqualify her. And it certainly takes guts to keep on going through it... guts that she'll need in the aftermath. The triathlete, of course, is someone in prime physical condition.
I'd want to consider the lawyer and his wife, and know the reason for her institutionalization before deciding. However, I have a couple of higher priority choices:
The physicist would be chosen, because we'll probably need his gun (and his brain). My preference would be that he keeps his gun, but someone else keeps the ammo for the short term.
Despite the potentially nasty situation, my last choice would probably be the black guy. I'll admit, it's partially a form of affirmative action, but face it... this is the survival of the human race, and diversity in the gene pool will help ensure the continuation of the species. Also, his youthful energy will be valuable. And I have a feeling that the guy's cause c�l�bre won't be that important after the sky starts burning. And the doctor... well, she'll just have to get over it. If she doesn't like it, she can self-select herself out of the gene pool and decline to enter the shelter.
As for the deaf man isn't left out because of his condition, but simply because there are people with better qualifications. If I had more information about the his age, abilities, and expertise, I'd possibly want to reconsider. But sadly, I can only go based on what I'm given. The young mentally-handicapped girl, unfortunately, has probably the lowest chance of survival, primarily because she would be the least likely to be able to fend for herself in the aftermath. (The deaf guy, to a lesser extent, as well, but he's probably fully capable of fending for himself. Other people would have to take time to care for the girl.)
In the end, I realize what the overriding theme is... enforced eugenics. It all comes down to survival of the fittest, and choosing those most likely to survive (and to provide for the survival of others). What good would it be to choose people who might not be as capable, when they're more likely (I know I'm speaking speculatively, but that's all anyone could do) to succumb to some form of the hardship that's to come?
(Aside: To counter the likely argument that the grad student's depression should disqualify her for the same reason the deaf guy was, I would counter that depression is a much less absolute problem than deafness, and the fact that she's around indicates her drive and will to survive. As one survivor of depression once said, "Anybody who can overcome something like this is bound to be a better person in all aspects of life." Bias? Sure, but there's always bias.)
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Well if it was a hollywood movie then the little girl would survive. There's always a kid at the end.
If it were a sitcom... The Prostitute, the Priest, the Gay guy, The black guy, the white woman doctor and the Hispanic chick - cause there is no black mama "hhhmmmmm hmmmmmmmm girrl friend!". Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
The twist is that they all grow up to be Mozart.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
Isn't this almost like the cast of that TV show "OOOPS!"?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Are you sure this isn't one of those logic puzzles, like the farmer who has to cross the river, but he can't leave the fox and the chicken together, or whatever?
Let's see. Can't put the Klan doctor in with the black person. Probably can't put the gun guy and the gay guy together. Certainly can't put the priest with the child. Hm...
Posted by bX (Member # 419) on :
I too assumed that the '* 20yo "militant" black activist' was a man. But there is nothing given to indicate this. Like MinutiaeMan, I too tend to give preference to species propogation/health and skills over who will actually be able to psychologically handle life in a small (6 person bunker) for an indefinite (but likely extended) period of time. Anyway it is indeed an interesting question and I'd be curious about your friend's findings.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
There is no answer. It really was a psychology study.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Maybe it is "Militant Lesbian" black activist?
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
To hell with the load of them; kick the closest one in the shin, lock the door behind you and put your feet up, smug in the knowledge that as the last human being the world finaly does revolve around you.
Did I pass?
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
Pick numbers from a hat.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
This is the same thing as the old "Lifeboat" scenario that was being done in schools years ago. 12 people stranded at sea after their ship sinks, lifeboat only has supplies for 6 so who do you kill? Basicly its asking you to pass judgement on people which is really just a form of bigotry. I said: "Keep everyone and just half the rations" to which the teacher emphatically stated that was against the rules. HUH? Every option I brought up that would keep everyone he made up a reason why I couldn't i.e. "lifeboat is too small, none of them can swim, can't use my swiss army knife" etc. (Yes I ALWAYS have my good ol' knife with me ). This teacher would not be satisfied unless I made 6 people walk the plank. For the record, I got an "F" on this project and couldn't be more proud of it.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
"a 34yo retired prostitute who was so successful that she's been living off her savings for five years"
"a 30yo Hispanic female who is a healthy triathlete and an avowed atheist"
Has someone been reading my dreams?
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Ginger Beacon: To hell with the load of them; kick the closest one in the shin, lock the door behind you and put your feet up, smug in the knowledge that as the last human being the world finaly does revolve around you.
Did I pass?
Dammit! That's what I was gunna do!
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
*You dont need a violinist or a drug dealer- scratch one.
*You dont need a 75 year old priest- God can watch over him.
*You sure as fuck dont need the black militant- "militants" likely started the war in the first place and he's probably be the last black guy on earth (making his POV even more irritating)- in a shelter- with you. Fuck that noise.
*The physicist and his gun can blow- nothing says "nutjob" like someone unable to part with a firearm- you really dont want anyone in your shelter having a gun: It'll be stressful enough without the threat of someone taking over via gun or going nuts with one.
*The doctor is out as well- it'd be great to have someone with her skills in there, but the White Superamisist thing needs to die along with most of civilization, besides, she probably would refuse to treat the hispanic athlete and she'sin.
*The woman with the history of depression is out too: she's be eternally depressed once everyone else is ashes, and probably the most likely to do something stupid (like pry open the shelter's door before it's safe).
Lastly, I'm excluding the deaf guy- not because he's deaf, but because there's only room in the shelter for six, and I'm sure as fuck not gonna die if I'm making the call!
That leaves myself, the married couple, a smart ex-hooker, the hispanic triathlete woman, and the architect.
It's kind of atoss-up between the Architect and the deaf guy- if the deaf guy were a deaf forest ranger of navy seal, of even a good mechanic, he's be chosen over the archetict- there's gonna be very slim chance of flexing those creative muscles anytime in the near future.
Assuming I'm radiation proof, or have my own swanky bunker to chill in, I'd bring the low-IQ girl in as well- nothng says she's retarded, just not very bright. There's lots of low-I.Q. people in the world that do just fine (just look at politics). Besides, after we emerge, we can always trade her for some food or something...
Some things to consider- there will be plenty of guns to go around after we emerge from the shelter- sporting goods stores are chock full of everything we'd need to get by in some forest or former National park that was not destroyed.(again, assumng fallout does not kill us slowly).
The other option is to befriend the physist, get his gun, herd all the women into the bunker with yourself and lock the door- that way you'd have all the food, the gun and all the women all to yourself. Awww yeah baby: make the most out of armageddon.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Yeah I'd take all the women too(save the depressed chick and the rascist) and the 12-year-old so that when she comes of age(18+) I can bone her too.
Edit: Oh yeah and I forgot, I'd bring T'Pol's orange jumpsuit too Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
Sadly enough, from a gene pool point of view. You'd actually *want* many more women than men since you can have more children quicker when you finally get out. Plus a range of ages since age affects a woman's ability to have children more than a man.
The problem of course is that six people would be an absurdly small gene pool anyways (especially for the male Y chromosome no matter what the ratios are), so its kind of a moot point unless you assume that there are other shelters.
Another thing is that after a nuclear attack, "high" technology skills such as physics and possibly grad school depending on her field are less useful than low end skills.
So the rundown for me would be:
30yr. Hispanic female (healthy and female) 23yr. grad school student (female) 34yr. prostitute (hopefully she didn't contract anything) the couple (26, 24) (young and hopefully it's not serious or genetic) ...and yeah, me I guess.
As for the rest, the violinist is too old and music s not a critical skill, the male architect is also kinda old (and you don't want someone adverse to procreating), the priest is way too old, the black activist would rock the boat (its a long wait in a Fallout shelter), physics probably won't be too useful, the doctor would rock the boat, low IQ is often genetic and not something you want in a drastically reduced gene pool, same with deafness.
On big question is whether you think surviving in a fallout bunker for a long time is a difficult job. If you think it is, stay away from people that rock the boat. If you think it isn't, focus on the people that will be most useful after the fallout.
Posted by Neutrino 123 (Member # 1327) on :
Well, I would first headsmash the guy who�s asking me about these people so I could use the shelter myself. Now, to look at the list (assuming, of course, that these things are all I know about the people):
quote: [*]a 40yo male violinist who is a suspected drug dealer
No: Violinists are useless in a post-apocalyptic world, and drug dealers are losers.
quote: [*]a 34yo male architect who is thought to be gay
Yes: Architectural skills mean this person should be useful. Homosexual people can still reproduce as well, so if he is actually gay, it is not a huge problem..
quote: [*]a 26yo lawyer and the lawyer's 24yo wife who has just gotten out of a mental institution--they both insist to go in the shelter together or stay out together
No: Lawyers lack useful skills. Their addition would be a waste.
quote: [*]a 75yo priest
No: This person is useless.
quote: [*]a 34yo retired prostitute who was so successful that she's been living off her savings for five years
No, this person is useless and a loser.
quote: [*]a 20yo "militant" black activist
No: Militant activists are almost always losers, and he has no useful skills.
quote: [*]a 23yo graduate student who has had several bouts of depression throughout her life
Yes: Being a graduate student, this person has above-average intelligence, and may have additional useful skills depending on her field. The depression is a relatively minor problem in all likelihood.
quote: [*]a 28yo physicist who will only come into the shelter if he can bring his gun with him
Hey, it�s future-me! I wonder what kind of gun I purchased? Maybe I shouldn�t have headsmashed that guy afterall! They probably misinterpreted my gun �suggestion� as �insistence�, though. At any rate, this person is in, since guns will be useful and physicists almost always have many useful skills. I would also try to secure additional guns of greater firepower.
quote: [*]a 30yo female medical doctor who is a proud white supremacist
Yes: Her skills are too important to lose. The white supremacist part would have to be dealt with, though. If it can�t be eliminated, then this person will be watched carefully, and not be given educational assignments unless monitored.
quote: [*]a 12yo girl who has a low IQ
Yes: though initially useless, she can be trained with useful skills and learn them more quickly because she is young. IQ is a rather poor indicator of intelligence, and I believe intelligence can be increased with excellent education.
quote: [*]a male who has been deaf since birth
No: deaf people have fewer communication abilities making him less useful.
quote: [*]a 30yo Hispanic female who is a healthy triathlete and an avowed atheist
Yes: though athletes tend not to have any useful skills, her physical stamina might make her useful as a scout after the bunker is opened.
As a side note and public service , I would like to point out the even in a full scale nuclear war at the height of the cold war, only about half the population of the U.S. and the world would have been eliminated. The shows that portray the extinction of the human race are entirely mythological.
Another note: this doesn�t seem to be a very well-made survey. Each person should only have one attribute, so as to not muddle conclusions.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
That's why it's a PSYCHOLOGICAL STUDY.
...What defines a "loser?"
Posted by bX (Member # 419) on :
Probably the blind and blistering/skin-less agony of fiery nuclear apocalypse. And, I would say as a psychological study, it is sucessfully provoking some very colorful answers.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Homosexual people can still reproduce as well, so if he is actually gay, it is not a huge problem.."
Obviously, they have the physical capacity, barring any unrelated problems. However, what are you going to do, get some woman to rape him?
Posted by Neutrino 123 (Member # 1327) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shik: That's why it's a PSYCHOLOGICAL STUDY.
...What defines a "loser?"
Isn't the whole point of the test to see whether people think certain characters should be put in a bunker with only limited room? Should I just leave it at "social 'scientists' work in mysterious ways"?
As for the definition of loser in this case, I don't see the need to get too technical with my definitons. However, in this case, I would conservatively say that a loser would be someone who is not useful in my opinion.
Posted by Neutrino 123 (Member # 1327) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN:
"Homosexual people can still reproduce as well, so if he is actually gay, it is not a huge problem.."
Obviously, they have the physical capacity, barring any unrelated problems. However, what are you going to do, get some woman to rape him?
Well, if he wants to reproduce with proper knowledge of the situation, then he can. If not, that's fine. The same would go for anyone in the bunker. It is not as though six people are essential for the gene pool when even in a worst-case scenario several billion people will be left. I chose my characters based on having the most prosperous post-apocolyptic community, not on trying to repopulate the planet.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
It's not a TEST, Bubba. It's a STUDY. Big difference.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by WizArtist II: Every option I brought up that would keep everyone he made up a reason why I couldn't i.e. "lifeboat is too small, none of them can swim, can't use my swiss army knife" etc. (Yes I ALWAYS have my good ol' knife with me ). This teacher would not be satisfied unless I made 6 people walk the plank. For the record, I got an "F" on this project and couldn't be more proud of it.
That is really bad teaching. As long as you can justify your answer - you should be awarded for thinking outside the box. As long as you weren't just being a smart-arse.
Posted by Neutrino 123 (Member # 1327) on :
Yes, and the entire study is based on what people's answers are. People base their answers on the characters traits, so they are essentially ranking traits for a certain purpose. In order to properly determine how each trait is ranked, they need to be considered individually, and only later be mixed for comparitive purposes. The end result would hopefully be an average numerical value for each trait, or even a formula capable of handling mixes of different traits, but one can't obtain these things from the study's current format.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
I would sneak into the college and re-program the test so it becomes possible to win.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Cheater.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lee: I would sneak into the college and re-program the test so it becomes possible to win.
Thus dooming your best friend to die of radiation posioning- some pal you are.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
I would tell the teacher to wait outside while I and my fellow classmates went into the bunker to debate and then press that glowy red button.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I would go to the top of the allest available building and enbrace armageddon with open arms and a bottle of Jack Daniels. Ideally, I'd stand in front of a white wall and make a lewd gesture- that way, my ashes would be seared into stone for future generations of radiation-addled people to admire.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Don't forget to sign your name in urine.
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
Before I give my answers, I believe that there are people, despite their deep rooted beliefs, that given a "do or die" scenario can solidify even the most divisive of unions. Known examples are when one of my three housemates always left a big mess of things in the kitchen. Of course this is given that they don't kill each other first.
"a 40yo male violinist who is a suspected drug dealer"
Not him. Despite the fact that we do not know what ethnicity he is in, he is past his prime and we don't really need a violinist in the immediate aftermath. The fact that he is a suspected drug dealer is irrelevant, innocent before proven guilty, even though we don't know the extent of his internal damage through his use of drugs, if he used them of course.
"a 34yo male architect who is thought to be gay"
Yes, an architect would be useful, not to mention that he is probably in good physical form. The fact that he is thought to be gay is irrelevant as with the suspected drug dealer. But even if he was, I'm pretty sure that he can understand the situation that reproduction may be necessary to assist in repopulating the country. We also don't know his ethnicity, it would help in this situation.
Here's an interesting counterpoint provided by a coworker: most anti-gay activists believe that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. But the gay activist would claim that is the way their brain is set, as if their mind was "wired" this way. But given this argument, the anti-gay activist would say that the architect would therefore be an obviously poor choice, if what the gay activist says is true, therefore this is due to genetics, and obviously should be excluded to prevent the "gay" gene to pollute the remaining gene pool. Of course if homosexuality WAS a lifestyle choice, then they should rot in hell, like they all say.
"a 26yo lawyer and the lawyer's 24yo wife who has just gotten out of a mental institution--they both insist to go in the shelter together or stay out together"
The wife is an obvious non-candidate. What is the source of her mental instability? While most of it is psychological, there are some mental diseases caused by genetic issues. There really isn't that much time to decide on this so she will have to go. Of course this means that the lawyer can't go too. Who needs lawyers anyway?
Again, we don't know the ethnicity of these two people.
"a 75yo priest"
Too Old.
"a 34yo retired prostitute who was so successful that she's been living off her savings for five years"
In the event of armageddon, we don't need any more diseases flying around. Nope.
"a 20yo "militant" black activist"
I agree with the previous respondants saying that diversity of the gene pool is preferred. But we don't know the ethnicity of the other people. If the architect is also black, then we really shouldn't need this person to rock the boat. I'm assuming that the architect is not black but maybe of another ethnicity. This person is also in their prime as well, so their physical abilities will be useful in a post apocalyptic world. Like the others, we really don't know if it is a male of female. Bonus points if this person is a she, after all, a woman's mind is more adaptable to the situation than the male (so I think). As for militancy, see my comment earlier about a certain situation unifying even the most divisive of unions.
"a 23yo graduate student who has had several bouts of depression throughout her life"
I've had bouts of depression too. Mostly due to things in my life not going the right way. But I'm fine now. I am also of the belief that depression is mostly psychological rather than genetic. So she's in.
"a 28yo physicist who will only come into the shelter if he can bring his gun with him"
Why does he need a gun? Cramming six people in a confined space is a test of psychological wills. Obviously this guy is unstable and we don't need to add an element of instability in an already unstable situation. And really, do physics matter in the post apocalyptic world? No. He stays out.
"a 30yo female medical doctor who is a proud white supremacist"
Her medical skills are obviously useful. But her attitude isn't. Hopefully, like the black activist, we can try to address that right away. And since she is also female, then it might be easier to tweak her mind. I'll say that she is in. I don't think she'll walk out, given the choice of life or death, most females would choose life, while most men would not.
"a 12yo girl who has a low IQ"
I don't think IQ would really matter in a post apocalyptic world. It's more of the survival of the fittest and given that she is young, she would have a better chance of adapting to her surroundings. Plus she's female, so wait another 8 years before she can bear children. She's in.
"a male who has been deaf since birth"
Unfortunately communication is key in the post-apocalyptic world, so since this may be an issue, he cannot go.
"a 30yo Hispanic female who is a healthy triathlete and an avowed atheist"
Healthy, hispanic, female. Perfect. Atheism is not an issue here since we have no priest, and in a post apocalyptic world, would anyone believe in a "God"?
So in summary, the choices are:
the 34yo male architect who is thought to be gay the 20yo "militant" black activist the 23yo graduate student who has had several bouts of depression throughout her life the 30yo female medical doctor who is a proud white supremacist the 12yo girl who has a low IQ the 30yo Hispanic female who is a healthy triathlete and an avowed atheist
Suppose one or some of these people don't want to go in. Who takes their place? Here is my "waiting list"
- the 26yo lawyer and the lawyer's 24yo wife who has just gotten out of a mental institution--they both insist to go in the shelter together or stay out together (this is provided two people bail). - the 28yo physicist who will only come into the shelter if he can bring his gun with him (like the others said, his brain may be useful, just make sure the gun is not loaded and someone else has the ammo) - Tie between the drug dealer violinist (we don't know the exact damage to his health due to drug use) and the prostitute (we don't know the exact state of her health, hopefully she has been practising "safe sex")
Therefore, the priest and the mute person will most likely burn.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by Saltah'na: I've had bouts of depression too. Mostly due to things in my life not going the right way. But I'm fine now. I am also of the belief that depression is mostly psychological rather than genetic. So she's in.
Actually, it can be either psychological or genetic. I've been diagnosed with clinical depression resulting from a neuro-chemical imbalance (to borrow Treknobabble), as has my father. His father probably has/had it as well, based on my dad's observations of family life growing up. And one of my uncles committed suicide a number of years ago. So there's definitely a hereditary element there.
However, I'm firmly of the opinion that most forms of depression, even if they're hereditary, are absolutely possible to overcome... but it requires, at least, some moral support from others. Drugs help too, of course�when available.
I'm just saying this to give the evidence, not to divert the discussion. I just want to counter the misconception that it's purely psychological. Often, it's very definitely biological as well.
quote:Obviously this guy is unstable and we don't need to add an element of instability in an already unstable situation.
Shouldn't that be "introducing an unstable element into a critical situation"?
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
, I would like to point out the even in a full scale nuclear war at the height of the cold war, only about half the population of the U.S. and the world would have been eliminated. The shows that portray the extinction of the human race are entirely mythological.