Why "Axiom" Questions -Plus 3 More

[David Sklansky]

I would like to explain further what I mean by axiom questions and why I think they are important.

Axiom questions, as I define them are questions that have no "right" answer. Meaning that there is no way to logically prove your answer wrong. The only time someone can use logic to dispute your answer is if it can be shown to contradict your answer to a different axiom question. In that case you must in fact change one of your answers. You won't streak for ten thousand dollars. You would streak to save a child's life. A child can be saved for 5K.

I started thinking about axiom questions during myriad philosophical argumants with an old buddy of mine. After meticulously trying to prove to him that he was wrong about some idea he held, I was often stymied when I would bump into, after a chain of reasoning, some precept he held that I disagreed with but could not logically refute. Let a dog die rather than miss your son's Little League game.

I believe it is extremely important to recognize that some questions are axiom questions and that some are not. Also it is important to recognize whether a question REDUCES to an axiom question or not. Put another way, it is important to try to figure out if disagreements on a complex issue stem from an underlying disagreement on an axiom question (Did God give the Jews Israel?) or do both parties agree on the underlying axiom question or questions (Should murders be prevented) and are merely disagreeing on how to achieve the same goals.

Frankly if the underlying disagreement is a different answer to the underlying axiom question, there is little one can do to satisfy everybody. You might try to change their axiom answer by apppealing to an inconsistency in their answer as compared to another of their axiom answers. But if that fails you are stuck. I'm not sure what the next step should be.

On the other hand, the realization that some issues break down to disagreements about axioms and others don't lets people become more efficient and waste less time. Except for critical issues, put aside the arguments that reduce to axioms and concentrate on the other ones. That goes for both individuals and governments.

Here are three more questions:

1. Assuming you are 30, married, have two kids, and have a net worth of 300K. An eccentric millionaire comes up to you and offers you 100K to spit in your face, while masterbating. Assume no chance for disease and no chance anyone else will ever know. Would you do it?

2. A mad scientist has invented two types of pixie dust and you decide which one he will use. Type one is sprinkled only above your country and will make everyone 30% more happy indefinitely, whatever that means. Just a mood enhancer with no other effects. Type two is sprinkled over the whole world and makes eveyone ten percent happier. Which do you choose?

3. Similar to #2. An eccentric multibillionare gives you a few choices. (Again you are 30 with 300K). He will give your family one million. Or he will give your extended family say twenty aunts, uncles and cousins, including your family, a total of two million to be divided equally. Or he will give to you and 100 people of your choice 3 million to be divided equally. Or he will give those people plus your whole neighborhood of 1000 people a total of 10 million. Or your whole state 100 million. Or your country 10 billion. Or the 20 countries most friendly to us 100 billion. Or the whole world one trillion.

In all cases no one will ever know you were the decision maker. Assume you do not have a business that will benefit from the increased wealth of others. Even if it is just your cousins. You only real gain is knowing you have helped others. But of course the more people you help the less those you care about the most are helped, in spite of the dramatic rise in total wealth.

[tipperdog]

1. Yes. And from my 100K I will buy him a dictionary so he learns to spell masturbate correctly.

2. The world.

3. My family.

[David Sklansky]

I'm free Thursday

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm free Thursday

[/ QUOTE ]

Your place or mine?

Edit: I'm totally serious.

[Mr Rick]

1) Is the guy masturbating or am I? If it is me, then its a heckuva raise. Though I have been spit at in the face and it is unpleasant. But in that case it was coupled by misguided hatred. In either case for a big payday compared to my net worth I would probably go for it.
2) The world. My country (US) owes the world bigtime.
3) Probably the $1,000,000. I would hope that my moneymaking schemes would do better than the one trillion all by itself or that the guy being Bill Gates is already giving away a ton of money.

Seriously, the problem with Axiom questions is that these are all hypothetitical in the realm of intellect. When put to the test in the real world my answers could very well be different and I wouldn't know it until the rubber met the road.

I had a friend 20 some odd years ago who loved these. His favorite was would you give a guy a blow job or take it up the ass? And I always thought the object of these questions was not answer and try to avoid ever getting into the situation...

[Greeksquared]

I dont see how 1 is that big a deal. Getting spit in the face is nothing and I just wouldn't look at the dude yanking it. Even if the stipulation was I had to look I don't think it would be a big deal. Most every guy here has seen plenty of porn and probably won't be too affected. This might change if I was born 30 years ago.

[Shandrax]

Funny stuff, very funny...

I haven't decided on my answers yet, but I know that one option is out of question:

[ QUOTE ]
Or the whole world one trillion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Distributing money evenly to the whole world will change nothing, because the prices will go up immediately. It's just another form of inflation.

Basically this leads me to the answer for the last question. I keep the number of people as small as possible to make the biggest impact. Since I don't have any uncles, cousins or other relatives that I know personally, I would just keep it to my close family.

Working my way backwards, it also leads me to my answer for the second question. Since there cannot be an inflation of happiness, I would make everyone on earth 10% more happy.

The offer from first question could make two people happy in theory. I am pretty sure that some japanese game show candidates would go through such a treatment for 2k or less, but that's another question.

I think with 300k I am in a position where I don't have to sell out my dignity. It probably depends on my job though. If I earn 300k for being the workslave of some stupid worthless boss whom I cannot respect, I may consider the offer. 4 months vs. 1 second may very well be a good trade.


P.S.: [ QUOTE ]
Did God give the Jews Israel?

[/ QUOTE ]
That one was really funny [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Hello Kitty Kat]

1. That's it? I'd have done it for a lot cheaper, even with the masturbation, pay that man his money!

2. The world 10% happier, however you are quantifying it, in turn that should be worth more than 20% to US anyway since our nose is everywhere.

3. I would take the 1 million for my immediate family as the rest of my family is less than educated in money management or what to do with it. I would disperse it as I see fit to various accounts for the kids growing up, college funds, and invest it to make plenty of $$$ to spread the wealth around. As nice as it would be to give to my country or the world, I would only do that if the stipulation was I oversaw or had some say in how the money was spent.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
Or the whole world one trillion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Distributing money evenly to the whole world will change nothing, because the prices will go up immediately. It's just another form of inflation.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not true if the money is evenly divided. It is true if the money is proportionally divided (i.e. everyone's bank account dobules). Even distribution is advantageous to the poor.

[Magic_Man]

I'm not understanding #1 at all. Is there anyone who wouldn't take this, given the circumstances?

Also, what happens if one of your axioms is that your answers to axiom questions don't have to be consistent?