u5nGUwSu

1		Trolley problem, Morality, Decision making, Values
2			The trolley problem is going to actually be executed in cars as decision logic.
3			Back to the trolley problem, let’s say you wanted to use brute forcing and creativity to create a realistic set of possible factors which you could or should factor into your decisions regarding the value of human life, the difference between persona action and inaction, the response of other parties in the future to the survivors of the event, getting caught or not caught, etc. You'll find that when you make it a specific goal to achieve, to expand the number of factors that you consider, and the parties to which those factors could apply. Let's give it a whirl so to speak. Parties, person to be tested, we'll call this poor bastard the testee.
4			
5			In my analysis, as in so many other paradoxical questions, it seems as though the truly useful data is left out of the question. Why should you value all human lives at the same value, which we already know you do not? This is the reason you don't let strangers into your home, because they are worth less than family and worth less than yourself. You'll find that you're last much more likely to allow people into your home that you would like to make love to, or are friends, or you'd like to be friends, etc. Thus, it's quite obvious that you have a process by which you are used to deciding which other people in this world are worthy of sharing what little time, space, or things you have with. Now, this thought experiment of a trolley I think is a bad example to start with, because we know much more about trains than trolleys in the western world, as they're much more common, and faster, and more dangerous, thus a much better educational tool.
6			
7			The experiment goes, if a runaway trolley was rushing towards four workmen working on that track that would be unable to escape, and you could flip the switch causing the track to switch to a different track where a single worker wouldn’t be able to escape, would you flip the switch? Now what if instead of being at the switch, there was a fat man on a bridge over the tracks, and you were standing near him, and you could push this fat man over the side and somehow magically this would prevent the other four people dying? What a silly idea, fat men nor cows nor cars are known to make much difference in the speed of an oncoming train whatsoever. Anyway, for the sake of this poorly designed thought experiment, let's grant them their assumptions. Would you push that fat guy? 
8			
9			Here is what I will tell you should go into your considerations. If the fat man’s friends and family detect that you have murdered their fat man, they're going to rightly punish you, and use the state to punish you for manslaughter. You can't allow the silly people of this world to kill other people because they thought it was useful for someone else to do so. If people believed that their estimate of a greater good allowed people to be murdered, wow, you'd have a whole lot of murdered people. It turns out that no man knows the future well enough to know that those other people couldn’t have escaped the train, the train wouldn’t have been otherwise derailed, the people you thought you saw were actually dummies and this was a test of some part of the train and not real lives in danger, or that the impact if unavoidable would be fatal, perhaps they all might just lose a leg. 
10			
11			Therefore, I see this thought experiment being rather poorly formed for the following reasons: You must not act, for you operate from incomplete knowledge. You must not act, for you will personally be punished much more harshly than you will be rewarded. The four you think you saved won't pay you enough or protect you enough from the peers of the one that you killed and the state. The fat man wasn't doing something risky and stupid, he was only crossing a bridge, specifically out of the way of the train, whereas those other men earned their fates by not respecting the train tracks, as is required by law and common sense.
12			
13			If you choose the one over the four, haven't you increased the chance that four more people will make a life threatening decision by making someone else pay for their risky behavior? If the reason this is a trolley moving at speed instead of something slower, is to try to limit your time to think, and get you to be more emotional and less logical, which I believe it is, it's a great thing that we have books, dreaming and education so that when these pressing, time sensitive issues arise, we have already pre-calculated good action and good outcome beforehand.
14			
15			Other than learning that this is a poorly formed thought experiment, which to my best guess is supposed to estimate how you as an individual value the weight of one anonymous person versus four anonymous people, against the idea that you will be guilty by action for saving four, but killing one, and guilty by inaction by allowing four to be killed but not killing one. I can only say that it seems quite stupid to combine someone’s valuing of another’s fitness in regards to "fat" or non-fat, pretty much destroys the information you would get regarding the one death through action vs the four deaths through inaction. Couldn't you just more easily ask, how much less value do you see in fat people? Should they be punished for their level of fitness? Perhaps if you didn't believe their answer, you could structure a superior thought exercise to derive their true feelings on the matter.
16			
17			In the end, I see very, very little use for this poorly formed thought exercise, it’s far too removed from reality. Really, for any reasonable thinker, the fat man should never be pushed. You will be guilty of manslaughter, and fat men don't stop trains, or even slow them to any useful degree.
18			
19			In regards to the one versus four, you don't have the data you'd need to make a good decision, you don't know they couldn’t escape, so you will yell and holler, but you won't perform an action that will once again lead to your personal annihilation by the state for manslaughter. The law and society you live in has a much harsher penalty for causing harm through action personally, than it does through watching as harm occurs, but being too much in shock to act. You'll do much less time in prison by non-action.
20			
21			Now, is it fair to care more about your time in prison, perhaps alive but incarcerated, than it is for you to care about those lives? Well yes, I must say that it is, 
22			"We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; - Declaration of Independence
23			
24			From <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_Liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_Happiness> 
25			
26			If you believe the above line to be true, then you should value your own life as at least equal. You aren't risking your life on the tracks as they are, and you will be harshly punished for acting. Anyway, poorly designed experiment with some interesting discovery that the state has already decided the matter for you, and people must pay personally for the risks they take. Friends and family of deceased will harm you more than friends and family of survivors, for vengeance has larger amplitude than favor. Those that will harm you are more dangerous than those that will help you are useful. The harm hurts more than the help feels good.
27			
28			I would say that fixing the question, and looking at the system are two important steps that seem to be left out of all the common teaching of logical thought. It seems like what’s most common is to be more logically effective and tactical about the wrong questions, and not mindful of the system as a whole. Do not trust the question, do not trust the data, know your desired outcome in positive terms, know the system. This is how you get superior answers to those that came before you, because logic on its own will not tell you to do these things at all. Logic is like a physical calculator; it only knows what you key into it. Your hammer won't ask you to use a different kind of nail, nor tell you where to hammer it.
29			
30			If you want people to do something that isn't done often done, it’s really helpful to give a name to that think you want them to do, and if you can define the term, then it becomes a memory anchor in their mind, greatly enhancing the presence and identification and spread of the behavior in the wild. I think words need to exist to quickly describe the specific pre-work that needs to be done before using the hammer of logic. I also want a word for the specific action of knowing which tool to use for a thing. Very specifically not requiring you need to know how to use it, but that it exists and this is where it should be used.
31			
32			Tool sense or tool awareness. Every other important domain of knowledge has a title. The concept that problem solving as a domain or tool use as a domain doesn't have a title is stupid. Thus, know which tool is right for the job in your domain, shall be called tool sense. Even if you don't know how to use the tool, you know it exists, what it’s good for, why it should it be used here, and therefore can find someone to use it. I should coin a term for the meta layer of knowing when to use a tool, what is the lawyer before the tool? What would I search for to discover if such a word may already exist, and even if it does, I guess that if it were good, it would be known, therefore likely not good and therefore likely needing made new. What should I call this scope expansion step? System/brute forcing (finding max qty of) parties and variables in the system/brute forcing (finding max qty of) states or actions of the parties.
33			
34			Then creating the table of all possible outcomes combining all the measure outcomes when all parties have all the states and all the actions they can perform in different orders and combinations and locations, etc., to create a giant hard to understand mass of outcomes from which you may filter those that are most desired.  Creating that table is how you beat lots of puzzles and logic questions and don't miss non obvious answers because you can't miss an answer, because you have the largest possible set to choose from.
35			
36			Imagine you wanted to create a beautiful sculpture from a block of marble, if you start out with a small block, you get only a small sculpture where the detail is hard to see, and you don't have the space you need to execute your vision. If you choose a larger block of marble, you will end up with the fine details that people will enjoy with their naked eyes in person. If you start with a mountain, you may get mount Rushmore. The point is, the smaller and less stuff you have to work with to create an idea, the less resistant to the elements, and impressive your sculpture will be. Expanding your set of variables and possibilities and externalities accounted for in the work you do to find all the answers and outcomes possible to a situation is your block of marble.
37			
38			Similarly, while you will have a more lasting and impactful creation, just like a large sculpture, it will take you longer to create. Good, fast, cheap, you can have any two of the three. In statistics they call this the probability space
39			
40			Logic is a tool, and knowing when, where, and with what inputs towards what end is outside its ability.  
41			
42			Fuck their question.  Make a better question.
43			
44			If your first inclination upon hearing this trolley problem isn't to attempt to ascertain more relevant data about the parties involved, than you will be more unaware of the factors that you should be including in your analysis, for instance, if you believe that people should take responsibility for their own actions, and those people on the tracks chose to stand in that dangerous place.
45			
46			So the point is that, you know you do believe in responsibility, and you know this would be a place where that belief should be used, however you never notice that responsibility is part of the equation, because you're so focused on the restrictions of the problem, and your role in it, that you never get to thinking about what these people deserve outside the system of you and the train and your decisions, but what they have earned in the system that isn't mentioned, which is the system of "deserving" and responsibility.
47			
48			Thus due to the very, very wide range of things that can and are push and pull, give and take, earn and not earn, fair and not fair in this world, I believe it’s entirely required that you take a moment to be mindful of all the surrounding, related, touching things that are tangential to what you're thinking about, without actually being the thing you're thinking about. This idea of mindfulness and holistic thought and being at least 1 extra level higher up and looking down on a wider problem where the original parts become smaller parts of a larger functioning system is how you make breakthroughs and discoveries that everyone else misses. Elon Musk calls this thinking from first principles.
49			
50			I believe Sherlock Holmes likely called it "It's elementary my dear Watson, anyway, the summary is, if you ignore all the other parts that touch and influence and are near a thing, you'll rarely make a better decision about the thing. That's the kind of limiting logic that sees you remove one dictator and see 2 worse ones replace him, or you stop doing one bad habit, and instead do another bad habit, which might have even been worse than the first. Nature abhors a vacuum. Oddly enough think why this specific phrase might exist "power vacuum." If you see the whole system from 1 level higher, you learn the superior strategy of fulfilling the needs of the world under pressure, but choosing the thing that will fill the vacuum strategically, before you tacitly create the vacuum and think your job's complete, only to have to come back to the issue once you've admitted your first attempt at fixing it was actually a failure, and hopefully this time doing the thing that is strategically correct and choosing the thing you want, not just excising the thing you know you don't want.
51			
52			In all matters where time to think exists, see the system around the thing, choose what you want, be strategic not merely tactical, and you can solve a problem the first time.
53			
54			Yes, so this is very important, when tony doesn't completely agree with you off the bat, and has doubts, you need to know about that shit, because you didn't do a good enough job, and you need to test that on other people to see their reactions the same! Let’s handle the objections before they occur outside the book!
55			
56			Need to speak to how you know when you're not going to grow any bigger and you need to move on to the next thing probably need to handle the issue regarding people that are already successful and wealthy not needing to downgrade into retail. Well, I suggest you use your newfound wealth to play in the biotech space, you might save your own life.