A Question of Leadership

[ramesh]

The following was posted on another Forum with quite interesting replies, so I thought I'd copy it here and see what the CY audience thought:

**************************

You're the leader of 100 men in a combat situation. You're cornered and there are two courses of action presented for you to take. If you choose the first, 90 of your men are guaranteed to survive, but ten will die for sure. If you choose the second and succeed everyone will live; however, if you choose the second and it fails, everyone will die. (The odds of success with the second choice are the same as the odds of failure: 50%.)

Which would you choose? And more importantly, why?

**************************

Please justify your answer with a full explanation.

[Bahama Mama]

The following was posted on another Forum with quite interesting replies, so I thought I'd copy it here and see what the CY audience thought:

**************************

You're the leader of 100 men in a combat situation. You're cornered and there are two courses of action presented for you to take. If you choose the first, 90 of your men are guaranteed to survive, but ten will die for sure. If you choose the second and succeed everyone will live; however, if you choose the second and it fails, everyone will die. (The odds of success with the second choice are the same as the odds of failure: 50%.)

Which would you choose? And more importantly, why?

**************************



Please justify your answer with a full explanation.


I would choose the first scenario.


First of all if I am the leader, I would contribute to the 100 men strong, so I have a personal stake in this which is my own life in addition to the lives of my men.

The first scenario gives me and each of my men a 90% probability of survival irregardless of whether we succeed or fail at the actual mission. Essentially with every attempt we have (100% of the time) we will have a survival odds of 90%. Success or failure is not factored in the first scenario and would essentially contribute a divisor of 1, which has no effect on the survival rate mathematically.

The second scenario gives me and each of my men only a 50% probability of survival. Even though in this scenario success guarantees a 100% survival odds, the probability of success to guarantee that is only 50% and will cut the survival odds n half as a result. Success would contribute a divisor of 2 the same as multiplying by 1/2, which is essentially cutting the survival odds in half mathematically.

I hope I am not sounding too convoluted, I am not naturally a logical/mathematical thinker :)

[Manu]

And also a Grade A BS-er :rolleyes:










:cool:

[Bahama Mama]

And also a Grade A BS-er :rolleyes:










:cool:



My apologies! I will step aside since there can only be one bull****ter in the yard :rotflm: Besides I don't have the energy to catch up to your 6,000 + posts! :rotflm:

[Manu]

Yeah...you need to save your energy ;)

In any event.... you are correct about the BS thing.... don't want Acid catching a fit now...

[BlackCryptoKnight]

The following was posted on another Forum with quite interesting replies, so I thought I'd copy it here and see what the CY audience thought:

**************************

You're the leader of 100 men in a combat situation. You're cornered and there are two courses of action presented for you to take. If you choose the first, 90 of your men are guaranteed to survive, but ten will die for sure. If you choose the second and succeed everyone will live; however, if you choose the second and it fails, everyone will die. (The odds of success with the second choice are the same as the odds of failure: 50%.)

Which would you choose? And more importantly, why?

**************************

Please justify your answer with a full explanation.

I'd go with option B after much much prayer.

My concience would bug me if I knowing led 10 men to their certain death. I'd feel better if there was a chance that all could go home safe. I figure, no matter how difficult it is to pull off, with God's help, option B would be workable, and everyone could go home.

[Xenocrates]

Oddly enough, I'd rather we all die for our failure, than doom 10 of the men for sure and I not be one of them for certain. As a leader, I would feel equally responsible for each life. The only way I'd take the first option is if I was certain that my death would be included in the 10. That way, I wouldn't have to live with the guilt of knowingly sending 10 men to their deaths.

Since I fear failure enough to always avoid it each time, I think the second option would be the one I choose. If we live together, then we should all share the risk of dying together as well. All or nothing I say. Glory for all or go out in a blaze of glory. Either way, we all share the greater glory with the second choice. ;)

[silentburn]

I would execute option 1.

I like how the Marines do it. They drill their men with phrases such as ''Marines don't die, we live on in our brothers'' If a 100% die there will be no brothers to live on through. :)

War is not perfect, men will die. The idea is to obliterate the enemy before they can obliterate you.

Why take the risk of loosing all when you can save 90 win or loose.

The odds are 50/50. Choosing option 2 would be a gamble that could cause a 100% failure.

[Bahama Mama]

The one certainty of war is casualties. Anyone that enters the military should be mentally at ease with that harsh reality when they undertake a combat mission. Saying that ten for sure will be killed is just quantifying what is and will more than likely be a harsh reality. Personally I wouldn't want to go into battle knowing any odds as it concerns casualties. It would be unsettling even for the most seasoned soldier.

But still I am inclined to choose option 1, that's of course if I were inclined to join the military.

[Gillion]

A question like this cannot truly be answered by us pecking away in relative saftey behind our monitors and keyboard.

Any answer we give would be ... in my opinion ... an act of folly.

[Bahama Mama]

It would be interesting the response from someone that has served in the military, or is presently in the military.