Pretty cool. I would have been prepared for the exam and selected 6 in hope that none of the stragglers were helped.

More excellent brainwashing in academia. Grrr!

One thing missing in the analysis is that often in competitive grading, there are only a certain amount of top grades given out--so raising everyone the same amount wouldn't necessarily benefit anyone.

Another thing to consider is that the top students will usually know they are the top students, and would therefore "selfishly" opt for the 6 points, not to pad their own score but to ensure that no one gets extra points--they would know they are helping sink the ship by appearing selfish, and would stay atop the rankings no matter the outcome of the collective choices made.

Well, now we know where some of the indoctrination of students into progressives and socialists comes from and how insidious the teaching can be. At least, a percentage got it right.

I didn't see the question, but I can gather enough from your comments, all, what it was.
how about declining to play on the grounds that the table's rigged? how about rewriting the question? how about refusing to answer because everybody knows that this question is written so as to convince us that taking care of our selves is ALWAYS a bad idea? and it isn't.

my personal fave so far: a clean surgical critique of a professor who would write such a question.
idiot.

"Tragedy of the commons" situations do exist, but the way to prevent the tragedy is to establish individual property rights so that Coase's theorem can operate. Without them, the only way to a non-tragic outcome would be for most people to sacrifice their own gains -- and it's stupid ever to do that or to expect anyone to do that.

Sarcasm Loading; Please Wait
This "smarter than you" professor makes a great case for "progressive" eugenics.
Anyway, I prefer the extra credit thermodynamics question that asks whether hell is endo- or exothermic.

Here's an interesting twist. Was the class graded on a curve? If so, the only rational answer was six. If everyone gets 2 points or zero points, your grade would be unchanged, but if you are among the 19% or less who got 6 points, your grade goes up.

The assertion that selfishness 'caused' the CA water shortage is not logical. Unless you consider the selfishness of Power by the government there.

"Today's lesson is: an arbitrary power offers you an arbitrary reward and an arbitrary punishment. What you choose helps determine the result, according to the rule I, as your Overlord, have made up. Choose wisely, and learn that there is no real winning when ruled by people like me."

I'd fire this jerk
Barring that, as an objectivist, I couldn't answer the question without getting into an argument (discussion?) with the teacher, who doesn't seem to be the type who'd tolerate it.

This is a perfect example of why communism/socialism fails. Human being are social animals true, but we are animals and are subject to the laws of nature at a very primal level. Our social parts aren't for the betterment of the group, but to ensure that our risks are minimized. In the past when our ancestors were roving bands of nomads there were dangers to life and limb that acting as an individual would literally get you killed. So by forming groups we lowered our overall risk of being picked off by the grim reaper. But biology has a strict rule for life and that is to do everything possible to further your genetic line. So while I might want to join a group for safety, I am also going to prefer myself and my relatives over non-related person in such a group. And when faced with sacrificing a gene relative or unrelated person, the unrelated person gets to be lion chow. So while this question has no real danger to my mortality, I need to act accordingly to be true to my biological imperitive to further my existance and my genetic line. Unfortunately for socialism/communism that is never factored into the equation because in those systems in order to succeed everyone has to be equal. So everyone is equal, some are just more equal to paraphase George Orwell's Animal Farm. And we as social animals are constantly weighing costs versus benifits through that lens.

This sounds like some varient of the Prisoner's Dilemma, and not something new.

We need to start calling this what it is (tripe, crap, indoctrination), and do so publicly.

My comment on the story at Yahoo: "The question is stupid, and reduces students to the mindset of kindergartners; i.e. share with others because I told you to share. It's possible to serve oneself without harming others, and in the real world these students will encounter many opportunities to do so. One can only hope that they still have the capacity to recognize those opportunities."

So far I have one thumbs-down vote.

The Psychology Prof I had in college who have never have done that. I had to write my finger to the bone to get extra credit. My Statistical Psych Prof came up with some outlandish stat question that the class had to figure out and then we had to write an interpretation to our findings.

Interesting false dichotomy. But really all you are doing is throwing out a false lifeline to the poor performers which consists of their faith in the other students' succumbing to guilt.

I would select 6 and hope that everyone did as well. I do not steal because if I don't earn it, I don't want it. I don't gamble for the same reason. If I am forced to violate my principles, I want the highest price: rob the largest bank, win the powerball, 6 points vs. 2.

Perfect Example!!! . these people are training the nation's kids!!! -- j
.

The answer is obvious. 6 points in the hope that more than 10% will select this choice. Any points awarded with this question will have been unearned and so undeserved. How is it the common good if someone passes this test but does not understand the subject well enough to do so without this cheat?

Looks like a variation of the old Game Theory question known as Prisoners Dilemma.

By participating in the test itself, with its bizarre "extra credit" social experiment, whether you answered the question or not you're still sanctioning this idiot. I don't care if he learned it at John Hopkins or Hopkin's john, it makes me think that going on strike from this test, and this professor, would have been the only rational answer.

It's a poor analogy for life and an artificial construct without much to offer. Life is very rarely limited in such a way. But, I guess it is another lesson in how to steal concepts in setting up a false choice.

"Earn extra credit"...righhht.

I would've gone for the 6 points as I'm sure there would have been a lot of bleeding hearts that would only select 2.

I've always heard that "nice guys finish last".

The person who was not interested in obtaining something for nothing, would immediately reject the offer and move on. He or she would recognize that what was being offered was a morally self-serving illustration that only illustrates a mind already disinterested in reality, only their preconceived notions of it. As such it fits perfectly with the state of the social sciences.