movies/tv Why Heath Ledger joker was a Nub, and his Boat Trick a waste of Time

[BadluckJoker 23]

He was a nub for trying to setup the experiment. Does he not know about the feminization of man? Did he really think for a second those rich people would have the guts to blow up a boat with security personnel on it? They would have said, "Its okay to kill the prisoners, but its morally wrong to kill the boat driver and security guards." Duh. And on the other boat the security guards most certainly would not let the prisoners have any say in the matter, and isn't the job of any policeman to be lapdog for and sacrifice his body for the rich?

 

He is a retard for being surprised that nothing happened. Apparently he never heard of the feminization of man...

Edited September 3, 2015 by BadluckJoker

[FlyingChicken 154]

Well, I know it sounds silly for him to act like that in the movie. Just that the director want to portray the people of Gotham's morale in the tight situation. So, it can't be help see him like that. But you do have a point though. I just don't understand one thing. What does this have to do about feminization of man? 

[-Octavia- 1,176]

It is actually a legitimate thought experiment in game theory known as the prisoner's dilemma:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma

 

A tl;dr version for those not interested in the long, scientific read:

 

In the prisoner's dilemma, two suspects are arrested by the police. The police visit each of them to offer the same deal. If one testifies (defects) for the prosecution against the other and the other remains silent, the betrayer goes free and the silent accomplice receives the full 3-year sentence. If both remain silent, both prisoners are sentenced to only 1 year in jail for a minor charge. If each betrays the other, each receives a 2-year sentence. Each prisoner must choose to betray the other or to remain silent. Each one is assured that the other would not know about the betrayal before the end of the investigation.

 

The unique equilibrium for this game is a Pareto-suboptimal solution. That is, rational choice leads the two players to both play defect even though each player's individual reward would be greater if they both played cooperatively. The same goes for the people on the two ferries. If one group decides to blow up the other, they go free (cooperation, so to speak, with the Joker) and vice versa. Otherwise, they'll run the risk of being blown up themselves. If neither group does anything, they'll both be blown up. The fact that neither group decides to blow up the other would be, according to game theory an irrational decision given the stated terms. The only reason it ends well is that the Joker doesn't succeed in detonating the device to blow up both ferries.

 

Welp. I suppose it was going to be a long read anyway.

 

I would say the illogical choice was made because the experiment was far more ethical in nature: does one life truly hold more value than another? Could you, personally, kill a prisoner whose convictions you do not know? One could argue that, yes, an evolutionary being driven purely by biology would be able to commit such an act if their life was on the line. This, however, is the Joker's point: the lack of "humanity" in the citizens of Gotham, or at least what he personally defines as humanity, which may well differ from the standard.

Edited September 3, 2015 by Wubtavia

[Ashen Pathfinder 16,162]

@@BadluckJoker

 

While there is potential for discussion it is a little difficult to discern what your actual point is. In the future please carefully concern how you want to convey your point.

 

That said I am locking this thread.

 

Thank you.