thecaptain – Member
I think it’s utterly disgusting to prioritise the lives of those inside the vehicle over those outside. It’s the fast-moving vehicle that introduces the danger in the first place, of course those responsible for this should be the first to suffer the consequences.

The whole marking system is flawed, I based all of my answers on if the people were crossing the road legally (green light), I didn’t read any of the character bios simply if they had right of way then the car passengers died – choosing the outcome this way apparently I chose fit people as a priority.

Where couldn’t chose between legal or not I chose to aim at the people most able to get out of the way if I sounded the horn.

As mentioned it’s impossible to know if the people on the crossing were criminals (unless we’re talking cartoon world and they’re walking around with ‘swag’ on their bags).

Very poor test for brainiacs of MIT to host

Strange test I couldn’t even answer the first question as to who I would most like to kill

The reality is at the time I would not have enough time to process the information and will just slam on and hope for the best

Very poor test for brainiacs of MIT to host

If it works the way that most psychology experiments work it is probably a very good test for something else entirely, which is cunningly disguised as a very poor test for something irrelevant to the outcome. 🙂

Though really I think they just did it as a talking point.

I just took it as being a test of the test – I’m making notes on what preferences it thinks I have on something which didn’t play any part in my decision making process.

i took the view that if the car is travelling so fast that it can’t stop/slow down in time to avoid a fatal crash with a large concrete block *in it’s own lane*, all the occupants deserve to die.

and now i’m told that i’m a child-killer…