When you get presented the option on Shrodinger’s cat scenario would you assume that the cat is alive? Control is deprived from us and delegated to the “experimenter”. What if you were in the cat’s position on the experiment, in this case your life is in the hands of two different people, one a cold judge and the other a person that is completely detached from what happens to you.
Another test is the cookie experiment, here the kids are given a cookie in front of them and the scientist suddenly needs to go somewhere and requests the child to hold off from taking a bite from the cookie. If you were in the child’s shoes, would you wait or would you eat the cookie.
In both scenarios, there is no clear reward. Our only basis for what to do is what the scientist told us or their “authority”. That is hard for anyone, because we do not like giving up control, our view is often limited to something that is tangible, something that we want in the moment. Yet we are still given much freedom in those scenarios, we can roam around the room, we can rest or other we can find something else to pass the time. The focus doesn’t necessarily need to be on the actual experiment rather we can just do different things so long as we are within certain bounds. Given that on the first thought our choices are dictated by another, would you rebel and choose to not be part of the test? or would you trust that what ever happens it would turn out for the best for you.
I think that certain things require trust especially on 50/50 scenarios when we are given little to no choice. Cliche as it may seem, it would always be good to not focus on the problem but rather what we have control on. Maybe we end up getting punished or rewarded, and there might not be a good solution to it. In the end, we are still subject to this weird experiment and while others might not agree with me, I think it is best to keep lane and make sure we don’t mess up the “work” that they are doing.