OK, this is now closer to approaching a cogent counter-argument. So why exactly is it that having something at stake would lead someone to answer that question

OK, this is now closer to approaching a cogent counter-argument. So why exactly is it that having something at stake would lead someone to answer that question differently? And why do you think human beings can't think hypothetically about the condition of having something at stake, the same way we can think hypothetically about most everything else?