Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

If more than 50% press blue, everyone survives. Red pressers always survive

shankwiler.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 333 posts

Re: If more than 50% press blue, everyone survives. Red pressers always survive

#111

Post by bennettnate5 »

empthought wrote: post #104
bennettnate5 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm wondering if it's really the framing of the problem that's inflating the number of individuals responding with blue (similar to certain confusingly-worded ballot measures). Suppose the problem were worded in a more concrete way: "I have a large container ship that I'm draining the ballasts out of tomorrow. If less than 50% of get on the ship, it will capsize and everyone who chose to get on it will die. You can c…

Of course the framing affects how people vote. The thought experiment demands we use the framing as given. Some people might reason themselves into your analogy, others won’t.

So is your general take on the problem that because the way it's worded (blue => "everyone survives", red => "only those who press red survive"), enough people would choose blue that therefore the empathetic/moral thing to do would be to also choose blue to save them? I can get on board with that line of reasoning

Re: If more than 50% press blue, everyone survives. Red pressers always survive

#112

Post by empthought »

troglodytetrain wrote: post #105
empthought wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is rephrased. Any phrasing besides the original exists only in your head and not in anyone else’s. The only reason I’m in my tomb is because you and people like you voted to kill me instead of voting to do nothing. Luckily for me, I’m dead and don’t care. Congratulations! Enjoy your life with people who think like you.

Well, that is one way to rationalize, as I guess there is an infinite number of ways to do so. The point remains, only one singular choice guarantees your own safety. And another has a Chance of death. Take the stupid choice because you think everyone else is also stupid? Thats your choice.

It doesn’t guarantee my safety, though. It puts me in a world where the only people left were so afraid of dying that they opted into a completely avoidable mass murder.

Re: If more than 50% press blue, everyone survives. Red pressers always survive

#113

Post by rifty »

I assume most people are aware there will be some blue voters. I also assume that greater than 50% of the population are more socially minded than not as if it was otherwise, in the long run the society would fail to stay cohesive.

It would be easy to self justify picking red as 'it's not unethical killing, it's self preservation' but I'd still bet on society being more socially minded than not, for betting otherwise would mean i think society as an idea of togetherness is a total illusion. If choosing red, after, it would be non existent.

Though also to me the experience of life is starkly temporary; dying early or not doesn't really matter to me so i'm not surprised other's emotional conflict varies here. But as a result personally, losing the existence of something unique to experience (togetherness) in preference of something otherwise fleeting, even the self, isn't very interesting to me.

Re: If more than 50% press blue, everyone survives. Red pressers always survive

#114

Post by enoint »

1659447091 wrote: post #70

These are so intensely annoying. Besides the obvious choice of not pushing any button, so very rarely -- if at all -- are there only ever 2 options. The entire "thought experiment" leans into some fantastical unrealistic scenarios and plays on peoples "fast thinking" by saying here are 2 options I made up, tell me which of these 2 groups (us or them) shall I sort you into? Neither.

I thought about the ternary choice. Unconscious people, conscientious objectors, etc. The wording is that blue needs to exceed 50%, so the doomsday machine defaults to red.

Re: If more than 50% press blue, everyone survives. Red pressers always survive

#115

Post by hypeatei »

xenocratus wrote: post #80
cg5280 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Red is optimal from a self preservation perspective but is also the antisocial option. Picking blue saves everyone.

Let me rephrase that for you: red is for people who live in this world and accept it, blue is for people with white knight syndrome. OR. Red is for people who understand statistics, blue is for people who like to gamble.

> red is for people who live in this world and accept it

Red is for people who don't think beyond the end of their nose. Okay, you're very smart and understand statistics, but what about the following groups: friends, family, spouses? If they don't pick red, and they die, would you say life is completely fine because there's less "dumb" people or would you possibly think: "hmm, it kinda sucks that they died, maybe I should've picked blue?"

GP is correct that red is the anti-social / myopic option.

Re: If more than 50% press blue, everyone survives. Red pressers always survive

#116

Post by enoint »

troglodytetrain wrote: post #85
cg5280 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Red is the obvious choice from a self-preservation perspective but not a moral one. You're seeing here in these comments that there are lots of blue pressers; they would all die. This creates a snowballing incentive to push blue: people dying is bad. There's several reasons why someone might make the "wrong" choice, and reaching 50% + 1 on blue is way easier than reaching 100% on red. And sure enough, the polls I've…

Its an interesting psychological test. Because, no, I don't agree, red is the moral choice and also the most rational. Those who think the population is too stupid to behave in regards to their own self preservation might choose blue in an attempt to 'save everyone' and kill themselves. Only one singular choice has zero risk of death, and its red. Everyone chooses red and we all survive.

Red does have risk: you’d be left in a world without things produced by the blue pressers. I suspect that’s red's food, water and shelter.

edit: specified who

Re: If more than 50% press blue, everyone survives. Red pressers always survive

#117

Post by swed420 »

gnfargbl wrote: post #106
userbinator wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thinly veiled political post.

As a political post the formulation in the article is crass in the extreme, misrepresenting both the motivations of red and blue voters and also the and the long-term consequences of those parties' policies. There's no progress to be made in a conversation held so close to the surface.

It's very inaccurate/loaded as a political post, but the choice of colors makes the intent fairly obvious.

Politically speaking, in the US where everything is rigged by corporate media and a uniparty of capital interests with red/blue facades (where blue manufactures consent for red every step of the way), the only winning move is to not play.

Re: If more than 50% press blue, everyone survives. Red pressers always survive

#118

Post by [deleted] »

hx8 wrote: post #68
owenpalmer wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's naive to think that 100% of people will press the red button. Those who press the blue button are trying to save those who press the blue button. If they weren't trying to save each other, they wouldn't have to.

So you agree, there is a population of blue pressers. EDIT: The mere existence of blue-pressers makes being a red presser violent and selfish in my opinion.

[deleted]

Re: If more than 50% press blue, everyone survives. Red pressers always survive

#120

Post by imoverclocked »

polotics wrote: post #91
imoverclocked wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There will always be someone who chooses blue. Choosing red is choosing to kill them.

I fail to see how anyone could choose blue, the certain scenario is everyone chooses red, and this whole post is a nothingburger.

> I fail to see how anyone could choose blue

Depends on the scenario… or the number of people in the experiment. A sufficiently large number of people will guarantee votes in both bins. The specific scenario (reading this outside of a vacuum) will also have knock-on effects.

Eg: reading this into the current political landscape in the US vs reading this into another toy problem about jumping off a cliff or not will have very different outcomes and ethics.

Post reply on HN