Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It may not have been completely avoidable though. What if the maximum number of people who would ever vote for blue is 30% If that's the case then it's truly impossible to save them. Your assumption is there is more than 50% of people who will vote blue or could be convinced to do so. It's a terrifying thought that there could be such a deficit of empathetic people. But without any evidence you're just hoping based o…
If more than 50% press blue, everyone survives. Red pressers always survive
181–190 of 333 posts
Re: If more than 50% press blue, everyone survives. Red pressers always survive
#182I imagine this making more sense if this were framed with the backdrop of living in an authoritarian state, with progressively worsening social conditions. You can choose to protest (blue button) and if over some threshold of people then conditions reset. Otherwise protestors are killed off, and red buttoners survive, but with increased oppression. Sorry for bringing the mood down with this topic. I'll go back to pla…
It takes a period of worldwide prosperity and, perhaps, substantial foreign entanglement to allow revolutions / coups to actually improve the situation of people living through them.
Re: If more than 50% press blue, everyone survives. Red pressers always survive
#183This question has multiple layers of thinking: 1. People who can't read pick randomly. 2. People who can read, but are too dumb to model or care about other people pick red. 3. People with enough intelligence for basic cognitive empathy pick blue. 4. People a little smarter and think through game theory overall pick red, and think they are smart for doing so. 5. People smarter than #4 and capable of seeing the big pi…
But in fact the thought experiment doesn't say there are teams or groups at all! The reader imposes that part on their own, unconsciously at first, because of the description's emphasis on colors.
I predict that running the same Twitter poll with flipped colors — so that red means "I die, unless a majority of my fellows pick red" and blue means "I survive no matter what" — would yield a majority for blue too. What was previously justified as the "virtuous" choice (blue) would now be justified as the "only intelligent" choice (blue).
Re: If more than 50% press blue, everyone survives. Red pressers always survive
#184Earlier quoted context omitted.
but why would anybody choose blue? there is no moral benefit to doing so. If you altered the game to say that only some fraction of the population get the choice, and everyone who doesn't get the choice is assumed blue (or, is killed if less than 50% of voters choose blue) then there's some question to be explored here. But at it stands there is literally no reason to choose blue.
You're thinking of this like a game where the only point is to "win". That's not how this would actually work in practice. Blue is the only moral and logical choice. If red gets over 50% and you picked it, therefore contributing to the "red" outcome, you are now effectively a murderer. Plus you now get to live in a world where everyone else alive are sociopaths that picked red, where everyone with a conscience is now…
Re: If more than 50% press blue, everyone survives. Red pressers always survive
#185Earlier quoted context omitted.
By this logic I also can't fly across the ocean in a modern airplane, but I obviously can. We can get together and do great things. Whether that's science and industry or simply not murdering everyone who doesn't press red.
gpm's point is that it's a collective action issue. And even if one individual can't fix is, we can with a movement. And we SHOULD care about things like this. We're fairly familiar with these: big problem, only solved if enough people do a thing. But in general, almost all collective action problems we face are ones where either: a. every incremental actor improves the overall picture with their individual choice (h…
I suppose: People on one half of a standoff standing down when the other side will also stand down if everyone on the first half does. Not exactly a common problem to see outside of movies... but in principle it follows a common pattern. An individual lowering their guard is bad (if it ends up in a fight), but if everyone lowers their guard we get to avoid the fight.
Re: If more than 50% press blue, everyone survives. Red pressers always survive
#186Re: If more than 50% press blue, everyone survives. Red pressers always survive
#187Earlier quoted context omitted.
And why do you think that?
Since if a rational actor would understand that the group can avoid ever dying to this game by simply choosing blue. There is no consequence for choosing blue - but there is a consequence for choosing red. Also, regardless of these specific consequences, people who are rational/ethical will by default choose blue because it is a good color. See also, people by default choose blue at 5x the rate as red, really putting…
There is only one Nash equilibrium, which is for everybody to pick red. This is also strictly dominant for each player (if they choose red, they have a 100% chance of surviving, while if they choose blue, they only survive if > 50% of other people also choose blue). Knowing this, every participant has an incentive to choose red.
Re: If more than 50% press blue, everyone survives. Red pressers always survive
#188If you're the first person in line to vote, picking blue is neither logical nor moral. There are no other blue choosers who you need to support. "But there will be people who vote after me" well that's their decision to make. "People will vote randomly" okay well if they can't take living or dying seriously, that's kind of on them. Choosing the zero risk option when everyone else has the exact same zero risk option isn't selfish.
It's not selfish to choose red because everyone else has the choice to choose red. There's an unknowable risk with choosing blue. Choosing red only exposes blue choosers to the exact risk they decided to take.
Reframe it to eliminate the silly savior complex and it sounds ridiculous:
There's an infinitely long trolley track. You can let the trolley continue down the track, or you can divert it in your direction. You might get smooshed by the trolley by diverting it, but at least someone standing further down the track won't divert it and smoosh themselves.
Re: If more than 50% press blue, everyone survives. Red pressers always survive
#189This is like a prisoner's dilemma, but with no payoff for the risky option. In a prisoner's dilemma, you can choose a risky option (stay quiet), but the potential reward is that if the other prisoner also stays quiet then you both go completely free. But if one prisoner instead speaks up and accuses the other prisoner, the accuser gets a short sentence and the one who stayed quiet gets a max sentence. But in this sce…
Re: If more than 50% press blue, everyone survives. Red pressers always survive
#190Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have two buttons. If you press that one, you might die. If you press the other one, you won't die. Which one do you press?
You have two buttons. If you press one, you're more likely to die. If you press the other, you might murder millions of people. Am I talking about the game, or a preemptive nuclear strike that has a good chance of knocking out the enemies ability to ever launch?
I would say that its hard to underestimate the social estimates of these things. A person who will genuinely be impacted by it themselves would fall into these traps more than one might think. History has many examples of fascism that some suggest that these periods of turmoil are the norm rather than exception.
Once again an obligatory message about how the world faces some genuine issues but instead of fixing them as a civilization, We would much rather prefer to have scapegoats and this goes both ways and might be true in a certain way and at a certain path both sides are too extreme to ever collaborate for the most part that a nation of once great strength might die a slow exhausting death if nothing changes.
I have come to the realization, The world has always been like this and it might always be like this. Its messy but also one can imagine this as a side effect as the mere coexsistence of our species in such massive numbers might demand polarization.
Some people create initial changes (for greed, genuineness etc.)
people then follow it (true belief)
people then meet other people and become friends with them and create a community.
new people are born or who change because of the community aspect (Since most things are nuanced, it is easy to frame anything and sometimes everything into such communities.)
The original people who made the thing dies/are out of power and new people from the community join.
these communities gain influence and decide the decision making but the heads of such communities are prone to narcissism or any other ways to draft as much as attention as possible as it seems that all attention is (good attention??)
More corruption follows, even the people of community are impacted and they might hear criticisms but the lock-in is too much. Stockholm syndrome.
Everyone else face the consequence and someone new creates a new movement and create another set of intial changes. Competition between multiple colors follows, we also see cooperation between red and blue to prevent outside competition.
In such sense, change creates change and cycle repeats. It is up to our interpretation on if there is any idea itself which can remain logical if its implementation or implementors get corrupted in a sense similar to erosion of the main values.
more than anything, humanity wants a community. a human somehow wants acceptance and validation for himself and he is selfish in the sense that he will put a blind eye sometimes if he isn't virtuous to damage outside his house (sometimes inside as well) and he wants a community because that is the only way he functions within a society of millions and billions while monkeys cant operate on more than hundreds.
More than a political critique, my point is, we should be more aware of this human tradeoff from empirical evidences and open up this blind spot and perhaps be more aware about it.