261–270 of 333 posts
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is a dilemma because pressing blue or red reveals about your political orientations and your inner empathic responses (i'm assuming both are correlated). Not everyone is wired the same or agrees on politics. Though in a sense, i agree it's not really a dilemma because only sociopaths pick red in real life. See also intense and spontaneous cooperation in times of crisis (catastrophe, war, etc). See also research on…
Nah pretty much everyone picks red if it was a real scenario. It's also bizarre to call everyone picking red a sociopath because they don't want to gamble their life on some naive and idealistic view of humans.
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 think you've missed the point of a thought experiment entirely.
This 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…
So… you're 6?
This is similar to Newcomb's two-box paradox, where the optimal strategy is deception. The winning play is to preemptively convince everyone you're only going to take the second box, but then actually take both.
One way round the dilemma is to make it optional as to whether to press a button and in that case, it would seem to be sociopathic to press the red button as that increases the chance that blue button pressers get killed. The best choice in that circumstance is to not play the game which is surely the moral choice too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The blues sound like idiots. Press the red button you survive, or press the blue button you might die
Press red and you might kill.
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.
Red presser did nothing, blue pressers did everything to themselfs
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The downside of redding is that some portion of the world probably dies and you now have to live in that worse world that if you and 50% of the rest of the world has just blued, would not have happened.
But why would those pick blue? They have the same incentive to just pick red.
PS and the whole article may be bait to trigger exactly this kind of proofs.
This 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…
The downside of redding is that some portion of the world probably dies and you now have to live in that worse world that if you and 50% of the rest of the world has just blued, would not have happened.
What makes it a worse world?