271–280 of 333 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it worse? Wouldn't the red people end up with more like-minded red people?
I think most of the people who pick blue would be empathic, loving people that are just kind of bad at game theory. I don't think I want to live in a world in which they all died out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But why would those pick blue? They have the same incentive to just pick red.
Same as with the original dilemma. Most people are not sociopaths and will choose to cooperate with empathy for everyone else. That's just how species survive and adapt. (1) Alternatively, some people believe that sustained cooperation is in itself a sustained equilibrium. (2) Most of the world is not as individualistic as Silicon Valley engineers believe in their own ivory towers after decades of reading Ayn Rand. (…
But there is no advantage here to pick blue, nobody should pick blue because if we all pick red we all win.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you also forcing children to press a button or not? Because the answer to this question changes things *a lot*.
Yes the inclusion of children does change things, in that it makes choosing red even more obvious. The problem is posed to the world. You have children, and they ask you what they should do. You tell them to pick red because you're their parent you can't bring yourself to have them risk their lives for some noble purpose. According to blue buttoners, this parent is an evil person, right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are two globally optimal solutions to this problem: > 50% pick blue (saving everybody), and 100% of the people pick red (saving everybody). 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…
> Nash equilibrium Bro... Game theory laws like Nash equilibrium dont apply if the population is irrational. Which it largely is! Good luck explaining Nash equilibrium to a baby.
Seems pretty easy to me.
it's a neat test to find out how many people around us are fine with genocide.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bringing rationalism - or whatever - clouds the discussion. Blue is purely a win-win for me, so it's rational to only choose blue. Reds have their own value judgement. "Rationality" is a useless quality to debate here.
> Blue is purely a win-win for me Dying is a win for you?
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…
They payoff is, you know you are not the reason why the people who pressed the blue button died. Blue risk their lives to safe others, red safe themselves. Blue won’t get survivor’s guilt
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bringing rationalism - or whatever - clouds the discussion. Blue is purely a win-win for me, so it's rational to only choose blue. Reds have their own value judgement. "Rationality" is a useless quality to debate here.
> Blue is purely a win-win for me Dying is a win for you?