Button Poll #2: Only those with normal cognitive capacity are given buttons.

[Emily's Cat]

Because there are two choices:

-Red leads to the death of others unless 100% of the world's population also chooses red.

-Blue results in no deaths if 51% or more of the population also chooses blue.

-Red voters are voting for others to die. If that is because they only care about themselves (despite likely dying anyway in the chaos following), that's the whole point. They suck so bad that they will shoot themselves in the foot rather than think of others.

The whole point of this button question is "do you believe people will basically look out for each other?"

That's not the point of the button question. That's what you have added to the question. Given that I crafted the question, I think I'm a bit more of an authority on the point.

This doesn't work at all, because the odds of you dying in the raging river are astronomically high. The button pushers don't have to do anything physically exertive or take an actual risk- as we see in the polls, Blue voters' confidence in people is well founded.

They ARE taking risks though. Blues are risking their own deaths by choosing blue, and they have no particular reason to do so. Your confidence is only apparent AFTER the fact.

 

[Emily's Cat]

For those of you who think reds are monsters of some sort...

Would you be content to be the very first person to push the blue button, knowing that by doing so you're actively taking an unnecessary risk, and that the only way for you to avoid death is for a whole bunch of other people to risk their lives to save you from yourself?

 

[Thermal]

Why do you think this is a bad thing? Why do you seem to believe that a person refraining from taking unnecessary risks is bad?

I don't. Your framing of this question is that this is a very necessary risk, to avoid a mass extinction of the planet. The risk is perceived as very low, and the payoff radically high, so much so that most people consider it a shoe-in and do their part to keep their Blue loved ones and complete strangers alive.

How much do you hate myself and Darat and the other Blues here that you would vote to have us killed off?

Alright... so why would anyone of normal cognitive ability push the blue button in the first place? What reason do you imagine exists where people with normal ability to actually understand the choice would voluntarily choose to risk death for themselves and others, when it is 100% in their agency to not risk death at all?

Same as we keep saying. We don't consider it a significant risk, and the consequences of a non-100% Red win are about as horrific as can be.

Actually, not, I don't think all Blues are self destructive in all scenarios. In the original, I think that Blues tend to make the assumption that some portion of the people presented with the choice are unable to understand it - some will be babies who smash a button at random.

You made assumption up. It was not at all part of the major argumentation. Babies were only mentioned rhetorically a couple times.

This is the assumption that I'm challenging. You are assuming that reds are evil, selfish, cowards and want blues to die. I think your assumption is wrong, as well as malicious.

I don't think they *want* Blues to die. They are just okay with it. And that is pretty definitionally selfish and cowardly. Not to mention stupid, because they are not understanding what a 51% Red win would look like.

Therefore, you are willing to let others die.

This is cheap, EC. Of course we are willing to let others die. It's inevitable, and can't be stopped. Unless, of course, there is a simple button push presented. There, it is a simple choice that you actually can influence a global outcome.

This whole tear you are on about 'well you are willing to let others die too' is a cop out. Day to day, we can't be the guardian angel of billions. In the scenario you pose, we literally can. The two don't compare, at all, in any way.

 

[Thermal]

That's not the point of the button question. That's what you have added to the question. Given that I crafted the question, I think I'm a bit more of an authority on the point.

You did, but if you had another point beyond the one that is inevitably laid out by the premises, you didn't make it.

They ARE taking risks though. Blues are risking their own deaths by choosing blue, and they have no particular reason to do so. Your confidence is only apparent AFTER the fact.

To save others and have no global deaths result from the poll is 'no particular reason'? You can't be serious here?

 

[Thermal]

For those of you who think reds are monsters of some sort...

Would you be content to be the very first person to push the blue button, knowing that by doing so you're actively taking an unnecessary risk, and that the only way for you to avoid death is for a whole bunch of other people to risk their lives to save you from yourself?

We've answered this dozens of times. Why don't you just read the answers?

Yes, I wouldn't care in the slightest if I were the first or the last, because I believe people would choose Blue. They are not saving me from anything. We pull together collectively to stop all deaths, and the order that we vote doesn't matter in the slightest. Billions of voters aren't thinking about who is the first.

 

[Emily's Cat]

We've answered this dozens of times. Why don't you just read the answers?

You've answered, but your answer doesn't make sense to me, Thermal. I understand it makes sense to you, but there's some unstated underlying assumption at work in your scenario that I don't see. So instead of casually writing off a bunch of people as evil murdering cowards, how about you get off your moral high horse and just explain and help me understand?

To me, the scenario is 100% exactly identical to this:

There's a trolley coming down the hill. There's nothing in the way, nobody is tied to the tracks. There's a group of 1000 people standing on the platform and you're one of them. Everyone on the platform is an adult with normal cognitive ability.

If at least 501 people voluntarily jump onto the tracks, they'll be able to stop the trolley and nobody will get hurt. If 500 or fewer people voluntarily jump onto the tracks, the trolley won't be stopped, and everyone on the tracks will die.

I'm trying to understand why ANYONE AT ALL would jump on the track in the first place.

I understand that you want to save everyone, I get that, I respect that. What I don't get is why anyone with even an ounce of common sense would step onto the tracks, ever. There's an obvious safe option, and an option that introduces a risk that does not exist at all until someone steps onto the tracks. Nobody needs to step onto the tracks, there's literally no reason at all for anyone to step onto the tracks.

What you're proposing is that essentially everyone should hop onto the tracks instead of staying on the platform, because that's the only way we can save the people who hopped onto the tracks.

I understand and respect wanting to save others. I don't understand obligating other people to take avoidable risks to save people who voluntarily jumped off a cliff in the first place. Especially because in real life, you would absolutely not do this.

So I'm left thinking that there must be some additional assumption that you're making. Clearly there is - you're motivated to push blue so you can help save the other people who pushed blue and ensure that everyone lives. What I'm trying to get to is why you think anyone would push blue in the first place. What rationale would lead to normal rational adults voluntarily introducing risks that nobody needs to face, and why would those who don't engage in the easily and obviously avoidable risk be considered evil?

Yes, I wouldn't care in the slightest if I were the first or the last, because I believe people would choose Blue. They are not saving me from anything. We pull together collectively to stop all deaths, and the order that we vote doesn't matter in the slightest. Billions of voters aren't thinking about who is the first.

They ARE saving you from something. Because you pushed blue, other people are now obligated to save you in your moral framework. You didn't have to push blue. You could safely push red and face absolutely no risk at all. The only reason to push blue is to save other people who pushed blue.

By your logic, if you are the only person to push blue, then everyone else is murdering you by NOT jumping in front of a speeding train with you.

 

[Thermal]

I'm trying to understand why ANYONE AT ALL would jump on the track in the first place.

Right. This is why you can't understand the answers. You are laser-locked onto this framing, and won't let it go, even though it is not remotely comparable. And before you say 'of course it is', think about how you can't even conceive of the Blue Button pusher's motivation. In the same way you can't understand them, they can't understand your framing.

If the dilemma was posed as jumping on tracks, no one would do so and we could feel confident voting Red. But it's not. It is posted as pressing one of two buttons, and the consequences are if 51% vote blue, everyone is safe. If 51% vote red, the Blues die.

Because I know people think differently, I know that globally, some are not good at logic puzzles and will only see blue as a humane choice. That affects my voting strategy. Like, my wife (as much as I respect her intellect) is awful at these kinds of puzzles, and can't see past voting Blue. It's not even registering that Red is failsafe; she can only see the gruesome downside to the Red vote. And that's enough for me to vote Blue no matter what.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

And what will you do when you see someone obliviously talking on their phone step onto the track? Step back behind someone to avoid the blood splatter?
That isn't equivalent to the original scenario. In a group of 8 billion, someone will press blue, it's inevitable. Us blue pressers just want to act collectively at no cost to ouselves to prevent them dying.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Right. This is why you can't understand the answers. You are laser-locked onto this framing, and won't let it go, even though it is not remotely comparable. And before you say 'of course it is', think about how you can't even conceive of the Blue Button pusher's motivation.

For ◊◊◊◊'s sake, I understand your motivation Thermal - you want to save everyone. I get that, I respect that. What I don't get is why you think Red Buttons are evil killers. I think you falsely attribute negative attributes to people who think or believe or react differently from you. In this case, I think you attribute malice to people who are merely risk averse.

In the same way you can't understand them, they can't understand your framing.

If the dilemma was posed as jumping on tracks, no one would do so and we could feel confident voting Red. But it's not. It is posted as pressing one of two buttons, and the consequences are if 51% vote blue, everyone is safe. If 51% vote red, the Blues die.

Why do you see the two framings as materially different?

Because I know people think differently, I know that globally, some are not good at logic puzzles and will only see blue as a humane choice. That affects my voting strategy. Like, my wife (as much as I respect her intellect) is awful at these kinds of puzzles, and can't see past voting Blue. It's not even registering that Red is failsafe; she can only see the gruesome downside to the Red vote. And that's enough for me to vote Blue no matter what.

Here's where I end up a bit skeptical. You say that you know people think differently... but you persistently frame people who choose red as being bad people motivated by selfishness and apathy. So perhaps you accept that people think differently, but you also seem to think that only your way of thinking is good.

 

[Emily's Cat]

And what will you do when you see someone obliviously talking on their phone step onto the track? Step back behind someone to avoid the blood splatter?

Would you encourage everyone to jump on the track with them? If the elderly person next to you failed to jump on the track with the oblivious one, would you consider the elderly person to be a killer?

That isn't equivalent to the original scenario. In a group of 8 billion, someone will press blue, it's inevitable. Us blue pressers just want to act collectively at no cost to ouselves to prevent them dying.

Given that everyone is capable of understanding the question and the choices laid out before them (comparable to saying everyone understands that standing on the trolley tracks is dangerous)... why would anyone press blue?

So far as I can see, it seems like the reasoning is "in case someone else pushes blue". So you have a whole bunch of people courting death in a way that is completely and entirely unnecessary, on the chance that someone else courts unnecessary and avoidable death.

 

[Emily's Cat]

How about a change of direction for the discussion?

For those of you who selected Red... what conditions would cause you to change your vote to Blue? Are there external conditions that would alter your choice? What required threshold for Blue participation would be low enough for you to take the risk?

For those who selected Blue... what conditions and threshold would cause you to change your vote?

 

[Thermal]

For ◊◊◊◊'s sake, I understand your motivation Thermal - you want to save everyone. I get that, I respect that. What I don't get is why you think Red Buttons are evil killers.

Because a Red vote is to kill others that they can be 100% sure will vote Blue. That definitionally makes them willing killers. I do not say they are evil. That's an invention of your imagination, that I can't help you with.

I think you falsely attribute negative attributes to people who think or believe or react differently from you. In this case, I think you attribute malice to people who are merely risk averse.

Not at all. Risk aversion is perfectly laudable, too. But you keep glossing over that this choice comes at a price that others have to pay.

There are two sides to each vote: what it will do for you individually, and what it will do to others collectively. You are soft pedaling the latter; indeed, you have to, or find a Red vote selfish and cowardly.

Why do you see the two framings as materially different?

For the same reasons I've said repeatedly. Can you think of a reason that I would expect you to listen on this repetition, when you ignored all the others? Please don't think I didn't notice how many direct questions I put to you that you've also ignored. I directly answer yours over an over. You ignore mine.

Here's where I end up a bit skeptical. You say that you know people think differently... but you persistently frame people who choose red as being bad people motivated by selfishness and apathy.

Because it is definitionally what they are doing. Risk aversion at the expense of others is selfish and cowardly.

So perhaps you accept that people think differently, but you also seem to think that only your way of thinking is good.

When it comes to killing others, or not? Yeah, pretty much.

 

[Thermal]

For those who selected Blue... what conditions and threshold would cause you to change your vote?

As I've said several times, a small enough group and enough time to suss out the group strategy with the others. It could be demonstrated that Red, you can't lose, and Blue, you can.

If we cannot plan in advance and/or the group is too large, it has to stay Blue, unless I have good reason to believe that these strangers are more likely to vote me dead than not.

 

[Thermal]

So far as I can see, it seems like the reasoning is "in case someone else pushes blue". So you have a whole bunch of people courting death in a way that is completely and entirely unnecessary, on the chance that someone else courts unnecessary and avoidable death.

This is the whole ball o' wax. You are reframing it as "in case" someone votes Blue. Thats ridiculous. You know goddamned right well that some WILL push Blue, from interacting with posters in this very discussion. It's not a "possibility" or coin flip. It is a CERTAINTY. Dead certain, 100%. But you smoke-and-mirror it like it is some off theoretical chance, that the Blue voter is foolish to take. That is not the case, and you know it full and well.

You are voting to send Darat, myself, Guybrush Threepwood, and countless others to DIE. That is the flip side to your vote, and you can't wish that away with reframing to scenarios where the Red vote is entirely passive. It is not. It votes to kill others.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Because a Red vote is to kill others that they can be 100% sure will vote Blue. That definitionally makes them willing killers. I do not say they are evil. That's an invention of your imagination, that I can't help you with.

Not at all. Risk aversion is perfectly laudable, too. But you keep glossing over that this choice comes at a price that others have to pay.

There are two sides to each vote: what it will do for you individually, and what it will do to others collectively. You are soft pedaling the latter; indeed, you have to, or find a Red vote selfish and cowardly.

"If you don't risk your own death and the death of everyone you love to save people who VOLUNTARILY CHOSE to risk themselves, you're a selfish killer!"

For the same reasons I've said repeatedly. Can you think of a reason that I would expect you to listen on this repetition, when you ignored all the others? Please don't think I didn't notice how many direct questions I put to you that you've also ignored. I directly answer yours over an over. You ignore mine.

Actually, you haven't provided your reasons. You've merely said that they're different - you haven't explained why they're functionally and meaningfully different.

Because it is definitionally what they are doing. Risk aversion at the expense of others is selfish and cowardly.

So risk aversion of a 90 year old who refrains from jumping in the raging river to try to save someone else is selfish and cowardly. Got it. Such a horrible pensioner, not being willing to throw their life away to save someone who shouldn't have jumped in the water in the first place.

When it comes to killing others, or not? Yeah, pretty much.

It's the framing of this as killing that I find a very serious problem.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Not at all. Risk aversion is perfectly laudable, too. But you keep glossing over that this choice comes at a price that others have to pay.

I'm not glossing over it. Others only have to pay that price if they don't avoid the obvious and unecessary risk.

Nobody actually has to pay that price. They're volunteering for it.

 

[Emily's Cat]

As I've said several times, a small enough group and enough time to suss out the group strategy with the others. It could be demonstrated that Red, you can't lose, and Blue, you can.

If we cannot plan in advance and/or the group is too large, it has to stay Blue, unless I have good reason to believe that these strangers are more likely to vote me dead than not.

Let me offer up a variant for you to confirm your stance.

Only cognitively competent adults (everyone is able to understand the options, and everyone is able to understand that there is no risk to red, and some risk with blue) are involved... and the threshold for all blues living is 95%. Are you still dedicated to blue?

 

[Emily's Cat]

This is the whole ball o' wax. You are reframing it as "in case" someone votes Blue. Thats ridiculous. You know goddamned right well that some WILL push Blue, from interacting with posters in this very discussion. It's not a "possibility" or coin flip. It is a CERTAINTY. Dead certain, 100%. But you smoke-and-mirror it like it is some off theoretical chance, that the Blue voter is foolish to take. That is not the case, and you know it full and well.

It's LITERALLY a case of Red having zero risk ever and Blue actively seeking out risk that could be entirely avoided in the first place. I already stipulated that everyone involved is capable of understanding the choice involved.

There's no smoke and mirrors involved. If there's a certainty that someone is going to press blue... it's because they are intentionally taking a completely avoidable risk. They're actively jumping onto the trolley tracks, of their own volition.

You are voting to send Darat, myself, Guybrush Threepwood, and countless others to DIE. That is the flip side to your vote, and you can't wish that away with reframing to scenarios where the Red vote is entirely passive.

I'm not sending you to die. I'm not making you do anything at all. Every single one of you is capable of saying "oh goodness, there's a trolley coming, I should stay on the platform".

You are making a choice all by yourself - I'm not making you take risks.

Why do you think I'm responsible for someone else taking an unnecessary and completely avoidable risk? Why am I responsible for your decision?

It is not. It votes to kill others.

It does not. I haven't voted to kill others. I've voted to not jump on the trolley tracks in the first place, and stay safely on the platform.

From my perspective, I think that you (collective) are creating your own risk of death, and then expecting everyone else to save you from yourself. You're intentionally putting yourself and other people at risk... and then calling me names for not joining you.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Let me be clear: I think it's morally laudable to try to save people from themselves. I don't think it's morally obligatory.

 

[Thermal]

Actually, you haven't provided your reasons. You've merely said that they're different - you haven't explained why they're functionally and meaningfully different.

I have. Here, I'll do it again, so you can ignore it again:

The trolley reframing makes Red a null vote. They ain't doin nuffin, just standing on the platform minding dey business. This does not compare to the Red button, which has the actual effect of killing the Blues (that you keep trying to sweep under the rug). "Just not jumping on the tracks" is the equivalent of not registering a vote, which is not an option in the scenario posed.

You are enamored of the trolley analogy because it shifts blame away from your actions. So let's try another reframing that accounts for what a Red vote actually does:

There is a bulletproof barrier laying flat in a field, with Red grass on one side of it and Blue on the other. You have two choices- get on the Red side, and be handed a gun, with which you shoot any Blues if your side reaches 51%. The Blues can only lift that barrier and stop the bullets if they reach 51%. If they do not get 51%, the barrier stays down and they are shot dead by the Reds.

There. That actually reflects both sides of both votes, the individual and collective effects. Blue still needs 51% for no deaths, and Red still needs 100% for no deaths. You still get your wish that it is Blue's fault if he tries to join in to raise the barrier, but now you have to accept that your action carries a collective (and aggressive) effect. Many voters will simply not be able to stomach the idea of shooting into a field of Blues, whether 49% or 1%, who only put themselves at risk to stop these ghoulish Reds from firing at anybody. You are still right that if 100% of people thought like you, you would be opening fire into an empty field. Same for Blue- at 51% no one kills anyone on either side.

I'm still going Blue, and for exactly the same reasons. How about you, now that the collective consequence of your vote is no longer hidden?