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

[Emily's Cat]

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?

I notice that not a single one of you dedicated blue buttoners who insist that red buttoners are killer has answered this question.

If the threshold for all blues living is 95%, would you still push the blue button?

 

[Lithrael]

(...) why would you think Thermal and Darat would risk their lives in the first place?

(...) What assumption were you making for WHY other people would take unnecessary risks? What reason would other people have to walk into danger when it could be entirely avoided (...)

I considered pressing blue; I know there are people out there that think like me; I must assume some will press blue if my natural sense is to at least consider it (and it is). Human behaviours often follow distribution curves and rarely if ever all make the same choice.

If the threshold for all blues living is 95%, would you still push the blue button?

Well, probably not, because I suspect more than 5% of people are gonna pick red.

The other scenario I would pick red: if part of the presentation of the dilemma was 'and if blue loses, blue pressers die like this: (gory demonstration)' because I think that would scare enough of the potential blue pressers into pressing red, that blue's chances of reaching 51% would be very bad.

 

[junkshop]

Under this set of conditions, yes. I don't think it holds under other conditions. I'm genuinely curious where the inflection points are - for both sets of people.

I said all of them, as in every time a poll has been run on this question. I have not found one where red won. Maybe I missed one, if so let me know.

I also think it's beautiful. I just don't think risk averse people are evil.

Nor do I. Nor do I think that those that choose blue are not risk averse, rather that they consider (and averse to) the risk to others, not just themselves.

Is that the logically 'correct' choice? No, absolutely not. But humans are not calculators. Given the results every time this question has been asked then the pragmatic choice is blue, because that is what most choose every time.

Bloody people, with their general bias toward empathy and reluctance to be responsible for killing others, and such.

 

[junkshop]

I notice that not a single one of you dedicated blue buttoners who insist that red buttoners are killer has answered this question.

If the threshold for all blues living is 95%, would you still push the blue button?

Oh, ◊◊◊◊ off. If you need to fundamentally change the scenario in order to defend your position, then your position is, IMO, indefensible.

That said, I would still vote blue, but am less confident that most would. So go on, post a new poll with your new scenario. Let's find out.

 

[Rolfe]

The thing is, "red" really is the null option. It's the non-participation option.

Here is a (blue) button. If you ignore it, nothing will happen to you. If you press it, you will die, unless over 50% of the (adult, mentally competent) population of the world also decides to press it.

It's that nuts.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I considered pressing blue; I know there are people out there that think like me; I must assume some will press blue if my natural sense is to at least consider it (and it is). Human behaviours often follow distribution curves and rarely if ever all make the same choice.

Well, probably not, because I suspect more than 5% of people are gonna pick red.

The other scenario I would pick red: if part of the presentation of the dilemma was 'and if blue loses, blue pressers die like this: (gory demonstration)' because I think that would scare enough of the potential blue pressers into pressing red, that blue's chances of reaching 51% would be very bad.

Thank you enormously for providing an answer!





For me... I know my responses are different if there are babies involved, and they're definitely different if I'm casting a vote on behalf of someone else. If I'm voting on behalf of my loved ones, I'm almost certainly pushing red, even if there are babies involved. I'm willing to take risks for me... I'm not willing to commit someone else to take risks at my say-so.

The threshold also really matters; I'm naturally a very risk-averse person. At a 10% threshold, I'm definitely pushing blue for myself and I'd probably push blue on behalf of my loved ones. At 90%, not gonna happen. Hard to say exactly where the inflection is... for me alone I'd guess probably somewhere around 35% (unless babies, as previously stated).

I'm willing to bet that under certain circumstances, even the most dedicated red will flip to blue. I would also hope that under certain circumstances the most dedicated blue will flip to red.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I said all of them, as in every time a poll has been run on this question. I have not found one where red won. Maybe I missed one, if so let me know.

They've all been under essentially the same conditions - that was what I was trying to say. All of them I've seen have the 50% threshold, for example. And while I haven't tried to find every single one, mine here is the only one I've seen that explicitly guarantees the safety of babies.

I think different thresholds would result in different outcomes. I think if 95% were required to all blues to live, there'd be a much lower percentage who would choose blue. Hard to say with any certainty, of course, but I would guesstimate somewhere around 80% would pick red. Similarly, I think if people were casting a vote on behalf of others, there's a much higher likelihood of the majority ending up red.

On the other hand, if the initial conditions explicitly stated that even babies and the cognitively impaired were given buttons, a higher portion would pick blue. And if the threshold were only 5%, I think there'd be only a wee sliver of reds.

On the other hand... I sincerely wonder what the outcome would be in some really sinister scenarios. If for example we were all told that if fewer than 50% chose blue, then all the blues and Trump would die.

Nor do I. Nor do I think that those that choose blue are not risk averse, rather that they consider (and averse to) the risk to others, not just themselves.

I don't think most blues are risk seekers (the opposite to risk averse), more that they have a higher risk tolerance than I do. This isn't a shock really, we already have tons of evidence that males have a higher risk tolerance than females do. And while it's generally true that humans have hierarchies with respect to who they value most and are most willing to sacrifice for, the valuation schema aren't all the same. Almost without exception, we're willing to sacrifice more if it benefits our children and our spouses than if it benefits a complete stranger... but some have a wider "inner circle" than others. I don't have kids, and I'm very close to my sibling and my parents. They're going to be my priority almost all the time... but if it's a choice between my sibling and my spouse, my spouse is going to win out.

Is that the logically 'correct' choice? No, absolutely not. But humans are not calculators. Given the results every time this question has been asked then the pragmatic choice is blue, because that is what most choose every time.

Bloody people, with their general bias toward empathy and reluctance to be responsible for killing others, and such.

I still don't think it's reasonable to frame it as "killing". Refraining from endangering yourself to save a stranger isn't the same as killing them.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Oh, ◊◊◊◊ off.

Right back at you.

If you need to fundamentally change the scenario in order to defend your position, then your position is, IMO, indefensible.

I'm not trying to defend my position. I'm getting really annoyed by this collective inability to grasp the entire concept under discussion here. I don't *have* a position overall. People will make different choices under different scenarios - that's the entire ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ point! Each of us has a different degree of risk tolerance, and a different degree of trust in others, and we're going to end up with different outcomes when the conditions are changed.

That said, I would still vote blue, but am less confident that most would. So go on, post a new poll with your new scenario. Let's find out.

If I had any confidence that 1) there would be reasonable participation and 2) participants would actually answer honestly, I would. But based on how this discussion has gone, I'm relatively certain that at least some people would vote blue out of straight up spite and vitriol.

I really wish I had the resources to design a comprehensive forced-choice survey on a large scale with sufficient randomization.

 

[junkshop]

...If I had any confidence that 1) there would be reasonable participation and 2) participants would actually answer honestly, I would. But based on how this discussion has gone, I'm relatively certain that at least some people would vote blue out of straight up spite and vitriol...

OK, but leaving aside your very blatant well-poisoning regarding any potential result that doesn't agree with your position... oh, no that's all you had.

I agreed to, nay encouraged, a new poll with your new scenario. I admitted that I wasn't sure the result would go my way. You chickened out.

 

[The_Animus]

This is similar to a scenario I encountered in college. I don't remember the exact details but it was more or less like this.

The class was broken up into 5 groups and each group could vote either blue or red. If everyone voted blue, every group would get $10. If some voted blue and some voted red, the red voters would get $12 and the blue voters would get $1. If every group voted red, they all got $0. There would be several rounds of voting and the goal was to get as much money as possible by the end. Discussion was allowed unless you had participated in or read about this scenario before. I had and so wasn't allowed to discuss it but I knew that the point wasn't to get as much money for your group as possible, but as much money overall with the way the scenario was worded. Therefor the most money possible was from every group voting blue every time. Of course this is not how it played out. I forget exactly but I believe one group basically decided amongst themselves to vote red every time to guarantee no other group would get more than them. As voting rounds went on, more groups voted red and the ending total wasn't great.

When I first came upon the Blue Red Button Life and Death scenario of the OP (though I came across it elsewhere before seeing it also discussed here) my immediate knee-jerk reaction was to choose Blue for the reasons many have already stated. I think college me would pick Blue even after having given it considerable thought. Today there is still part of me that wants to choose Blue, but ultimately I would choose Red. Red is guaranteed survival, and there is nothing stopping everyone from choosing Red. There have been many comparisons throughout the thread but to me choosing Blue is the equivalent of deciding to play Russian roulette. Your putting a loaded gun to your head and pulling the trigger with no idea whether the chamber has a bullet (<50% Blue vote). Choosing Red is choosing not to play Russian roulette. Some argue that Red are killing Blue. I argue that whoever setup and forced the scenario in the first place killed Blue. Or if you don't want that as an option, then Blue killed Blue by choosing to play Russian roulette when they didn't have to.

Imagine if instead the scenario were presented as such. A giant blue container suddenly appears and it is filled with deadly radiation. Everyone gets a Blue and Red button. Once everyone has voted, if you chose Red then nothing happens, everything continues on for you as normal. If you chose Blue, you are teleported into the container. If >50% chose blue, then the container is cleared of radiation prior to everyone who chose blue teleporting in. If <50% chose blue, then did the red kill blue? Or did Blue kill themselves?

People have pointed out that polls and surveys all show that more people would pick Blue but frankly I think those polls mean next to nothing. It's easy to pick Blue when it's a fun theoretical scenario and when there is a social desirability bias towards picking Blue. I think many of those Blue voters would switch to Red. This is known as the Say-Do Gap. For example there have been surveys where people are asked if they would pay a little more for eco-friendly or sustainable products. 70%+ say they would but when it came down to actual purchases, it was less than 10%.

 

[Lithrael]

Right. That is why I said one alteration that would make me switch to red would be 'we get a visceral demonstration of how blues die' as that would take it out of the realm where many people are still naturally considering the question on a hypothetical basis. I would no longer be worrying about people who might pick blue cause it felt nicer or more fair; I'd assume a MUCH more universal reaction of 'oh hell no' if we all just got the bejeezus scared out of us.

 

[Thermal]

The risk does not even exist until someone picks blue. Literally nobody is at risk until someone selects blue.

You... *do* understand that the exact same thing can be said for Red, yes? I mean, I don't have to explain that, yeah? It's not possible for Blues to be killed if Reds aren't pushed to the 51% mark, starting with the first Red vote, right?

You're just determined to make that 90 year old a killer in your eyes for failing to risk their own life to save the teenager trying to surf the flood.

I said nothing about a 90 year old anything, because a 90 year old can't really do anything physical, so it is dip ◊◊◊◊ irrelevant. Except they could push a button, which is why we should stick to the scenarios you yourself came up with and not veer off into radically different dip ◊◊◊◊ scenarios where physical prowess is a necessity.

It was ALWAYS death coming from an external force. The death only arises from people selecting blue.

It does not, by your own OP terms. Blue can vote Blue till they are blue in the face, and cannot cause any deaths, Only the Reds can.

Red has ALWAYS been the "safe" option. From the very beginning, red is safe. They're not forcing anyone to court death, and they're declining to court death for themselves. It's ALWAYS been the null.

It is safe for the individual. It is catastrophic for others, and for humanity.

Actually, it is powerhouse stupid to vote Red in anything but a 100% victory. Say Red wins by a 51-75% margin. You do understand that the globe would plunge into chaos, right? The global economy would shut down, as well as the utility grids and food supply chains. You and Rolfe would be some of the first to die in the aftermath of the chaos you created, btw.

No matter how short-sighted and self-absorbed a Red voter is, I like to think they would be selfish enough to realize that a Red win guarantees chaos, and a Blue win guarantees business as usual.

No matter how you slice this, voting Red is shooting yourself in the foot.

It's not actually an odds problem in the first place. It's always been a risk-aversion versus trust-in-strangers problem.

That's an odds problem, ducky. What are the odds that one choice will work out better for you than the other? Red wins, and odds are it is a catastrophic outcome that gets worse for the rest of your very short life. Blue wins, and the odds are 100% that you will kick back and watch Netflix tonight.

I find it both baffling and concerning that you think avoiding unnecessary risk is evil.

Serious question for you, then (I don't know why I bother, given your track record of ignoring them):

Given the chaos versus Netflix outcomes, do you seriously think this is an "unnecessary risk"? The only risk is a Red win and the Mad Max landscape that follows. Blue, surprise surprise, is the less risky vote, assuming no one wants to starve to death.

ETA: you like to frame this as a personal choice about risk aversion, and moral compulsions. It's not, It is strictly a practical choice, where the outcomes are mass graves and being plunged back into the stone age, versus Netflix and chill.

 

[Thermal]

People have pointed out that polls and surveys all show that more people would pick Blue but frankly I think those polls mean next to nothing. It's easy to pick Blue when it's a fun theoretical scenario and when there is a social desirability bias towards picking Blue. I think many of those Blue voters would switch to Red. This is known as the Say-Do Gap. For example there have been surveys where people are asked if they would pay a little more for eco-friendly or sustainable products. 70%+ say they would but when it came down to actual purchases, it was less than 10%.

I think the opposite, for the reasons I spelled out in my last post (which is a rewording of my first post in the first poll): faced with the reality of The Buttons in front of them, I think people would think about the realistic outcome of their color winning, and the Reds would see how counterproductive to their own selfishness that a Red vote would really be. They'd switch to Blue so they could see what's on TV tonight, rather than forage for survival in a world where no one gives two ◊◊◊◊◊ about them.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Iterative dilemmas are completely different from single turn ones.
And everything in real life is iterative, so the Button thing is really only good for causing Internet outrage

 

[The_Animus]

I think the opposite, for the reasons I spelled out in my last post (which is a rewording of my first post in the first poll): faced with the reality of The Buttons in front of them, I think people would think about the realistic outcome of their color winning, and the Reds would see how counterproductive to their own selfishness that a Red vote would really be. They'd switch to Blue so they could see what's on TV tonight, rather than forage for survival in a world where no one gives two ◊◊◊◊◊ about them.

Who is it the blue button pusher is 'saving' in this scenario? You're doing it to save someone and that someone is doing it to save someone else who in turn is doing it to save you. Except not one of you had any reason to choose it in the first place. You were all perfectly safe right from the start. You're all opting to teleport into the radiation chamber to save each other from the problem you just created for yourselves for absolutely nothing?

 

[The_Animus]

Let's put it in logic terms.

1. The only reason to choose blue is to save people.

2. No one needs saving until someone chooses blue.

And you can't say the same about red. If you have 1 million people choosing and the first thousand choices are red, there is still zero risk, zero people to save. If the first thousand choose blue there is risk, there are now a thousand people who need saving through a sufficient number of blue votes from those who have yet to choose.

 

[Lithrael]

Honestly it's because it's possible to imagine getting a little over half of everyone to do something, but I cannot even imagine getting 100% of everyone to do something. So I can't see a reasonable pitch for red being 'if only everyone would pick red, nobody would be killed' because no strategy that relied on 'if only everyone would' has ever worked out. Some people will pick blue, I don't honestly care why.

You could massage the dilemma with different parameters and get a different answer of course, for example if everyone watched an impassioned speech first with a smart looking person saying 'please everyone vote red so nobody dies' and a guy in a dunce cap whose just peed their pants going 'I will vote blue, everybody please vote blue and save me so I can wrestle alligators on meth next week' and the smart person says 'okay, so nobody but that guy dies' which seems to be what red supporters assume the dilemma actually is.

 

[The_Animus]

Also this gets framed as a compassion and caring about others thing but when you press blue are you not requiring tons of people to risk their lives to save yours?

 

[The_Animus]

Honestly it's because it's possible to imagine getting a little over half of everyone to do something, but I cannot even imagine getting 100% of everyone to do something. So I can't see a reasonable pitch for red being 'if only everyone would pick red, nobody would be killed' because no strategy that relied on 'if only everyone would' has ever worked out. Some people will pick blue, I don't honestly care why.

You could massage the dilemma with different parameters and get a different answer of course, for example if everyone watched an impassioned speech first with a smart looking person saying 'please everyone vote red so nobody dies' and a guy in a dunce cap whose just peed their pants going 'I will vote blue, everybody please vote blue and save me so I can wrestle alligators on meth next week' and the smart person says 'okay, so nobody but that guy dies' which seems to be what red supporters assume the dilemma actually is.

Yeah I actually do get both sides of the argument and think they both hold merit. I'm arguing from the perspective of purely rationality (at least imo) given the scenario that everyone is also choosing on that basis. In that scenario everyone should pick red. Of course were this to actually happen in real life with no caveats then we know people aren't purely rational. For many of the reasons people have given such as the devastation and chain effects of a significant portion of the population suddenly dying it would probably be best for people to vote blue to avoid that.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

double post