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

[The Great Zaganza]

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?

what do you think happens to the survivors in a world where nearly 50% of the population disappeared from one moment to the next, leaving behind their kids?
Pressing the Blue button is very much about saving yourself beyond the point of when The Judgement is made.

 

[Thermal]

Who is it the blue button pusher is 'saving' in this scenario?

Saving everyone, collectively, from the Reds.

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.

Yeah, we all get that. Why do you guys keep repeating it like it's something insightful? It's very very very basic game theory, which works well in its lane.

But this dilemma is scaled globally. Every single swinging dick in this forum knows some perfectly intelligent people are not good at game theory and logic puzzles. We know there will be Blue voters, just like we know there will be Red.

Do you guys get that yet? We understand your point about Red being safe. It's a basic idea, not particularly clever. What we Blues go on to reason is that the effects of a Red win are monumentally worse than a Blue (Blue win being the ideal, along with 100% Red which ain't happening).

If you are arguing that every single person on the planet must follow your reasoning or die, well... that's exactly why we vote Blue. It's the more realistically achievable means to no deaths and no global chaos, even though the risk is unnecessary from the individuals' standpoint. For the collective to win, we are not voting *for* Blue so much as *against* Red, if that makes more sense.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

You know that now, of course. But why would you think Thermal and Darat would risk their lives in the first place?

But you didn't know it at the time you cast your vote. You were making an assumption at the time you cast your vote. 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, and none of them are babies?

Given that some of you keep calling reds killers and morally repugnant, I really don't think you understand my argument at all. Especially since you seem to be of the same opinion as Thermal - that I'm trying to get you to change your vote. I'm not trying to get you to change your vote. I'm trying to get you to do two things: 1) understand that red votes are also reasonable and not evil and 2) understand that your choice is not without risk to others and yourself. I'm trying to get all of you to exercise your theory of mind, and actually genuinely consider a different point of view.

More than anything, I'm trying to ferret out the inflection points

I think others would press blue, because I'm not unique, I'm an old man who has spent many years interacting with other people and I know many think like me and many don't.
1. I don't think red votes are evil. I do think they are selfish.
2. My choice only risks me, it does not mean anyone else will die.

 

[The_Animus]

Saving everyone, collectively, from the Reds.

Yeah, we all get that. Why do you guys keep repeating it like it's something insightful? It's very very very basic game theory, which works well in its lane.

But this dilemma is scaled globally. Every single swinging dick in this forum knows some perfectly intelligent people are not good at game theory and logic puzzles. We know there will be Blue voters, just like we know there will be Red.

Do you guys get that yet? We understand your point about Red being safe. It's a basic idea, not particularly clever. What we Blues go on to reason is that the effects of a Red win are monumentally worse than a Blue (Blue win being the ideal, along with 100% Red which ain't happening).

If you are arguing that every single person on the planet must follow your reasoning or die, well... that's exactly why we vote Blue. It's the more realistically achievable means to no deaths and no global chaos, even though the risk is unnecessary from the individuals' standpoint. For the collective to win, we are not voting *for* Blue so much as *against* Red, if that makes more sense.

Sure and again if this were to happen for real right now then I agree. People will choose blue even though from a strictly rational point there is no reason to thus requiring at least 50% of the population to do the same. This becomes even more apparent when the red button is removed from the scenario entirely and yet doesn't fundamentally change it.

There is a huge radiation container. Everyone gets a blue button. If you push it you go in the container and only if more than 50% push it is the radiation cleared.

So I guess ultimately we should wish for a humanity that is both compassionate enough to have everyone push the blue button if it were needed but rational enough to not need to in the first place.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

The framing you (and Thermal and some others) are using is that a person who chooses not to risk their life is killing the person who chose to risk their life.

No, my framing is that anyone who votes for people to die, votes for people to die. A vote for red is a vote for people to die. Blue voters' dying is the *only* distinct outcome that the red button offers; it is a peril that only exists because people like you vote red.

You're using a framework in which it's obligatory to try to save other people, including saving them from the consequences of their own choices.

I said nothing about what is or is not obligatory. I am pointing out that, if you vote for red, you are voting for people to die, and are accountable for that choice, just as you are accountable for any choice.

If you think that it's okay to vote for people to die, you do you. But don't try to pretend that that isn't what you're doing just because it's uncomfortable.

The rest of your post seems to be more of the same "obligatory" bit, which is not something I brought up. If you choose not to take risks to save another person in mortal peril, that may or may not be a good choice, yet it remains a choice to let them die, regardless.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

ETA: NVM.

 

[Thermal]

No, my framing is that anyone who votes for people to die, votes for people to die. A vote for red is a vote for people to die. Blue voters' dying is the *only* distinct outcome that the red button offers; it is a peril that only exists because people like you vote red.

That's the thing. For all this talk about impending death that needs to be fought against... forks in outlets, trolleys, radiation chambers... there is no threat by voting Blue unless 51% push Red and say "◊◊◊◊ you, die, I don't care.

Instead of this impending death and the innocent passive Red voters (which is wildly inaccurate), I suggest another framework that fits better:

You can push Red or Blue. Blue votes are for Peace and Prosperity for all. Red are for Peace and Prosperity for Reds only, and Death to all others.

Same premise, different wording. Blue is under no threat whatsoever, and can sit around strumming guitars or slamming in the mosh pit, and not a threat in the world troubles them- unless 51% of voters turn full tilt psycho.

In order to ensure Red fails and no one dies, Blue only needs to prevail with 51%. Almost half the population could be Jeffery Dahmers, and Blue still sits calmly facing no threat at all at all at any time, while safeguarding everyone.

Blue never faces impending death or puts themselves in peril. Only Reds can force that on them.

 

[Thermal]

Sure and again if this were to happen for real right now then I agree.

And thats what the polls are asking us to do, treat it as real. It's the reason I am uncompromisingly Blue- treating this as real, Blue is the only practical vote, considering the only two possible outcomes.

People will choose blue even though from a strictly rational point there is no reason to thus requiring at least 50% of the population to do the same. This becomes even more apparent when the red button is removed from the scenario entirely and yet doesn't fundamentally change it.

Ok. We can also remove the Blue button entirely, too-

There is only a Red button. Pushing it allows voters to open fire on non-voters if exceeding 51% of the total population.

Same premise, different perspective. Does Red still seem cooly rational, or more than a tad unecessarily vicious?

So I guess ultimately we should wish for a humanity that is both compassionate enough to have everyone push the blue button if it were needed but rational enough to not need to in the first place.

I dunno. I kinda like some semi-irrational yahoos running around. They keep things fun and interesting, even if you have to pull their reserve parachute for them once in a while. YMMV.

 

[The_Animus]

Ok. We can also remove the Blue button entirely, too

There is only a Red button. Pushing it allows voters to open fire on non-voters if exceeding 51% of the total population.

Same premise, different perspective. Does Red still seem cooly rational, or more than a tad unecessarily vicious?

I think we agree about basically everything except this part.

I think this fundamentally changes the scenario. Originally there is no problem and there is no risk until someone hits a blue button. Once they do, there is now a problem because they're going to die unless more people also hit blue. Blue was both the cause of and solution to the problem. At best one could argue Red was passively responsible because they didn't risk themselves to try to save the blues. You changed it to Red actively choosing to shoot people for fun. I think modern law in most countries wouldn't treat these as the same either.

 

[Thermal]

I think we agree about basically everything except this part.

I think this fundamentally changes the scenario. Originally there is no problem and there is no risk until someone hits a blue button.

The same can be said for Red. Originally there is no problem and no one is under any risk at all in the absence of Red votes.

Like, say the vote ends up 70% Blue. Was any 'Blue pusher' ever under any threat at all? The voting is blind, so no one could keep track. You pushed a button, went about your day, and heard the results later. The 'first Blue pusher' was of no consequence, and no one acted on his behalf, nor did he ask for help. Everyone voted blind as they see fit. That is not an unimportant element of the vote, here.

Once they do, there is now a problem because they're going to die unless more people also hit blue.

No, they won't. Nothing will happen to them unless 51% push red, which there is no compulsion at all to do. One Blue vote doesn't do anything at all, and creates no problem, certainly no alarm sounded. Only overwhelming Reds can bring the death. So why push Red and endanger others?

See, that's what I find interesting about this. The 'innocent Red' interpretation focuses on the individual's benefit, and it is entirely right on the undeniable benefit. The 'innocent Blue' interpretation is focusing on the collective action. It is also entirely right. IMV, since it is a global vote, it is more important to focus on the collective effect. I don't want to be in that Mad Max hellscape of a Red win. The 'innocent Red' interpretation keeps sweeping that collective effect under the rug. "Oh, it's not my vote that brought the deaths of Blues- it was some outside force unrelated to Red votes." No, it wasn't. It was the Red votes and nothing else.

Blue was both the cause of and solution to the problem.

The same can be said of the Red. No one is threatened till the Red votes log in. Even then, no one is threatened till they break the 50% line. Then they turn deadly. At less than 50% Red, no one at all on the planet is even theoretically menaced, for any amount of time at all. There is no impending death, or need to save Blues. You just probably shouldn't actively vote to kill them.

At best one could argue Red was passively responsible because they didn't risk themselves to try to save the blues.

They didn't need to save the Blues. They just needed to vote to not have them killed, and vote for all to live. The Blue Button.

You changed it to Red actively choosing to shoot people for fun. I think modern law in most countries wouldn't treat these as the same either.

Fair call. They vote to empower another to kill in their stead, then. Although to be fair, I never said anything about 'for fun'; it's just the declared consequence of a Red win, hence what Red is actively voting for.

Actually, I don't think there are many laws that would allow this Button Push at all, but that's another story.

ETA: made some clarifications

 

[Myriad]

You can go to church this coming Sunday, or you can stay home. As long as 50% or more of the people go to church, God will be pleased and smite no one. But if fewer than half of the people go to church, God will smite all the church-goers, for failing to spread His word/the Faith among all the people as He commanded.

In the above, "church" means an in-person worship service of your nation's most popular Christian or Muslim sect. "Sunday" means whatever day of the week such services are most often traditionally held.

There are no exceptions for age or health. In the immortal words of Neil Diamond, "Pack up the babies and grab the old ladies and everyone goes."

Yes, @Thermal: a smiting would disrupt society globally and lead to a Time of Tribulation for all the stay-at-homes as well. Who knows; God may be counting on this, even if some of the smug stay-at-homes haven't thought it through that far.

Do you believe God would actually smite anyone? That's up to you to decide. You don't seem to have much trouble believing what the labels on some buttons say.

In any case, your devout neighbors the Flanders are begging you to come with them to church on Sunday; they're going and they don't want their kids getting smote!

Do you go with them?

Actually, I don't care.

My real question is: do you understand how and why the Flanders, given what they believe and in accordance with Thermal's and @Darat's arguments among others, will regard you as a killer red if you don't go?

 

[Rolfe]

That's an interesting framing. I'm a regular church-goer. In the event of that loopy scenario, my first instinct would be to stay at home. Mainly because of the inherent improbability of getting half the population into a church for any reason at all.

 

[Myriad]

That's an interesting framing. I'm a regular church-goer. In the event of that loopy scenario, my first instinct would be to stay at home. Mainly because of the inherent improbability of getting half the population into a church for any reason at all.

I suppose I should have mentioned the churches have all arranged plenty of extra parking and seating. Also, becase we already know some people would rather see Armageddon than get up early on a Sunday morning, there will be extra services at different times of day.

 

[Darat]

In a different scenario I may be able to live with my choice even if people died. I'm not a psuedo-Vulcan that pretends all my decisions are entirely rational, logical, berift of emotional baggage, 100% consistent and right. In the red blue button dilemma I tried to frame my response in a way that would appeal to some red pushers who couldn't understand a blue press i.e. only thinking about myself. I know myself well enough to know I could not live with myself if people died and I had pressed red so in an act of selfish self-preservation I have to press blue.

(And no you can't take that response out of the red blue dilemma and say "that means that", as that response applies only to the red blue dilemma.)

 

[Thermal]

You can go to church this coming Sunday, or you can stay home. As long as 50% or more of the people go to church, God will be pleased and smite no one.

Hm. If you have a God running around that makes demands and smites, you would be wise to do what He says.

Blue votes peace for all. Red votes death for some. That's really what the Button push is asking- when someone threatens you, do you knuckle under and CYA with ultimate compliance, or fight back, at least if you have a fighting chance? I'm fighting back in any way I can.

 

[Thermal]

Button Poll #3: Assume Red pushers are really nice passive people who happen to not give a ◊◊◊◊ if their actions cause others to die, especially others who are trying to keep everyone safe.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

I'm not chickening out, I don't think it would be useful. I also don't think it would get enough participation to yield anything even approximating validity. Only 9 people voted in this one - already too few to be of any real use as far as a poll goes.

At this point, I think open discussion is the most reasonable approach.

 

[Rolfe]

I'd still like to know what people would do in the event of the one-button scenario. Here is a button. Ignore it and nothing will happen to you. Press it and you will die unless 51% of the world's population also chooses to press it.

Would we still see the same "someone, somewhere is bound to press it so I must do the same to save them, and anyone who doesn't is an evil murderer" reaction?

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

When there are babies involved, I absolutely 100% get picking blue. I would pick blue.

When there are no babies involved... well, things change. At some point, I don't think I'm morally obligated to save people from themselves. If there's a reasonable chance that I might die because someone else chose to risk their life, I kind of feel like me deciding not to join in the death march is an okay choice.

Do you see no distinction between people who are inadvertently at risk with no agency of their own (babies), and people who knowingly place themself at risk with full agency?

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.

In this scenario... you're not far off the mark. There are no babies involved. Nobody is punching buttons at random. The only people choosing blue are well aware that they're intentionally taking a completely avoidable risk. They chose to walk off a cliff, and were lucky to have a lot of other people also walk off the cliff to cushion their fall... then they turn around and call the people who didn't walk off the cliff bloodthirsty killers for not walking off the cliff with them.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You can push Red or Blue. Blue votes are for Peace and Prosperity for all. Red are for Peace and Prosperity for Reds only, and Death to all others.

Same premise, different wording. Blue is under no threat whatsoever, and can sit around strumming guitars or slamming in the mosh pit, and not a threat in the world troubles them- unless 51% of voters turn full tilt psycho.

It's fundamentally NOT the same premise.

The same premise would be:

You can push red or Blue. Blue votes are for jumping into a globe-sized blender on high. Red votes are for sitting on your porch enjoying an evening beverage at sunset. Blue is at immense and immediate risk unless they convince half the planet to jump into the blender with them.