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

[Thermal]

No red is making you walk off a cliff. No red wants you to walk off a cliff. Reds would absolutely LOVE it if you refrained from jumping off of cliffs.

Thats great! So maybe the bastards could not vote for us to die, if they are so compassionate?

 

[The_Animus]

Everybody lives.



Everybody lives.



Everybody lives.



If 1% vote red, everybody lives.
If 10% vote red, everybody lives.
If 49% vote red, everybody lives.



Yes.



The results are exactly the same.

Name one result that differs. The only thing I added was labels for the buttons. Those labels each designate what happens if the corresponding button gets the most votes. Which is exactly how choices are typically labeled on winner-takes-all ballots (the buttons are essentially a winner-takes-all ballot).

ETA, edited the last paragraph for clarity and grammar.

Here is what you said.

The blue button is labeled: "Everyone survives".

The red button is labeled: "Only red voters survive. All blue voters die."

That was your wording. So in your scenario if 1 person, or 10% or 49% vote red then all blue voters die. You changed the outcome.

And that's not even the only problem. The blue button label is a false premise. It is not always true that everyone survives and you can't have a premise that is only true some of the time.

If you feel different wording would fix all issues then by all means rewrite it again.

 

[Thermal]

Here is what you said.



That was your wording. So in your scenario if 1 person, or 10% or 49% vote red then all blue voters die. You changed the outcome.

And that's not even the only problem. The blue button label is a false premise. It is not always true that everyone survives and you can't have a premise that is only true some of the time.

If you feel different wording would fix all issues then by all means rewrite it again.

That's what the buttons vote *for*, in the final tabulation. Like, if the guys at work vote for pizza or tacos for lunch, each vote corresponds to what they desire the end result to be?

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Here is what you said.



That was your wording. So in your scenario if 1 person, or 10% or 49% vote red then all blue voters die. You changed the outcome.

And that's not even the only problem. The blue button label is a false premise. It is not always true that everyone survives and you can't have a premise that is only true some of the time.

If you feel different wording would fix all issues then by all means rewrite it again.

Nope. The buttons are ballot items, not menu items. The labels do not designate what happens to individuals who select them; they designate what happens if a majority of people press them. And those outcomes are the same as in the OP.

This was made clear in the post you initially responded to; you had to go back and quotemine an earlier post to pretend to misunderstand.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

The labels do not designate what happens to individuals who select them; they designate what happens if a majority of people press them.

ERRATUM: This should read: "The labels do not designate what happens if anybody selects them [i.e., the corresponding buttons]; they designate what happens if a majority of people press them."

 

[The_Animus]

Nope. The buttons are ballot items, not menu items. The labels do not designate what happens to individuals who select them; they designate what happens if a majority of people press them. And those outcomes are the same as in the OP.

This was made clear in the post you initially responded to; you had to go back and quotemine an earlier post to pretend to misunderstand.

That's fair. I understand that you provided additional context beyond the button label quote and that the outcomes with that additional context are the same. I apologize for misconstruing your post and my poor responses. I should have quoted the earlier button label post to begin with, and instead of responding during a work break when I was short on time, waited until later when I could better articulate my thoughts and what I really wanted to convey.

I find it easier to evaluate whether the scenarios are functionally the same when it's all stated together explicitly in as plain of terms as possible without any other unnecessary information that may only be serving to obscure whether the premises are false, whether the outcome changes, and where the inherent risk and responsibility lie.

What I actually intended to say, but so poorly executed, is this. Let's say everyone gets those buttons and the only thing they have to go on when making their choice is what it specifically says on the label without any of the added context and explanation you provided. If what happens is exactly as the buttons state, then they are not equivalent scenarios as the outcomes would be different. If what happens is what you stated with the added context then the outcomes would be the same but the button labels would be misleading from the perspective of the voter who does not have that additional context. Because of this I think the labels would need to be reworded to more accurately reflect the context you provided so the voter isn't mislead and the outcome still remains the same as in the OP. And I think it's easier to evaluate when scenarios are functionally the same if they have precise and explicit premises without additional explanation needed.

Though maybe it doesn't matter. It can be hard to keep straight everyone's positions or exactly what they've said but I think we all basically agree that 'if we were all perfectly logical Vulcans and voted as such we would choose red for all the reasons the red voters have articulated' and 'if this happened right now for real with humanity as is, we should all choose blue for all the reasons the blue voters have articulated'. It seems like where the risk/responsibility lies and what it says about the voters is the crux of the discussion at this point. Whether it's reds viewing blues as illogical/dumb, or blues viewing reds as uncaring/selfish. And in writing this and thinking it all over yet again, I don't think either attribution is fair. Blues aren't illogical or dumb, and reds aren't uncaring or selfish. Blues aren't killing themselves and Reds aren't killing blues. I think first and foremost I'll just blame whatever Deity or Magical Force foisted the scenario upon everyone.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Perhaps not. It's a risk vs. reward calculation, after all, so the answer may vary depending on the specific odds and payoffs. What I still wouldn't do is pretend that I'm not really voting for people to die in that case, because I am.

Just for clarity... you think that voting to save your own life when it doesn't need to be risked in the first place is identical to voting for other people to die?

Do you think those other people have no agency of their own?

 

[Emily's Cat]

The results are exactly the same.

Name one result that differs. The only thing I added was labels for the buttons. Those labels each designate what happens if the corresponding button gets the most votes. Which is exactly how choices are typically labeled on winner-takes-all ballots (the buttons are essentially a winner-takes-all ballot).

ETA, edited the last paragraph for clarity and grammar.

I don't agree, although The_Animus didn't set it up well.

If I label the blue button: "Everybody survives", and the red button: "only red voters survive", those labels accurately describe what happens if enough voters press the corresponding button. If you press the button, you vote for the designated outcome.

What happens in the original scenario if 1 person votes red? If 10% vote red? If 49% vote red?

Now what happens in your scenario with those same votes? Is the outcome the same?

You all keep showing you literally cannot comprehend the scenario.

If only 10% vote red, then everybody survives - not only red voters. Everyone, including the person who voted red. Your button labels are incorrect. "Everybody survives" is true for blue voters in this case, but "Only red voters survive" is false.

On the other hand, if 90% vote red, then only red survives. Your button labels are still incorrect. In this case, "Only red voters survive" is true, but "Everyone survives" is false.

In ALL possible scenarios, one of your buttons is misleading and false.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Here's a combination of the two perspectives:

-The only way you can guarantee your own survival is to vote to kill off Blues (Red vote).

-The only way you can get killed off is by voting for everyone to survive (Blue vote).

That's a mind ◊◊◊◊ that some people are going to fumble at game time. But ultimately, the risk of mass death can only happen in a Red win. Some evaluate that as the overriding, primary risk and will play the odds that enough will vote Blue (strictly to prevent that win) to score the win. It's not about your personal best odds. It's the collective.

It's about two competing objectives. One is how much you value your own life. The other is how much you trust everyone else.

If you have very high trust, then you're probably going to vote vote to a higher threshold, because you believe that other people will have the same degree of trust as you - they'll trust you to act to save their lives in the same way that you trust them to act to save your life. If you have low trust in random strangers across the globe, a 50% gamble is less attractive... but perhaps a 35% gamble is tolerable.

If you value your own life very highly, then risking it when it's avoidable is likely to change the equation. If you don't value your life very highly (some have stated they're old and willing to take the risk because of that), you end up somewhere else.

I continue to be appalled at your framing. You're not going to successfully shame me into thinking that valuing my own life, and not being willing to risk it when it's completely and entirely avoidable is a bad thing, or that I'm selfish for not being willing to gamble my death on even odds.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Why did you stop talking about everyone living at 49% Red? I wonder...

People vote Blue out of fear of the result of 51-99% Red votes.Thats it.

Eta: if this helps Emily's Cat and others to understand why people who understand the risk but push Blue anyway- There can only be death in a Red win of less than 100%. That has to be voted against.

There is no "win". It's not a competition.

You think people are voting to risk their lives, out of fear of people choosing NOT to risk their lives?

There's only self imposed suicide if not enough people attempt suicide to overload the suicide machine. You have complete agency to say "no thank you, I don't feel like suiciding today" and not hopping into the suicide machine. But you keep hopping in anyway, hoping that enough other people jump into the suicide machine that it can't handle the mass suicide and breaks and then you won't actually die.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

It's about two competing objectives. One is how much you value your own life. The other is how much you trust everyone else.

If you have very high trust, then you're probably going to vote vote to a higher threshold, because you believe that other people will have the same degree of trust as you - they'll trust you to act to save their lives in the same way that you trust them to act to save your life. If you have low trust in random strangers across the globe, a 50% gamble is less attractive... but perhaps a 35% gamble is tolerable.

If you value your own life very highly, then risking it when it's avoidable is likely to change the equation. If you don't value your life very highly (some have stated they're old and willing to take the risk because of that), you end up somewhere else.

I continue to be appalled at your framing. You're not going to successfully shame me into thinking that valuing my own life, and not being willing to risk it when it's completely and entirely avoidable is a bad thing, or that I'm selfish for not being willing to gamble my death on
even odds.

Where do you get
this from?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Indeed. So dumb, in fact, that they don't deserve (anyone risking their lives on the outcome of the red/blue vote) to live.

I'm perfectly happy for blues to live - why do you feel the need to ascribe malice to me in order to justify blues pushing the potential suicide button?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Thats great! So maybe the bastards could not vote for us to die, if they are so compassionate?

Do you understand that the only way those "bastards" can save you from the cliff you chose to walk off of is to walk off the cliff with you?

Why can't you show some forethought and agency and realize that there aren't any babies, so just not walk off the cliff in the first place?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Here is what you said.



That was your wording. So in your scenario if 1 person, or 10% or 49% vote red then all blue voters die. You changed the outcome.

And that's not even the only problem. The blue button label is a false premise. It is not always true that everyone survives and you can't have a premise that is only true some of the time.

If you feel different wording would fix all issues then by all means rewrite it again.

It's actually worse than "only true some of the time". In all possible scenarios, one of the buttons is falsely labeled. They cannot both be true at the same time.

 

[Emily's Cat]

That's what the buttons vote *for*, in the final tabulation. Like, if the guys at work vote for pizza or tacos for lunch, each vote corresponds to what they desire the end result to be?

But it's not true. The votes are quite literally "definitely don't die" and "maybe die".

Somehow, you've contorted your thinking so that "definitely don't die" is killing the people who voluntarily pushed "maybe die" all by themselves.

 

[Lithrael]

I'm perfectly happy for blues to live - why do you feel the need to ascribe malice to me in order to justify blues pushing the potential suicide button?

I'm not ascribing malice; it's simply the actual upshot of your position as a red button pusher. Sure, it's a shame that some people are so mixed up about game theory etc that they'll push blue, but it's not your job to risk your life to save them; they don't deserve (you risking your life on the outcome of the red/blue vote) to live. Simples.

 

[Thermal]

But it's not true. The votes are quite literally "definitely don't die" and "maybe die".

*You personally* definitely don't die, but you guarantee others will if your color wins.

If "maybe die" wins then nobody dies. That'd the enticing bit for Team Blue.

 

[Thermal]

Do you understand that the only way those "bastards" can save you from the cliff you chose to walk off of is to walk off the cliff with you?

There's no cliff and no danger to anyone unless 51% vote Red. Red voters bright the threat of mass graves.

Why can't you show some forethought and agency and realize that there aren't any babies, so just not walk off the cliff in the first place?

What did you think of my responses the last dozen times I answered that question?

 

[Thermal]

There is no "win". It's not a competition.

Please stop.being obtuse. It's unbecoming.

It is a win in the same way any vote has a winner.

You think people are voting to risk their lives, out of fear of people choosing NOT to risk their lives?

No, I think people vote Blue because the results of a Red win are ghastly and must be safeguarded against. Might have mentioned it a few dozen times.

 

[Lithrael]

(...) blues pushing the potential suicide button?

Also, you really, really do not get to call blue 'potential suicide' unless you also call red 'potentially change blue from potential suicide to definite suicide' or whatever gymnastics you like for 'no blues die until and unless more than 50% vote red.'