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

[Rolfe]

My sequence of thought was

1. Of course a majority of people will vote blue, it's the right thing to do, and so I clicked on blue in the twitter poll without thinking any further, as one does. It was a twitter poll for goodness sake.
2. I saw a friend who is an unusually clear and logical thinker tweet the question as to why [current blue votes] % of the population were clearly brain-dead.
3. I thought about it a bit more and realised that of course it's absolutely nuts to vote blue (the conversation at that point was based on competent adults only voting). It's putting yourself in danger in the hope that a lot of other people will put themselves in danger to save you. Everybody has the opportunity not to endanger themselves, and should take it.
4. I thought about real life, and how the more one thinks about it the more the rationale of voting blue looks to be on a pretty shaky footing.
5. I thought, given that, that the chance of a blue majority was probably a lot less than first assumed, given that competent adults are voting, and most of them should be capable of working this out.
6. I thought about the size of the electorate, and the practical difference that my one vote could possibly make - that is effectively zero.
7. I realised that the actual choice of blue or red majority wasn't one I could actually influence. All I could do was vote to be in the definitely-alive group or the possibly-dead group.
8. I realised that the more people understood this, the fewer of them would vote blue, thus making a blue vote even more hazardous.
9. And therefore I'm sticking with red. I hope everyone else will work this out too.

 

[Lithrael]

I think the overall problem here is that I just think you're being waaaayyyyy too confident about the low number and dismissable (if sadly unfortunate) quality of people who will pick blue, both of which will affect the world red lives in if red reaches 51%.

I think it's bit rich that you seem to be characterizing blue pressers as overly illogical while you sit here basically just hoping everybody (who matters) will choose red.

 

[GlennB]

^ (Rolfe) 100% agreed, and well put.

 

[Lithrael]

Actual human beings accidentally kill themselves trying to save others in distress all the time. A nonzero number of people will interpret this dilemma as 'will you risk killing yourself to save others in distress' and say yes, which means the dilemma is 'will you risk killing yourself to save others in distress' even though anyone getting into the distress made a mistake.

People make mistakes.

I've said several times over this thread that if you change the presentation of the dilemma to make blue obviously repulsive, you reduce the risk of people choosing blue because they had a mixed up idea of wanting to help. Now it's just the guy who jumped in the boil at Yellowstone trying to save a dog. Sucks, he had the spirit, but he didn't see the signs.

 

[Rolfe]

I think the overall problem here is that I just think you're being waaaayyyyy too confident about the low number and dismissable (if sadly unfortunate) quality of people who will pick blue, both of which will affect the world red lives in if red reaches 51%.

I think it's bit rich that you seem to be characterizing blue pressers as overly illogical while you sit here basically just hoping everybody (who matters) will choose red.

If you're right, and blue is set for a win, then great. I win either way. That is kind of the point.

 

[Rolfe]

Actual human beings accidentally kill themselves trying to save others in distress all the time. A nonzero number of people will interpret this dilemma as 'will you risk killing yourself to save others in distress' and say yes, which means the dilemma is 'will you risk killing yourself to save others in distress' even though anyone getting into the distress made a mistake.

People make mistakes.

I've said several times over this thread that if you change the presentation of the dilemma to make blue obviously repulsive, you reduce the risk of people choosing blue because they had a mixed up idea of wanting to help. Now it's just the guy who jumped in the boil at Yellowstone trying to save a dog. Sucks, he had the spirit, but he didn't see the signs.

People make mistakes. Voting blue is a mistake, a biggie. I think we're agreed on that.

The question of whether it then makes sense to make exactly the same mistake and add yourself to the tally of people who are hoping for rescue, has been gone into quite a bit already.

People tend to talk as if there are two categories of blue voters - one group who made a mistake and who need to be saved, and another group who are selflessly risking their lives to save them. No, there aren't. Every single blue voter is jumping off the cliff in the hope that a lot of other people will also jump off the cliff to save them. Just don't jump off that cliff, friends. We implore you. It's quite easy.

 

[junkshop]

My last engagement with this ◊◊◊◊-show (probably, but no promises): everytime and in every venue (that I am aware of) that this has been polled the blue option has gained more than 50% of the vote, and therefore everyone lives.

Make of that what you will. Personally, it has put a not-inconsiderable dent in my knee-jerk, and long held misanthropy.

Additional thoughts:

Red is the coldly dispassionate and logically correct choice for sure, but people are mostly neither dispassionate, nor logical. People can be, and often are, emotional, ignorant, deluded, wrong, vain, misinformed, in love, hateful, empathetic, submissive, ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ crazy, high as a kite, depressed, various flavours of nerodiverse, distracted, angry, lying, joking, optomistic, pessemistic, selfish, selfless, and so on and so forth. TLDR: people are mostly not logical.

I would argue that if your intent (when faced with this dilemma) is to avoid people dying, then given the variable nature of humanity as a whole and their general dissimilarity to calculators, blue is the only logical choice.




ETA: Also, just to reiterate: The results of the polls. All of the polls. Everywhere. Blue every time. Every time.

 

[Thermal]

However, we strongly suspect that when the chips are down, not enough people will vote blue to get over the 50% line.

And since each and every poll has shown you to be woefully wrong, I'll ask yet again: since you are shown to be repeatedly wrong, has that influenced your preconceptions? Or are you revelling in the Confidently Incorrect thing?

 

[Thermal]

While red is the guaranteed safe choice, there's a risk that someone the voter cares about might choose blue. Empathy and a willingness to risk oneself to save others is a characteristic that benefits society as a whole. Therefore, it's in the interests of the species as a whole to be willing to sacrifice oneself if you believe that others will be saved by doing so.

What in the world does any of that have to do with the steel man you challenged me to deliver "because you thought I didn't understand the Red position"?

Bud, are you even capable of not being a douche about this?

Have we met? Seriously, after nearly a decade you still ask the same question?

Because what I just said above is something I've said repeatedly throughout the entire discussion.

What you said above was the most irrelevant non-sequitor imaginable.

I've even gone so far as to ask the follow-up question - when there are no babies,

No one on either poll cared about babies.

why do you believe other people would risk their lives when nobody's lives need to be risked at all?

I don't think they did. Why do you ask?

Those with integrity would understand that this is not opposition to your choice, it's an effort to understand your theory of mind.

I've explained it in painstaking detail, and attempted to engage you on that point. You have responded by ignoring each and every direct question and challenge.

If you are trying to understand anything at all, you sure have a weird way of going about it.

 

[Thermal]

We;ve already seen that framing makes a massive difference. Aside from Lithrael saying they'd stand there and stare wide-eyed at the green aliens... nobody else answers an alternately framed but structurally equivalent question.

No one else considers your whacky conundrums structurally equivalent. They seem goofy, and beg the question to an obnoxious degree.

 

[Thermal]

It is not the same wording. The OP is available for you to reference all by yourself... but here you go:



And in case you've lost the thread, I will refresh your memory of the framing being used:



It is quite apparently and verifiably NOT the wording I used in the OP.

You literally chopped out the beginning, that we have all been quoting verbatim. Did you really think no one would notice you did that? We can all go back to post #1 and see- you're not fooling anyone.

I guess we can dispense with any assumption of you arguing in good faith.

And Jesus Christ in post #399, you actually quote yourself using the wording you have been denying you used. I don't think I've ever seen anything quite like this.

 

[Lithrael]

Just don't jump off that cliff, friends. We implore you. It's quite easy.

It's an oft repeated maxim that if your idea will work if only 'people would just' then your idea will not work.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

If you wish to blame the presumed button gods and consider them evil, I'm right there with you.

Red pushers didn't make the blue button a capital offense.

They voted to make the blue button fatal. "Only red voters survive" necessarily entails: "any and all blue voters die."

Voting blue is not fatal by default, nor is it made fatal by the "button gods". It only becomes fatal if enough people vote for it to be, by pressing red.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

It is not the same wording. The OP is available for you to reference all by yourself... but here you go:



And in case you've lost the thread, I will refresh your memory of the framing being used:



It is quite apparently and verifiably NOT the wording I used in the OP.

The OP identifies two outcomes and two triggers.

The two outcomes identified in the OP are: "everybody survives" and "only the red survive."

The two triggers identified for those outcomes are: ">50% pick blue" and: "<50% pick blue", respectively.

"<50% pick blue" equates to: ">50% pick red," and I just *know* you aren't trying to pretend that paraphrasing "only the red survive" as: "only red voters survive" represents a significant reframing of anything.

The labels are correct, and indicate exactly the same outcomes and triggers as the OP. You are quite apparently and verifiably wasting your time trying to suggest otherwise.

 

[Rolfe]

And since each and every poll has shown you to be woefully wrong, I'll ask yet again: since you are shown to be repeatedly wrong, has that influenced your preconceptions? Or are you revelling in the Confidently Incorrect thing?

The chips are not down, and never will be, so this is unknowable. But if you're right, great! Super! Why would I change my vote because of that, though?

 

[Thermal]

The chips are not down, and never will be, so this is unknowable. But if you're right, great! Super!

Its not a question of 'if I'm right'. I am. Or rather, reality is.

You first reasoned that Blue would not be able to get over 50% as partial.justification for voting Red. We have seen that Blue does so easily and repeatedly. Does that not alter your thinking? Skepitics are well known for changing their assumptions in the face of data that contradicts their starting assumptions.

Then you change to when the chips are down, you're still sure that Blue wouldn't get a majority. Why do you still think this? If the 'chips were down', why do you think people generally wouldn't drop their petty, self-centered thinking when faced with global calamity?

I mean, why do you generally think so lowly of people? That's a big part of what this question is asking. Your base assumption is that people will generally go all 'every man for themselves', when people (IME) tend to pull together in a crisis..

Why would I change my vote because of that, though?

Because if the vote might be teetering around the 50 yard line, every vote counts towards the desirable result. That's why I think your argument that the individual vote doesn't matter falls flat.

If the vote is anywhere near split, and you still vote Red, you are voting for a catastrophe of Biblical proportions. I'm genuinely curious how you justify shooting yourself on the foot in that scenario.

 

[Thermal]

Not a single red button pusher thinks this.

Blue buttons insist on assuming it though. Why is that? Why isn't your choice sufficient on its own merits without you needing to demonize those who think differently?

Because Blues aren't bringing on a global apocalypse. Reds are.

Reds lose on every poll. Which is good- we all walk away. But you keep advocating for Red, and if enough others were to follow your reasoning and tip the scales over to a 51% win, the result would be horrific.

I've asked you (and others) several times now: why does the outcome of a Red win not alter your gamesmanship in your choice? Blues see what could happen, and vote against that. Your vote makes it more likely. How are you squaring that circle?

 

[Rolfe]

Blues, if they vote in sufficient numbers, are the ones bringing on the global apocalypse. Red voters are not forcing you to throw your lives away, you know. It's your choice. But since you seem confident that wouldn't happen, who would it influence my vote?

I already pointed out that in a vote of every mentally competent adult on the globe, the chance of my vote having the slightest influence on the overall outcome is homoeopathic. I can vote to be definitely alive, or I can vote to be possibly dead. That's it.

 

[Thermal]

Blues are voting for everyone to live. Reds are voting for some to die. It's super weird that you keep trying to flip that script like no one would notice.

Game theory holds that Red is the individual safe bet, and it is, but it's flip side is to vote for others to die. You can't keep bobbing and weaving away from that. Someone who votes for everyone to live (Blue) is under no threat at all unless a majority votes that they die (Red).

Why would you push a button that votes for others to die, then blame them for not doing what you would have done?

You're voting for the deaths of others. Theres really no Sea Lioning around that.

 

[Rolfe]

You keep saying that. I'm not "blaming" anyone, I'm just expecting them to take responsibility for their own choice. If someone intentionally puts themself in mortal danger, then expects half the population of the globe to do the same, then that's their choice, not mine.

You keep flipping this to pretend the blue voters are in the grip of some irresistible compulsion, which is somehow the fault of the red voters. They're not. They're not thinking clearly enough, and much too engrossed in virtue-signalling to understand the probable consequence of their choice.

I can vote to be part of the definitely-alive group, or part of the possibly-dead group. That's all that I, as an individual, can do. I have no influence on anyone else. If people decide to vote to be part of the possibly-dead group, then don't blame me, that's all.