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

[Thermal]

Voting for "everyone survives" is not voting for anyone's death, by definition.

Voting for "ONLY Reds survive" is explicitly Voting to kill others, by definition.

All these Svengali waving hands don't get you out of that.

It's OK that you vote purely on self interest. You just need to own it, and not blame the people you voted to die. That's my only sticking point with you and da Cat's POV.

Earlier, for instance, you owned it. "Let the dumbasses die" was more or less your stated view. That is owning it. This weak attempt to backtrack and waffle and softpedal your position (I suppose because you took a long look in the mirror) is all that's being challenged.

Eta: also noted is your ongoing shying away from responding to why you are ok with the most likely outcome of a Red win (that you support by your vote): total chaos and meltdown, of which you would most likely be among the first victims of the aftermath. How can this possibly not factor heavily into an intelligent adult's decision to vote?

Remember, the questions posed on the button push are societal, not individual. You're not being asked what you personally would benefit from; you are being asked which worldwide event you wish for, everyone survives, or only Reds survive.

 

[Thermal]

And hey,@Emily's Cat: here's another post for you to ignore:

Blue voters here are acknowledging the flip side of their vote, that it puts us at risk that we wouldn't be under had we chose Red. That's because we are owning that decision, in both directions.

What you are doing is to *not* own the flip side of your vote, and in fact blame the people you are voting to have capped. *That's* why you are getting pushback, not because you voted Red out of self interest.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Remember, the questions posed on the button push are societal, not individual. You're not being asked what you personally would benefit from; you are being asked which worldwide event you wish for, everyone survives, or only Reds survive.

90% this.
I would substitute "prefer" for "wish for", but apart from that, no other notes.

 

[Emily's Cat]

????
I am responding to ideas around framing.

Yes, you are... but I think you might be the only one. And I've expressed my appreciation for your willingness to engage on that... but you alone doesn't really make for a very good follow-up poll

God. 'Framing shouldn't have as much influence as it does?' Yeah and sugar, fat and salt shouldn't be so delicious now that they're easy to get! Let me know when you've figured out how to remove 'having a human brain and body' from influencing the choices people make.

In the recent example, the likelyhood of people given two choices choosing actual inaction over people given two choices choosing to press a button labeled 'inaction' is significant enough that it's important to take into account. Whether it's stupid or not.

Intelligent skeptics who claim to engage logic and critical thinking should at least be capable of recognizing that they're being influenced by framing. They should at least be able to say "hmm, okay, I see your point in that those examples are functionally and logically the same, but I still have different reactions to them because emotions".

 

[Lithrael]

My point is it's not just "I," it's a (predictably) common human reaction. One that I know will also influence a huge segment of the population. Which I think it would be a good idea to protect from death, even if they would not need protection from death if only every single one of them would see the situation more logically. Bearing in mind that they would also be perfectly safe if only a few people considered choosing red in the first place.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

And here's where the previously planned variations on a theme should have led to something more interesting.

All the polls (in english speaking western democracies) end up with >50% blue all the time (when voting for oneself)

Some variations that I think could be enlightening:

• Instead of voting for yourself, you're pushing a button that commits the person you love most - do you risk their life on a majority blue or do you ensure their safety and select red for them?
• Instead of the presumption of western style democracies, let's say it's based on the results of two continents - North American and Asia. Are you as confident that all the residents of all of Asia will also vote blue?
• What if we're sidelined to be observers between Israel and Iran, do you think the citizens of those countries would collectively top 50% blue or do you think their trust in other parties might be too low for them to be willing to take that risk?
• What if Hitler were reincarnated, and the fate of the blues carried them with it? If <50% vote blue then they and Hitler all die; otherwise everyone including Hitler lives?
• What if all the babies in the world were being held hostage and could only be saved if >75% voted blue?

All of these are things I think are worth considering and talking about... but we can only have that conversation if we can get a particularly vocal group to move past calling others killers and denigrating them for not taking a completely avoidable risk. There has to be some baseline neutrality and respect for risk tolerance first - and right now there isn't.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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?

You know that each and every poll has been in english for an almost exclusively english speaking (and culturally western) audience, right?

 

[Emily's Cat]

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"?

Was my steelman of the blue argument inaccurate in a way that justifies your vitriol?

Or did you just fail to note that I responded despite you insinuating that I lack integrity?

 

[Thermal]

They should at least be able to say "hmm, okay, I see your point in that those examples are functionally and logically the same,

They are *not* the same. They have similarities and overlap.

Also, the vocal Blues didn't have to "see your point". We saw it halfway through reading the OP in the first poll, but we continued thinking about it, specifically how it played out on a global scale, where game theory fell apart.

but I still have different reactions to them because emotions".

This, again, is insulting. We are not swooning emotionally. We are looking at it from an entirely practical standpoint (might have mentioned that). We simply reasoned farther than where you stopped.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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 did nothing of the sort. The only thing that was removed was THE PRIOR POLL WHICH HAD DIFFERENT CONDITIONS.

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

We can also dispense with any assumption of your reading capability.

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.

I think you're not able to read for comprehension.

 

[Thermal]

You know that each and every poll has been in english for an almost exclusively english speaking (and culturally western) audience, right?

Yes. And? Does that change the facts? Are you thinking that people speaking Xhosa are going to go all-in for global apocalypse?

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

But every single one of those blue pushers could completely avoid death by not pressing blue.

The poison only kills people if too many people opt for plain water... The green alien watchers only die if too many people shut their eyes... The cliff-hoppers only die if enough people stay on the cliff and don't cushion their fall... The trolley-track blockers only die if enough people decide to stay on the platform and let the trolley zip past...

 

[Thermal]

Was my steelman of the blue argument inaccurate in a way that justifies your vitriol?

A) I didn't ask you for your version of a steel man.

B) If that was a steel.man, you have not read a word we have posted. You're still reading off that script in your head THAT NO ONE ELSE IS FOLLOWING.

C) What vitriol? Is that on the mystery script too?

Or did you just fail to note that I responded despite you insinuating that I lack integrity?

You didn't respond. I asked you how I did, and you ignored the living ◊◊◊◊ out of the question and kept reading from that script that, again, NO ONE ELSE IS READING FROM.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

Your button labels, as you presented them are
Blue: Everybody survives
Red: Only red voters survive

Those are what you have labeled the buttons, am I correct?

 

[Thermal]

I did nothing of the sort. The only thing that was removed was THE PRIOR POLL WHICH HAD DIFFERENT CONDITIONS.

Your wording in this poll picked up right from that wording ("Similar situation, with some added information...") The prior polls basics were still part and parcel of this poll, with elaborations. Not that they were really any different, but whatevs.

We can also dispense with any assumption of your reading capability.

I think you're not able to read for comprehension.

I'm reading just fine. For instance, I'm reading your posts that snip out and ignore every direct challenge and question put to you. As always, it speaks volumes more than what you do respond to.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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?

• Because I do not trust that in reality most people would behave this way. I do not trust that if we're actually including the entire planet as opposed to just english speaking western democracies, the majority would actually for realsies pick blue.
• Because I don't believe I should be expected to save people from their own willful danger by risking my own life which I value very much.
• Because I cannot lose, and I don't wish to risk losing.

I have told you repeatedly why I choose red when there are no babies. Your attempt to shame and bully me doesn't alter my reasoning - peer pressure has never been an effective means of getting me to do something that is objectively bad for me.

Now... if Blue tops 50% in every poll, and everybody lives... for what reason should I change my vote to Blue when there are no innocents who need saving? What motivation do you think there is for me to risk my life in this scenario, especially when you yourself have repeatedly assured me that Blue will get more than 50% and doesn't need my help anyway?

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

Red is a vote to live no matter what. It's not a vote for others to die, because all of those others have the option to live no matter what.

The only people who might die are the people that voluntarily decide they want to court death when there's absolutely no need for them to do so. You're voluntarily engaging in highly risky behavior with a reasonably chance of death, when you have an equally accessible option to not do the risky thing that might kill you.

In complete seriousness, you've been given a choice between a pill that you absolutely know is a placebo, and a cyanide pill. You've been told that if enough people decide to take the cyanide pill, the cyanide will be magically removed. And you're arguing that every cognitively competent adult on the planet should totally take the cyanide pill... and that the people who opt for the placebo are intentionally voting to kill the people who swallowed the cyanide pill.

And once again, this is logically identical to the OP question, it's the exact same choice between guaranteed survival and a risk of death that can only be mitigated if enough people risk death together. These are identically structured, and it's certainly no less fantastic than magic buttons.

 

[Thermal]

But every single one of those blue pushers could completely avoid death by not pressing blue.

"If 100% of the planet thought like me, everything would be swell".

Has it struck you yet that 100% of planet earth does not think like you? That's the big point you missed in your steelman attempt.

We are thinking about the desired outcome, and the most likely voting strategy to reach it. Voting Red is foolish from that vantage point, as we will not hit 100% on a vote in the billions, but 51% is definitely do-able.

The poison only kills people if too many people opt for plain water... The green alien watchers only die if too many people shut their eyes... The cliff-hoppers only die if enough people stay on the cliff and don't cushion their fall... The trolley-track blockers only die if enough people decide to stay on the platform and let the trolley zip past...

There are no trolleys, or lasers, or cliffs, or any of the other misdirections. There are two buttons, and two outcomes. One, we are trying to avoid (yours). The other (ours) is desirable and attainable, even if it purs us at theoretical risk. And yes, the risk is only theoretical, because as we see, people go Blue in every poll.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

But every single one of those blue pushers could completely avoid death by not pressing blue.

That does not change the fact that every single one of those red pushers voted to make pressing blue fatal. Again, the blue button is not fatal by default.

It is not fatal before the buttons appear.
It is not fatal when the buttons appear.
It is not fatal when you push the button.

It only becomes fatal after and if a majority of people push red.

All of your counterexamples posit as a given that this or that thing is already lethal. That is not the case here. People have to choose to make the blue button lethal. And they do so by pressing red.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Voting for "everyone survives" is not voting for anyone's death, by definition.

Voting for "ONLY Reds survive" is explicitly Voting to kill others, by definition.

For sanity's sake, YOU CAN VOTE RED TOO. I'm not voting to kill anyone. I'm over here hollering at the top of my voice "Don't push the maybe-suicide button, push the definitely-live button!" I'm not in control of you or anyone else who decides they want to risk death. You're making your own choice on that, I'm not forcing you to risk death. I'm not forcing anyone to risk death. I would love for nobody at all to risk death. And literally nobody needs to, and nobody involved in this is incapable of understanding that it's a choice between definitely-live and maybe-suicide.

Look, for the umpteenth time already: If you want to risk your own life on the maybe-suicide button, because you worry that other people will also decide to risk their lives on the maybe-suicide button, then by all means do what you think you have to do.

But calling me a killer for not pushing the maybe-suicide button is inappropriate and extremely insulting. Your determination to denigrate and bully those who chose the definitely-live option over the maybe-suicide option is the worst kind of attempted peer pressure - it's pressure to do dangerous things when there is absolutely no reason to do so.

If you want to engage in dangerous behavior, that's fine - it's your choice. But please stop insulting and denigrating people who do not want to engage in dangerous behavior with you.