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

[Emily's Cat]

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.

I am not blaming anyone. Insisting that I have voted to 'have people capped' because I decline your invitation to play russian roulette with my life is out of line and inappropriate.

What the hell kind of suicide pusher are you?

 

[Thermal]

• 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.

Fair enough. That's what the poll is really asking- "What do you think about people?" I think in the face of global extinction, they would pull together against whoever was threatening to off the Blue voters, much like i would grab a kid about to be hit by a car, even ifif put me at risk. I think people are generalky like that. You don't. Fair enough.

• 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.

How do you think you would fare after a 51% Red win? I think it's the worst case scenario for you... yet you vote for it anyway.

• Because I cannot lose, and I don't wish to risk losing.

Again, think about how well you would make out in the meltdown, with all the Team players dead. You pretty sure you aren't voting for your own worst nightmare?

I have told you repeatedly why I choose red when there are no babies.

No one cares about babies. Thats only in your script.

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?

Addressed repeatedly.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

That's the entire purpose of structurally identical alternative framing though.

Of course it's a common human reaction... but it's also an irrational reaction. And it's a reaction that creates risk for oneself and for those who try to save one.

And the fact that people have different visceral emotional reactions to different framing really should cause a few people to slow down and think a little bit more about the trade-offs. If you'll risk your life to push a button in hopes that doing so will save everyone who would otherwise die alongside you... would you not also drink the poison so that it's more dilute instead of choosing the safe water? Would you not also hop in front of the speeding trolley so you can stop it from killing the others who hopped on the tracks, instead of staying safely on the platform?

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Red is a vote to live no matter what.

The OP does not present a choice of individual outcomes; it presents a choice of societal outcomes: "everybody survives" vs. "only the red survive"

"I live no matter what" isn't even mentioned in the OP. That is just a selfish angle you have chosen to take. Which is your prerogative. But you don't get to say that *I'm* reframing the OP, or lying about what choices the OP offers, just because you want to deflect attention away from the explicitly indicated collective outcome you voted for in order to live no matter what.

Red is a vote for only the red to survive. Which necessarily entails that any and all blue voters die. You are wasting your time trying to offload responsibility for that onto blue voters.

 

[Thermal]

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.

Addressed repeatedly.

We all get how you see Red as fail safe in game theory. It's a very simple idea that we got as teenagers (many of us, anyway).

We have reasoned beyond that, and laid it out in front of you. In response, you keep repeating yourself. Yes, we got it. I even explained it clearly in my steelman. Now what response do you have to our reasoning that went beyond the simple game theory?

 

[junkshop]

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.

Huh. I could have sworn there were some goalposts hereabouts. ◊◊◊◊ knows where they've got to.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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

Every single one of the is a choice between {definitely live no matter what} and {possibly die unless a lot of other people also risk death}. They're functionally and structurally identical.

Every single alternate framing I've presented has been literally {always safe} versus {maybe suicide}.

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.

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.

I have very little sympathy for you feeling insulted when you've spent multiple pages through two different threads calling me a killer, a coward, and selfish.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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

I think that assuming the same cultural values for the entire planet is a shaky assumption. I don't think the willingness to risk one's own life to potentially save complete strangers is as universal as you believe.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

I disagree with your reasoning.

You say the blue button isn't fatal by default; I disagree. The blue button is fatal by definition UNLESS a specific threshold is met. Only beyond that threshold does blue transform to be non-fatal.

Blue only becomes non-fatal after and if a majority of people push blue. It is absolutely fatal up until that point.

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.

All of my other examples are logically identical, and they are all based on a choice between {always safe} and {fatal unless a lot of people do it}.

Blue is fatal as soon as the first person pushes it; it remains fatal unless a lot of people push it.
Standing on the trolley track is fatal as soon as someone hops on there; it remains fatal unless a lot of people join in to stop the trolley by sheer mass.

The risk is fully and completely disclosed to you up front. It's not a surprise - you know from the get go that pushing blue means you could very well die as a consequence of your own choice. The default on blue is death... and you have to overcome a barrier to prevent death.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Fair enough. That's what the poll is really asking- "What do you think about people?" I think in the face of global extinction, they would pull together against whoever was threatening to off the Blue voters, much like i would grab a kid about to be hit by a car, even ifif put me at risk. I think people are generalky like that. You don't. Fair enough.

I have literally been at risk of death and had people glance my way and walk on by. We've watched videos over and over again of innocent people being attacked, stabbed, raped, and harmed and bystanders do nothing at all other than video it with their phone. I've been assaulted in a room full of people who turned a blind eye.

You might think people are generally going to save the kid - and you're probably right when it's a kid. But people are far too often willing to ignore bad things happening to others. Every single day, all the time.

Having been on the bad end of this presumed good-will, I'm a bit less trusting than you.

How do you think you would fare after a 51% Red win? I think it's the worst case scenario for you... yet you vote for it anyway.

I think I'd fare a ◊◊◊◊ ton better having voted red in that scenario than having voted blue.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The OP does not present a choice of individual outcomes; it presents a choice of societal outcomes: "everybody survives" vs. "only the red survive"

"I live no matter what" isn't even mentioned in the OP. That is just a selfish angle you have chosen to take. Which is your prerogative. But you don't get to say that *I'm* reframing the OP, or lying about what choices the OP offers, just because you want to deflect attention away from the explicitly indicated collective outcome you voted for in order to live no matter what.

Red is a vote for only the red to survive. Which necessarily entails that any and all blue voters die. You are wasting your time trying to offload responsibility for that onto blue voters.

You skipped this:

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?

 

[Reformed Offlian]

I disagree with your reasoning.

You say the blue button isn't fatal by default; I disagree. The blue button is fatal by definition UNLESS a specific threshold is met.

Red also has a threshold. And it's the same threshold: more than 50%

Only beyond that threshold does blue transform to be non-fatal.

Blue only becomes non-fatal after and if a majority of people push blue. It is absolutely fatal up until that point.

This is incorrect. No button is fatal until all votes are tabulated and the issue decided. There isn't a default winner before the votes are counted.

The rest of your post is predicated on this bizarre conceit.

 

[Thermal]

I disagree with your reasoning.

You say the blue button isn't fatal by default; I disagree. The blue button is fatal by definition UNLESS a specific threshold is met. Only beyond that threshold does blue transform to be non-fatal.

Blue only becomes non-fatal after and if a majority of people push blue. It is absolutely fatal up until that point.

All of my other examples are logically identical, and they are all based on a choice between {always safe} and {fatal unless a lot of people do it}.

Blue is fatal as soon as the first person pushes it; it remains fatal unless a lot of people push it.
Standing on the trolley track is fatal as soon as someone hops on there; it remains fatal unless a lot of people join in to stop the trolley by sheer mass.

The risk is fully and completely disclosed to you up front. It's not a surprise - you know from the get go that pushing blue means you could very well die as a consequence of your own choice. The default on blue is death... and you have to overcome a barrier to prevent death.

Hers the thing- there is no "fatal until" because there is only one tabulation. One count, and at that point and that point only is it determined if anyone is at risk.

When the first Blue button is pushed... nothing happens, and it doesn't mean anything one way or the other (at least no more or less than the first Red pushed, which is the first vote for Blues to die).

That's one of the reasons your smoke and mirror analogies fall flat. You frame it as some kind of ongoing effort, with Blue voters pleading for help. Nope. They lodge their vote, skip merrily along not knowing who is voting what, and the final count (or first past 50%) determines if Red got their way and all the Blues die, or if Blue got their way and everyone survived.

 

[junkshop]

That is equally true of both options. Red also has a threshold.

Indeed, and a far higher threshold at that. Red is only non-fatal at 100%, blue requires just >50% (which it has acheived every time the poll has been run).

 

[Thermal]

I have literally been at risk of death and had people glance my way and walk on by. We've watched videos over and over again of innocent people being attacked, stabbed, raped, and harmed and bystanders do nothing at all other than video it with their phone. I've been assaulted in a room full of people who turned a blind eye.

You might think people are generally going to save the kid - and you're probably right when it's a kid. But people are far too often willing to ignore bad things happening to others. Every single day, all the time.

Having been on the bad end of this presumed good-will, I'm a bit less trusting than you.

Again, that's fair. It's what the button pushing is all about. I've lost track of the life and deaths I've been in (or at least guaranteed serious injury), and I've found the opposite. When I was on the Rescue Squad, we often had to actively try to keep people from helping. I think.in actual, dire shared straits, people pull together and aren't thinking entirely of themselves anymore. YMMV.

I think I'd fare a ◊◊◊◊ ton better having voted red in that scenario than having voted blue.

Tru dat (maybe... i can think of a horror show likely to play out in your short ass life following a meltdown.

How would you and Rolfe feel if together, you tipped the vote over the 51st percentile? You could have gone home and caught some Netflix, but instead you got your Mad Max wish. Thinking any differently about your choice? That's one of the ways I reasoned it- the outcome of a Red win is too gruesome to let happen.

 

[Thermal]

I have very little sympathy for you feeling insulted when you've spent multiple pages through two different threads calling me a killer, a coward, and selfish.

Please don't take it personally. You know me, and have for a long time, and you know I cut to the chase rather than pussy foot around.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Red also has a threshold. And it's the same threshold: more than 50%

What percentage results in red deaths?

 

[Thermal]

I am not blaming anyone. Insisting that I have voted to 'have people capped' because I decline your invitation to play russian roulette with my life is out of line and inappropriate.

What the hell kind of suicide pusher are you?

The kind that is under no threat at all, because more people vote "everyone survives" than "ONLY Red survives".

 

[Emily's Cat]

Again, that's fair. It's what the button pushing is all about. I've lost track of the life and deaths I've been in (or at least guaranteed serious injury), and I've found the opposite. When I was on the Rescue Squad, we often had to actively try to keep people from helping. I think.in actual, dire shared straits, people pull together and aren't thinking entirely of themselves anymore. YMMV.

Okay... so *why* did you try to keep people from helping? They're not thinking of themselves, they're being noble in exactly the way you think everyone ought to be. For what reason do you want them to NOT pitch in and help?

Tru dat (maybe... i can think of a horror show likely to play out in your short ass life following a meltdown.

How would you and Rolfe feel if together, you tipped the vote over the 51st percentile? You could have gone home and caught some Netflix, but instead you got your Mad Max wish. Thinking any differently about your choice? That's one of the ways I reasoned it- the outcome of a Red win is too gruesome to let happen.

You just cannot stop yourself from expressing contempt and trying to bully me for not thinking the same way as you, can you?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Please don't take it personally. You know me, and have for a long time, and you know I cut to the chase rather than pussy foot around.

Yeah, you know what? I do ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ take it personally when you repeatedly call me a killer a coward and selfish. But I was quite content to continue trying to get you to understand and respect my perspective up until YOU got offended at me noting that you're taking a position that seems emotionally driven.

You got pissy because I point out that you have emotions. And now you want to tell me not to take it personally because you being outright insulting and denigrating and absolutely full to the brim with contempt is something I should just tolerate?

How about you just go ahead and add the cherry on top. Tell me I'm overreacting, it's not that big a deal, and tell me to calm down.