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

[Emily's Cat]

My labels are accurate. You have not made a cogent argument otherwise, and all the arguments you have presented to date look more like simple errors in logic and reading comprehension.

Your labels are lies in all except one scenario. In every single other possible scenario, of which there are over 8 billion, at least one of your buttons is falsely labeled.

When "Only the red survive" is true, "Everyone survives" must be false.
When "Everyone survives" is true, "Only the red survive" must be false.

You yourself could only present one scenario under which the buttons were both true at the same time - therefore, in 99.99999999....% of cases, one of your labels is a lie.

 

[Thermal]

I don't assign malice to you. I do, however note that the button is NOT "everyone survives". That's not true, it's a false representation. The button is "maybe die, maybe live". More specifically, it's "die unless a bunch of other people save you from your own choice"


It is not voting for others to die. Please take your own proferred advice. And also, tell me again how you totally and completely stopped telling me I'm a killer?

YOU voted for potential death. I didn't make you push that button. I have no control over your choices - you have complete agency over your choices, and you are completely accountable for the outcome. In this case, it worked out just fine for you... but you're still blaming me somehow for the choice that you made of your own free will.

Nobody is making you push the blue button. You made that choice all by yourself. Why am I responsible for your choice?

For all of your insistence on how well you've thought this through... you're extremely anchored to an emotional trigger.

Framing 1: You have two wells, and everyone has to collectively empty whichever well they select. If less than half the people choose the green well, then the poison ingested will surpass the lethal dose, and only the people who drank from the orange well will survive. If more than half the people choose the green well, then the dose will be low enough that everyone will survive.​

​

Framing 2: You have two wells, and everyone has to collectively empty whichever well they select. The orange well has no poison and no risk. The green well contains poison of such strength that in order to avoid a lethal dose, it needs to be spread among more than half of the people.​

What's the functional difference between those two scenarios, as opposed to the framing difference? Are they logically distinct in terms of the risk and the range of outcomes that can occur?

Framing 1: You have two buttons, and everyone has to push one. If less than half of the people push the blue button, then only the people who pressed the red button will survive. If more than half the people push the blue button, then everyone will survive.​

​

Framing 2: You have two buttons. Everyone who pushes the red button will survive. People who push the blue button will die unless at least half of all people push the blue button.​

Now... what's the functional and logical difference between those two framings?

Short version: they are asinine and irrelevant.

Slightly longer version: you are in the wrong and you know it, and there is no productive discussion happening. I'm out.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Short version: they are asinine and irrelevant.

Is this your way of acknowledging that there's no functional or logical difference between the two approaches, and that the only difference is in how they're framed, and the emotional response they prompt?

Slightly longer version: you are in the wrong and you know it, and there is no productive discussion happening.

I'm not in the wrong. The scenarios presented are functionally and logically identical. They produce exactly the same risks, and exactly the same range of outcomes. The only difference is in the framing, thus the only difference in choice is one driven by emotional anchoring.

I'm out.

Oooh, nice that you decide now's a good time to skip out instead of having to face that your entire decision is based solely on framing that triggers an emotional response.

ETA: Emotional responses aren't necessarily bad things, you know. But it's valuable to understand when your response is prompted by emotion.

 

[Thermal]

Is this your way of acknowledging that there's no functional or logical difference between the two approaches, and that the only difference is in how they're framed, and the emotional response they prompt?

Honestly, I saw 'wells' and 'poison' and figured you were off on another ridiculous comparison, like blenders and lava and the rest, and stopped reading.

I'll go back and read them, and will donate $100 to the charity of your choice if you say anything other than more repetitions of the things you keep repeating, which have been squarely addressed and you ignore the living ◊◊◊◊ out of that.

I'm not in the wrong. The scenarios presented are functionally and logically identical. They produce exactly the same risks, and exactly the same range of outcomes. The only difference is in the framing, thus the only difference in choice is one driven by emotional anchoring.

Oooh, nice that you decide now's a good time to skip out instead of having to face that your entire decision is based solely on framing that triggers an emotional response.

No, repetition just gets dull after a few dozen pages. And you might have noticed that I already signed off when you started pumping out emotional outbursts, funnily enough.

ETA: Emotional responses aren't necessarily bad things, you know. But it's valuable to understand when your response is prompted by emotion.

Ya that's all great. My responses are practical, motivated by avoidance of the worst possible outcome of the button push: a Red win.

Project whatever silliness you need to in order to get a seat at the respectable table. This discussion was interesting, but this particular side quest is not.

Eta: went back and read the colored parts. Yep, it's the same ◊◊◊◊, repeated again in different words.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Your labels are lies in all except one scenario. In every single other possible scenario, of which there are over 8 billion, at least one of your buttons is falsely labeled.

When "Only the red survive" is true, "Everyone survives" must be false.

When "Everyone survives" is true, "Only the red survive" must be false.

This is incorrect, and represents another of your logic failures.

If everyone votes red, then "only the red"="everyone". If A=B, then anything true of A must also be true of B.

There are two cases in which my labels would be false:

1) More than 50% vote blue, but some people die as a result, anyway, or,
2) More than 50% vote red, but some blue voters still survive.

You haven't shown me where either of those things can happen under the OP's rules, and until you do, you should refrain from throwing around the 'L' word.

 

[Emily's Cat]

This is incorrect, and represents another of your logic failures.

If everyone votes red, then "only the red"="everyone". If A=B, then anything true of A must also be true of B.

There are two cases in which my labels would be false:

1) More than 50% vote blue, but some people die as a result, anyway, or,
2) More than 50% vote red, but some blue voters survive.

You haven't shown me where either of those things can happen under the OP's rules,

Remember that you labeled the buttons:
Only red survives
Everyone survives

If 40% of people pick red and 60% pick blue, then everyone survives. In this case, your blue button is accurately labeled - everyone survives. But your red button is falsely labeled - NOT only red survives.

If on the other hand, 60% pick red and 40% pick blue, then only the red survive and the blues all die. In this case, your blue button is falsely labeled - NOT everyone survives. But the red button is accurately labeled - only red survives.

In all scenarios EXCEPT the one in which 100% pick red, one or the other of your buttons is falsely labeled.

and until you do, you should refrain from throwing around the 'L' word.

I'm perfectly allowed to call imaginary inanimate objects liars. My car is a liar. The sign down the street is a liar. The label on the shirt I got my spouse is a liar. It has never been a violation of the rules to call inanimate objects liars.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Eta: went back and read the colored parts. Yep, it's the same ◊◊◊◊, repeated again in different words.

You haven't answered the question I asked. You haven't even indicated that you understand the question being asked. Here, I'll snip out some bits for you:

Framing 1: You have two buttons, and everyone has to push one. If less than half of the people push the blue button, then only the people who pressed the red button will survive. If more than half the people push the blue button, then everyone will survive.​

​

Framing 2: You have two buttons. Everyone who pushes the red button will survive. People who push the blue button will die unless more than half of all people push the blue button.​

Now... what's the functional and logical difference between those two framings?

Do the two different framings presented have a different range of possible outcomes? Are they logically different?

 

[Thermal]

You haven't answered the question I asked. You haven't even indicated that you understand the question being asked.

Lol, how's it feel? Frustrating? Aggrivating?

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Remember that you labeled the buttons:
Only red survives
Everyone survives

If 40% of people pick red and 60% pick blue, then everyone survives. In this case, your blue button is accurately labeled - everyone survives. But your red button is falsely labeled - NOT only red survives.

If on the other hand, 60% pick red and 40% pick blue, then only the red survive and the blues all die. In this case, your blue button is falsely labeled - NOT everyone survives. But the red button is accurately labeled - only red survives.

In all scenarios EXCEPT the one in which 100% pick red, one or the other of your buttons is falsely labeled.

I'm perfectly allowed to call imaginary inanimate objects liars. My car is a liar. The sign down the street is a liar. The label on the shirt I got my spouse is a liar. It has never been a violation of the rules to call inanimate objects liars.

As already explained, the buttons indicate what happens if more than 50% press it and that choice wins. If 60% pick blue and 40% pick red, then only the blue button tells you what is going to happen next, as only its condition has been met. If you like, I can make the labels more verbose to cover this:

"If more than 50% press this button, only red survives."
"If more than 50% press *this* button, everyone survives".

It doesn't change anything, but hopefully, it will clear up your confusion.

With that out of the way, you still need to explain why you think that somebody who presses a button labeled "if more than 50% press this button, only red survives" isn't voting for blue voters to die.

 

[Thermal]

EC must have a rough time understanding Election Day.

"Man, these choices are almost all liars... they can't all win... what could pulling a lever for them mean...?"

 

[Reformed Offlian]

EC must have a rough time understanding Election Day.

"Man, these choices are almost all liars... they can't all win... what could pulling a lever for them mean...?"

Well, not every election is a two-way, FPTP, but this one clearly is, and I'm sure EC is familiar with how those work.

 

[Darat]

I'm sorry if this offends you... but it's an incredibly ◊◊◊◊◊◊ up moral framework where people can only be good if they intentionally court death and blame others for the risk that they have chosen to take.

It begins to approach the logic of abusers, "look what you made me do".

That seems well outside the specific scenario we are talking about. As I said previously you can't take my button pressing decision and do a "that means that" as my decision about anything else will take into account the "anything else".

 

[Lithrael]

At first I thought, surely we aren't mixing up 'label explaining a 50% win condition' and 'label explaining what happens when the button is pressed' but all of EC's arguments appear to think of the question as the latter, now that I look at them. A blue press is always a 'cliff jump' with an awkward 'potentially saved by more cliff jumpers' scenario added rather than a risk that may or may not materialise depending on how many red presses there are in the end.

 

[bruto]

The label and the result of the red button are not always the same, but I would label the red button "the survival of anyone but myself is none of my business." What button you press doesn't matter for the rest of the world as long as enough other people think it does.

Fortunately, this actual problem can never actually be implemented, and similar, less simplistic, real problems are not likely to have such certain life and death results, but it does have some relevance to the kind of society you think you want. Of course in some sense the practical solution is to push the red button, and consider those who do not woke and stupid, just as the practical solution to many issues is to shoot before you're shot.

You choose here not only what your own fate is but the character of the society you live in. Instead of life and death, what happens if you make this dichotomy one of slavery? Push the red button and if there's slavery, you'll be a master. Push the blue button and you're either a slave or slavery itself ends.

 

[The_Animus]

I've said this before but it apparently needs repeating.

Voting Blue isn't voting to commit suicide and no psychiatrist would declare them suicidal and commit them. (Yes there are likely a small number of people who would push Blue with that intent in mind but it's not relevant to the vast majority of Blue voters and none of those participating in this thread.)

Voting Red isn't voting to kill Blues and no legal framework would find them guilty of such or jail them. (Yes there are likely a small number of people who would push Red with that intent in mind but it's not relevant to the vast majority of Red voters and none of those participating in this thread.)

Continued vilification is dishonest and silly.

 

[Thermal]

I've said this before but it apparently needs repeating.

Voting Blue isn't voting to commit suicide and no psychiatrist would declare them suicidal and commit them. (Yes there are likely a small number of people who would push Blue with that intent in mind but it's not relevant to the vast majority of Blue voters and none of those participating in this thread.)

Voting Red isn't voting to kill Blues and no legal framework would find them guilty of such or jail them. (Yes there are likely a small number of people who would push Red with that intent in mind but it's not relevant to the vast majority of Red voters and none of those participating in this thread.)

Continued vilification is dishonest and silly.

The words associated with pushing the Red button are "Only Red Survives".

What would you say those words mean in the English language?

Eta: it doesn't matter what your 'intent' is, when the result of your vote is for people to die. You can yip yap about forks and lava pits and radiation chambers til you are blue in the face, and the effect of the vote is still for blues to die. It's literally in the OP wording.

The applied game theory of Red being the failsafe is interesting, in its counterintuitive way, but considering the massive negative effect of pushing Red, the game theory falls apart as game theories usually do when the rubber hits the road.

In a small group with discussion available beforehand, the game theory applies, and lobbying the group for Red is the best idea for all. Thd OP posit negates this, and adds conditions that make voting Red unconscionable.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

The words associated with pushing the Red button are "Only Red Survives".

What would you say those words mean in the English language?

Eta: it doesn't matter what your 'intent' is, when the result of your vote is for people to die. You can yip yap about forks and lava pits and radiation chambers til you are blue in the face, and the effect of the vote is still for blues to die. It's literally in the OP wording.

The applied game theory of Red being the failsafe is interesting, in its counterintuitive way, but considering the massive negative effect of pushing Red, the game theory falls apart as game theories usually do when the rubber hits the road.

In a small group with discussion available beforehand, the game theory applies, and lobbying the group for Red is the best idea for all. Thd OP posit negates this, and adds conditions that make voting Red unconscionable.

I disagree with the highlighted bit. Blue is preferable even in small groups as it's error tolerant. If you agree to all press blue then more than half of you have to forget/ make a mistake/ trip and press the wrong button for anyone to die. If you all agree to press red then anyone who slips up dies.

 

[Thermal]

I disagree with the highlighted bit. Blue is preferable even in small groups as it's error tolerant. If you agree to all press blue then more than half of you have to forget/ make a mistake/ trip and press the wrong button for anyone to die. If you all agree to press red then anyone who slips up dies.

Right, if everyone agrees to do the same thing and does it, everyone is safe either way. What I see as beneficial in lobbying for red in a small group (say, 3 people) is that the logic of 'you can only be at risk voting Blue' actually holds. If everyone agrees to Blue, but two voters chicken out and go for the safer Red vote last minute, we gots a formerly very trusting Blue corpse on our hands.

In a group of three, I would say "I'm voting Red, kids. Now you two look at each other and figure out if you want to trust that the other doesn't see the wisdom of the failsafe last minute." Betcha the vote is all Red.

Eta: you are right about the error tolerance, of course. But in a very small group I think the immediacy of the vote will cause turncoating in higher proportions. The global OP vote makes "some of each" a given. A small group can be more fickle and just a few votes swing the result.

Eta2: my premise is for best outcome possible. In the very small group I posit, strong arming a Red vote makes sense, as you can reasonably get to that magic 100% compliance. Relying on just a couple people to not turncoat is too dicey, IMO. Go for the sure thing when it's possible.

 

[Lithrael]

What is the reasoning of the first person who sets foot on the trap door?

I don't need to know that. All I need to know is that somebody will (and I am sure as eggs is eggs that somebody will).

The other group says "Well, if enough of us stand on the trap door we won't die. And if not enough of us stand on the trap door then you're a killer for not standing on the trap door!"

You can just as truthfully put the second sentence as 'And if enough of you stand on the platform that operates the trap door, then all of us on the trap door will be killed. By falling through the trap door. That you collectively operated.'

Look, if you walked up and found just one guy standing on a trap door over a lethal drop, and you saw someone else walk up and grab the lever that would operate that trap door, would you not yell, 'oh my gosh, don't pull that lever, you'll kill that guy!' Even though it could be framed as 'the guy already signified he was willing to risk forefiting his own life by getting on the trap door, and it's no business of mine what happens to him now.'

I am just not getting your insistence that pressing red is a passive action that does nothing.

Why is it the
responsibility of everyone else to save them from their own fully-informed choices?

In the abstract, it isn't. But of course I'd find if preferable if you would not actively throw in for the negative consequences coming about. (Though I can't blame you for wanting to pick what you see as the failsafe option.)

What I am really not understanding from your POV is how little you think all the blue deaths will affect your life if red does get over 50%.

Especially since that seems to be one of the main reasons the blue pressers choose to press blue; trying to avoid deaths by choosing what seems to them to be the only achievable way to avoid all deaths. They understand a 100% red outcome would also avoid all deaths, but honestly don't think it's achievable if we're running this choice past the average adult population of earth.

 

[bruto]

The words associated with pushing the Red button are "Only Red Survives".

What would you say those words mean in the English language?

Eta: it doesn't matter what your 'intent' is, when the result of your vote is for people to die. You can yip yap about forks and lava pits and radiation chambers til you are blue in the face, and the effect of the vote is still for blues to die. It's literally in the OP wording.

The applied game theory of Red being the failsafe is interesting, in its counterintuitive way, but considering the massive negative effect of pushing Red, the game theory falls apart as game theories usually do when the rubber hits the road.

In a small group with discussion available beforehand, the game theory applies, and lobbying the group for Red is the best idea for all. Thd OP posit negates this, and adds conditions that make voting Red unconscionable.

I would argue with that first sentence at least. The words associated are "only red is guaranteed to survive." Pushing the red button contributes to the likelihood of the blues being killed, but does not guarantee it. Voting blue also does not guarantee the final result. It only guarantees that, if there is a final reckoning, you can say you did your best. How important your one vote is depends on how many votes are cast. The larger the sample the easier it is for the red pusher to argue that he's opting out of the game altogether, and leaving the decision to others, because statistics blur the meaning of individual action. If 51 percent of the voters vote blue,that leaves 49 percent able to vote red with no penalty. In a world poll with billions of voters, it's pretty easy to vote red, and unless the result hangs on a single vote, say, "tough luck but it wasn't me."

Either option is a gamble, The big difference is that the red pusher gambles with other lives, and the blue pusher with his own.