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

[Lithrael]

The shifting of accountability is astonishing.

Hmm. Yes.

That's a very different scenario. You've fundamentally altered the situation, in a way similar to what Thermal has done on a few occasions. You've now introduced a lever, rather than a platform. You've now introduced something that requires intentional action to try to kill the other group, rather than a passive action of declining to take risk

Yes, because the whole point of the button choice is that red is NOT a passive choice; you have to choose red and hit the button. You DO have to take an action to choose red and therefore it's not a passive choice.

And no, I did not change it from the scenario of choosing between two platforms, by adding a lever. There is a lever in that one; operated by the collective weight on the platform.

Your reaction to this seems very strange to me. I'm not blaming anyone for anything. That's just how the hypothetical machine works. You can stand on the trap door that is safe unless operated, or you can stand on the platform that operates the trap door. You can hope nobody will choose to stand on the trap door, but it is still your weight on the safe platform that may operate the trap door; those standing on the platform are collectively setting it off, the last causal step in the chain of events, and if anyone is on the trap door those people will fall and die if and when that happens. Sure, go ahead and be mad at the people standing on the trap door for inflicting their deaths on you I guess?

But that is how the hypothetical machine works and it functions pretty damn identically to how the red or blue button choice and outcome works. You choose a side; everyone is literally safe (but either in potential peril or personally guaranteed to live) until the button presses are tallied; the outcome is dictated by the majority.

The reason someone is on the trap door doesn't even enter into it for me. If you really see one guy pulling a trap door's lever as "an action that knowingly and intentionally tries to kill the other" but several million guys working together to operate a trap door's lever as completely passive, then we are at an impasse.

if you remove the forced choice aspect of having to physically push the red button... suddenly the entire feeling around the choice alters dramatically:

Yes, of course it does. I have already said in the thread that I can far more easily picture all of humanity choosing to continue to not do a thing they were already not doing vs doing a new thing they weren't doing before, than I can picture all of humanity presented with two buttons, all choosing to press the button that means that (instead of thinking about pressing either that button or the other button, which will lead to at least some pressing the other button).

The actual logic involved is the same. The only difference is that instead of pushing the red button to decline the risk, you just don't push the blue button. Same functionality, same outcome - completely different reception.

The logic is the same, yes. But it is not the same functionality if you don't have to press a button than if you do. One is genuinely passive (if you do nothing, then this) and the other is active (you must do something; this or that - even if you choose to push a button that means 'do nothing' you are still taking an action, the action of pressing the button). And yes, psychologically they are different, and we know how this affects the way populations make choices. And you still seem aggravated that your opponents are working with the way people do make decisions instead of the way people should make decisions. I'm tired.

 

[Emily's Cat]

They are neither. They are very similar.

Go on then, what's the LOGICAL difference between these tow?

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?

Ya no ◊◊◊◊. That's your preferred framework, and it's that of a used car salesman trying to sweep a cars horrors out of eyesight, hoping a buyer won't notice.

Every Red push bring the vote closer to 51% and death for others. Every button push for Blue brings the vote closer to their 51% and Everyone Survives. Those are the important bits that get covered up by your used car salesman framing.

I do acual building framing professionally, which is why I so strongly dislike deceptive framing. It is supremely critical that a framework addresses all its structural elements. If you sweep important bits under the rug, you have a catastrophic collapse, no matter how "functionally logical and identical" you insist they were. You missed the big stuff, so your framing was unstable.

You're entirely stuck on words that make you cringe.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Re: frameworks again:

Red advocates like to bring up the game theory grid, the one that shows how each voting outcome affects the individual voter. In it, it is invariably shown that only Blue can die. The opposite can be done too, showing which vote kills others, in which case that's Red at over 50%. Blue cannot cause the deaths of others.

If both of these elements are not addressed in one of these crackhead reframeworkings, then the reframeworking is probably intentionally dishonest. That's the objection to all this horse ◊◊◊◊ about passive Reds and suicidal Blues.

You are dead determined to blame bystanders for the potential consequences of your own freely selected choice to taunt death.

Why do you think other people should be held accountable for your own risk-taking?

 

[Emily's Cat]

They are more *explicit* than my original labels. The latter were always accurate.



Your labels don't mention what happens if more than 50% press blue. That is a crucial omission. Also, who is "them"?

There is no good reason not to label each button with the collective outcome that will go into effect if a majority press it. This is how choices are typically marked on ballots, and people generally understand those. It's also how the outcomes and their triggers are described in the OP.

Your voting analogy fails, because in a vote only ONE selection can win. There's a very large range where NOBODY LOSES in this scenario. And your framing intentionally masks the fact that some people are voluntarily risking their lives when there is no need to do so.

Since Thermal seems disinclined to respond... what's your take on this?

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?

 

[Emily's Cat]

If by "both groups win" you mean "everyone survives", yes, of course it is possible. And that outcome is far easier to achieve if people vote blue, since you only need a bare majority, rather than a unanimity that will never happen.

However, the choice presented in the OP can be read as a contest between two proposed rules: "Everybody survives" and "Only the Red Survive". Both of those rules cannot be voted into effect.

It could also be presented as a contest between two proposed rules: "Don't Do Dangerous Things" and "Do Dangerous Things And Pray Other People Join In And Save You From The Dangerous Thing You Decided To Do".

Because these aren't rules, it's not a competition. It's a choice between intentionally taking lethal risks on the assumption that enough people taking the risk will mitigate the impact... versus just not taking the risk at all.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Sure, nobody pressing the red button wants other people to die, because essentially they want nothing for anyone but themselves. You see blue button as "relying on everyone else to save them." There's a significance to the way you put that.

Yes, there's significance to recognizing that a group of people are intentionally taking an avoidable lethal risk, and that the only way they can avoid dying is to convince a bunch of other people to also gamble their lives alongside them.

Blue is not risk free. Blue is intentionally placing yourself in the way of danger. Which is fine and dandy when you need to do so to save innocents, or when the danger can't be avoided. If there are innocents, or when the danger is unavoidable, I think most people should be willing to take the risk.

But when it's completely avoidable and there are no innocents at risk... shifting the burden of your voluntary risk-taking onto other people isn't a wonderful noble thing. It's moral hazard. It relies on other people absorbing enough of the risk that you've intentionally taken to shield you from the consequences.

There are a great many scenarios in which I think Blue is the better option. I don't think *this* is one of those scenarios.

 

[Emily's Cat]

And you still seem aggravated that your opponents are working with the way people do make decisions instead of the way people should make decisions. I'm tired.

I'm aggravated that a vocal group of people are determined to shift responsibility for their own choices onto others. I'm aggravated that choosing to avoid a completely unnecessary lethal risk is being touted as "killing" the people who voluntarily took on the lethal risk.

 

[Lithrael]

I'm aggravated that choosing to avoid a completely unnecessary lethal risk is being touted as "killing" the people who voluntarily took on the lethal risk.

Well, potentially killing them, anyway. And for no better reason than that it's true! *shakes fist*

 

[Reformed Offlian]

It could also be presented as a contest between two proposed rules: "Don't Do Dangerous Things" and "Do Dangerous Things And Pray Other People Join In And Save You From The Dangerous Thing You Decided To Do".

Those aren't rules on offer. Those are just your opinions about people's choices.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

It could also be presented as a contest between two proposed rules: "Don't Do Dangerous Things" and "Do Dangerous Things And Pray Other People Join In And Save You From The Dangerous Thing You Decided To Do".

Because these aren't rules, it's not a competition. It's a choice between intentionally taking lethal risks on the assumption that enough people taking the risk will mitigate the impact... versus just not taking the risk at all.

It is a choice between "Everybody Survives" and "Only the Red Survive," which are very much rules. The outcomes described in the OP, which mentions nothing about intentionally taking lethal risks; that is your egoistic spin.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

I'm aggravated that a vocal group of people are determined to shift responsibility for their own choices onto others.

Me, too.

I'm losing patience with Team Red's pretending that the only consequences they need to consider are the ones to themselves.

I'm losing patience with Team Red pretending that Team Blue is voting to die, when they are explicitly voting for the opposite: Everyone survives.

I'm losing patience with Team Reds' ignoring the fact that, by pressing red, they are voting against the survival of anybody who votes differently, while Team Blue is voting *for* the survival of everybody, regardless of how they vote.

 

[Thermal]

Go on then, what's the LOGICAL difference between these tow?

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?

The same as I have posted, explained, and elaborated on in multiple postings across two threads now. When a 'framing' is incomplete, misleading, deceptive or otherwise does not give a full picture, that is either due to dishonesty or stupidity.

Your sense of entitlement is breathtaking. You really think you do not have to respond to multiple questions and challenges, ignoring them and repeating yourself and getting pissy if someone doesn't fawn at your feet when you demand answers to yours- which have been answered multiple times, but you just don't ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ listen.

You're entirely stuck on words that make you cringe.

The words are benign. Cowards and dishonest people make me cringe.

You want a seat at the respectable table? Be respectable. Stop concocting zany alternate realities and own your position. You don't care if other people are hurt by your self interest, even people who vote to keep everyone alive. It's just not part of who you are. Own that ◊◊◊◊ and stop trying to blame everyone else. It's obnoxious.

 

[Thermal]

You are dead determined to blame bystanders for the potential consequences of your own freely selected choice to taunt death.

Why do you think other people should be held accountable for your own risk-taking?

How many more times would you.like me to answer the same question for you? Do you intentionally tune out responses you don't like, or is it more of a blank staring into space when someone doesn't follow you script?

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Your voting analogy fails, because in a vote only ONE selection can win. There's a very large range where NOBODY LOSES in this scenario.

And the overwhelming preponderance of those involve blue majorities.

But saying that "nobody loses" is not the same as saying that neither option loses. The choice is between "everybody survives" and "only the red survive", only one of which will rule who lives and who dies. There is only one case where those two choices coincide in outcome, and even there, they remain intensionally and dispositionally distinct.

And your framing intentionally masks the fact that some people are voluntarily risking their lives when there is no need to do so.

Yes, because that framing does not exist in the OP. Remember the OP? It indicates two collective outcomes and the collective triggers for those outcomes. Nothing about individual risks or experiences at all. That is an egoistic angle you chose to take.

Since Thermal seems disinclined to respond... what's your take on this?

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?

I already told you, and I'm pretty sure Thermal did, as well: Framing 2 is incomplete; it doesn't specify that *all* blue voters survive if more than 50% vote blue.

 

[bruto]

And the overwhelming preponderance of those involve blue majorities.

But saying that "nobody loses" is not the same as saying that neither option loses. The choice is between "everybody survives" and "only the red survive", only one of which will rule who lives and who dies. There is only one case where those two choices coincide in outcome, and even there, they remain intensionally and dispositionally distinct.



Yes, because that framing does not exist in the OP. Remember the OP? It indicates two collective outcomes and the collective triggers for those outcomes. Nothing about individual risks or experiences at all. That is an egoistic angle you chose to take.



I already told you, and I'm pretty sure Thermal did, as well: Framing 2 is incomplete; it doesn't specify that *all* blue voters survive if more than 50% vote blue.

In fact, with regard to framing, the only way everyone wins other than a blue majority, is if 100 percent of the voters vote red. Even your framing is not entirely accurate, I think, because a blue majority does not just mean that all blue voters survive. It means that all voters of all sorts survive. The red voters, of course, need not have voted at all, but unless they somehow benefit from the extinction of others, they share the benefit without having contributed to it.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

In fact, with regard to framing, the only way everyone wins other than a blue majority, is if 100 percent of the voters vote red. Even your framing is not entirely accurate, I think, because a blue majority does not just mean that all blue voters survive. It means that all voters of all sorts survive. The red voters, of course, need not have voted at all, but unless they somehow benefit from the extinction of others, they share the benefit without having contributed to it.

Please show me where you think my framing suggests that only blue voters survive (apart from the case where 100% vote blue, of course). The choice is between "everybody survives" and "only the red survive", as I have repeatedly emphasized.

 

[Darat]

I find it very amusing that some folk want to "reframe" the dilemma, one would almost think they know what it says about them and don't want to accept it so want to find some way to wriggle and wiggle out of it.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

I find it very amusing that some folk want to "reframe" the dilemma, one would almost think they know what it says about them and don't want to accept it so want to find some way to wriggle and wiggle out of it.

It's funny because, in their endeavors not to look bad, they end up looking worse.

In writing such things as: "All red voters are doing is voting not to die themselves, nothing else," they reinforce the impression that they only ever consider how their actions affect themselves.

By insisting that voting blue isn't "obligatory", and thinking that this suffices to make voting red okay, they display an immature attitude towards moral responsibility. Such protests are little more than: "You can't make me!" written at a higher reading comprehension level.

By saying things like: "The blue voters had their chance; it's not my problem if they chose poorly!" they sound shockingly cynical and callous.

By equating taking a risk so that no one has to die regardless of how they vote with "sacrificing for nothing", they dehumanize people and dismiss the value of their lives.

Thermal offered a rationale that, while still self-serving and cold, at least doesn't expose additional ethical deficits.

 

[bruto]

Please show me where you think my framing suggests that only blue voters survive (apart from the case where 100% vote blue, of course). The choice is between "everybody survives" and "only the red survive", as I have repeatedly emphasized.

I'm not criticizing your criticism of the incomplete framing. I just think it is additionally incomplete, but I think I said it badly. I did not mean that only blue voters survive, but that if blue voters are in the majority, everyone survives regardless of how any individuals voted. In a sense the red team can retrospectively point out that since their vote didn't count this time, it's all just fine. I see a blue victory as a license for the red team to shuck their civic responsibility and learn nothing.

I do think we need to keep in mind the difference between what could happen and what is guaranteed to happen, because that is a good part of what the red team is pushing. Only the red are guaranteed to survive, but all will survive if red is in the minority.

Leaving aside the various possible outcomes, one might say that the only reason to vote red (assuming you cannot rig the result for 100 percent red) is out of mistrust. You vote red to hedge your bet, because you do not trust that even a bare majority will vote blue, and probably because you believe the red majority will be large enough that your individual vote can't change it. And in that case, although the actual result of the poll might not match one's rationale for voting, a red vote is acceptance of the idea that only the red survive, and that any other result is someone else's business.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Well, potentially killing them, anyway. And for no better reason than that it's true! *shakes fist*

I have declined to go skydiving. Therefore I'm "potentially killing" the people who do go skydiving.