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

[bruto]

Of course it's in secret and simultaneous.

Also... the "reliability" of safe thought problems doesn't translate well to real life. In thought problems, almost everyone says they'll flip the switch and let the trolley run down one person instead of five... but in functionally similar situations in reality, people freeze and don't flip the switch at all. There's a massive difference between making a noble assumption based on pure logic when you're safely sitting on your couch enjoying a beverage in front of the TV and actually being required to take an action in reality when your life is on the line.

There's no way to prove it, of course. But I believe that if there were a functionally similar real life situation, where there was a choice between completely avoiding an obvious and advertised risk, and placing yourself at risk of death... less than half of the people who say they'd pick blue would actually pick blue.

I think I get your point of view. I just don't share it. Thankfully, we will not be finding out at least for a while which of us is right.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I think I get your point of view. I just don't share it. Thankfully, we will not be finding out at least for a while which of us is right.

It's fine if you don't share my view. But I'd appreciate it if you stopped misrepresenting it.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

It's fine if you don't share my view. But I'd appreciate it if you stopped misrepresenting it.

Says the person who can't stop comparing voting blue to jumping into blenders.

 

[Emily's Cat]

There's a bit of a difference though.

On the one hand, I'm using an illustration to highlight that one option has an obvious and well-established risk, while the other has no risks at all. All I've done throughout is to swap out the specific situation while preserving the relationship between the options.

On the other hand, you're (and others) imputing motivations and asserting an emotional perspective that isn't present at all.

I keep trying to present you with something that will clarify the risks that I see, and the fact that there's no good reason to take the avoidable risk. You keep trying to paint me (and any other red pusher) as a bad and evil person motivated by fear and hate.

These are not the same.

 

[Thermal]

*digging in deeper to Step 2, Covering eyes about 1,3 and 4*

Eta: "Let's see... I can choose Everyone Survives. Meeeehh...let's see if there is an option that works better for me...

Oooo, here's one- I'm guaranteed survival but anyone who didn't see things my way will die! Oh hellz ya, I'm all about this one!

Any other considerations, like living with knowing I took part in voting for Blues to die, or what the world I'd be making would be like to live in? Nah, I'm digging this 'Blues die' thing, rather than Everyone Survives."

 

[bruto]

There's a bit of a difference though.

On the one hand, I'm using an illustration to highlight that one option has an obvious and well-established risk, while the other has
no risks at all. All I've done throughout is to swap out the specific situation while preserving the relationship between the options.

On the other hand, you're (and others) imputing motivations and asserting an emotional perspective that isn't present at all.

I keep trying to present you with something that will clarify the risks that I see, and the fact that there's no good reason to take the avoidable risk. You keep trying to paint me (and any other red pusher) as a bad and evil person motivated by fear and hate.

These are not the same.

The highlighted bit above is obviously true in one sense but obviously not in another. It's a philosophical divide that is likely unbridgeable, and one you may well hate to see pointed out, but it is not accurate to characterize this as misrepresentation. It has to do with how you view the individual and society and the obligations of both, and it is the case regardless of whether your position is right or wrong, or how well or badly everyone here argues.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The highlighted bit above is obviously true in one sense but obviously not in another. It's a philosophical divide that is likely unbridgeable, and one you may well hate to see pointed out, but it is not accurate to characterize this as misrepresentation. It has to do with how you view the individual and society and the obligations of both, and it is the case regardless of whether your position is right or wrong, or how well or badly everyone here argues.

True. But in this case, it's a choice between literally nobody at all in society being forced to face risk, and every single person in society having the option to completely avoid the clear risk.

At some point, when someone voluntary does something dangerous, that they knew in advance was dangerous, and which they had every opportunity to refrain from doing completely... then they are solely accountable for their own choices. At that point, it's gambling. Perhaps they're very certain they'll beat the house - but I am NOT certain they will beat the house, and I don't understand why I should be expected to gamble with them.

I definitely don't see how my refusal to gamble with them makes me a bad person.

 

[Darat]

Some folk really, really don't like the implications of their choice.

 

[bruto]

You shouldn't try to beat the house, says the house.

 

[Thermal]

I guess that some people will always push others out of a lifeboat to increase their odds of survival, instead of working together for everyone to survive. The duality of mother ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊, or something like that.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Lifeboat is a very good analogy to the Button Question:

Your ship with billions of people on it is sinking.
You can put all your effort into building a one-person raft that will let you reach the shore
Or
You can help repair the ship, which requires at least 50%+1 people to help, too.

 

[Thermal]

Lifeboat is a very good analogy to the Button Question:

Your ship with billions of people on it is sinking.
You can put all your effort into building a one-person raft that will let you reach the shore
Or
You can help repair the ship, which requires at least 50%+1 people to help, too.

Right, and "well everyone else has the choice to fend for themselves like me, so if they die... working to save everyone... then it sucks to be them. I'm groovy".

 

[GlennB]

Lifeboat is a very good analogy to the Button Question:

Your ship with billions of people on it is sinking.
You can put all your effort into building a one-person raft that will let you reach the shore Or You can help repair the ship, which requires at least 50%+1 people to help, too.

Except that in the puzzle set here everybody has a personal lifeboat (press red).

 

[Thermal]

Except that in the puzzle set here everybody has a personal lifeboat (press red).

Exactly. So do you abandon ship, leaving everyone to their fates and cast yourself adrift (like in the global chaos that would follow a Red win), or fix the damn boat so everyone goes back to Netfix and chill?

I think 51% is such an easy layup to win, that it's appalling to imagine more than half giving up so easily.

 

[GlennB]

Exactly. So do you abandon ship, leaving everyone to their fates and cast yourself adrift (like in the global chaos that would follow a Red win), or fix the damn boat so everyone goes back to Netfix and chill?

I think 51% is such an easy layup to win, that it's appalling to imagine more than half giving up so easily.

"Everyone's fate" includes getting onto their own private life raft. Why would they not?

 

[Thermal]

"Everyone's fate" includes getting onto their own private life raft. Why would they not?

Because some of us instinctively fix the damn problem, not immediately bail and leave everyone to their own devices.

When your car breaks down, do you jump out and run away? I fix the damn thing.

And whenever you ask "why would they not?", you know that question has already been answered, and repeatedly. We know some will want no part of pushing a button that says "Only Reds Survive", given the alternative of "Everyone Survives". So like it or not, pushing Red means "Die you helpful.mother ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ that just want what is best for all".

I get that it is not something comfortable, but that is the practical outcome of the voting. Zany reframing doesn't change it.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Everyone on earth who is capable of reading and thinking about the choice must push either a red button or a blue button...

Which button do you push?

You can't make me push the button.

Anyone who is incapable of understanding the questions or is cognitively incapable of making an informed choice will live, regardless of the outcome of the button-pushers.

How will I know if my choice is 'informed'?

Everyone's buttons magically appear before you, all at the same time

Cool! This changes everything. Magic is now real, so all logic goes out the window.

But 'all magic comes with a price' so I will avoid interacting with it as much as possible.

Unless the 'magic' is actually alien technology. Then I push both buttons at once, causing the alien computer to get caught in a logical impossibility and blow up.

Or I'm in the Matrix, so I take the red pill.

Or it's just a silly hypothetical, so I write this post.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

"let's give only those people who think like me the choice".
EC, by now, at the very least, you have to realize that lot's of, if not most people, see the problem different than you do, and that should make you rethink instead of doubling down.

 

[sphenisc]

"let's give only those people who think like me the choice".
EC, by now, at the very least, you have to realize that lot's of, if not most people, see the problem different than you do, and that should make you rethink instead of doubling down.

You realise this is a sceptics' forum right? EC's too long in the tooth to fall for crap like this.

 

[bruto]

You can't make me push the button.


How will I know if my choice is 'informed'?


Cool! This changes everything. Magic is now real, so all logic goes out the window.

But 'all magic comes with a price' so I will avoid interacting with it as much as possible.

Unless the 'magic' is actually alien technology. Then I push both buttons at once, causing the alien computer to get caught in a logical impossibility and blow up.

Or I'm in the Matrix, so I take the red pill.

Or it's just a silly hypothetical, so I write this post.

Good point. It is of course magic and entirely theoretical, but even in a magical scenario, I think there would need to be some way of determining who is theoretically capable of the choice, and a default result for refusal to choose at all or to push both buttons at once. Any attempt to figure out the default would require a calculation of how many people would decline the challenge, since if enough people can be expected to do so, the default will occur automatically.

I can't think of a fair way this could be done in an actual real world.

While we're at it, thinking about this also brings about an interesting complication I don't think has been covered much here. If the vote and result exclude both children and the incompetent, any outcome that has red prevailing will leave the remaining population disproportionately responsible not only for an indeterminately large number of newly orphaned children, right down to nursing newborns whose parents suddenly vanish before their eyes, but all those who are mentally handicapped or insane. I would expect the prospect of this might also influence the choice. If there is a post-red apocalypse the survivors will pay a high price, and the ethical choice that led them there will be only the first of more to come.