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

[The Great Zaganza]

It's magically assessed by a reputable third party with no bias, who has a magical psychic connection to every single person on the planet and simultaneously with 100% accuracy.

Can't you simply take it as given?

why is the being bothering to ask then?
They already know how everyone is going to vote.

 

[Thermal]

I've decided I would definitely pull the switch that sends the trolley onto the siding where it pushes five red buttons, rather than allow it to continue ahead and smash open the box with $1000 that if the supercomputer predicted I'd open it would leave my $1million box empty.

The real problem here is the dilemma is about killing. Most of us don't do so either recreationally or professionally, so it's a tad unrelatable. We should alter the conundrum to prostituting ourselves. I mean, we've all wanted to spring for undercoating on that new car but didn't quite have it in the budget, right?

 

[Darat]

The real problem here is the dilemma is about killing. Most of us don't do so either recreationally or professionally, so it's a tad unrelatable. We should alter the conundrum to prostituting ourselves. I mean, we've all wanted to spring for undercoating on that new car but didn't quite have it in the budget, right?

I think my formulation makes it crystal clear (slight change from previous posting of it) : you can pick up a red gun or a blue flower, if you pick up the red gun you must hunt down and kill anyone who picked up a blue flower unless more than 50% picked up a blue flower. That then makes what is happening very relatable and understandable, pick red if you want to kill people who think different to you, pick blue if you don't want to kill people who think different to you.

 

[Thermal]

I think my formulation makes it crystal clear (slight change from previous posting of it) : you can pick up a red gun or a blue flower, if you pick up the red gun you must hunt down and kill anyone who picked up a blue flower unless more than 50% picked up a blue flower. That then makes what is happening very relatable and understandable, pick red if you want to kill people who think different to you, pick blue if you don't want to kill people who think different to you.

Right... right, but that kinda makes me want to join Team Red. Not so much because of the way ssomeone else thinks, but because you don't question *why* you get to Purge. You just Purge before everyone realizes its a bad idea.

 

[Thermal]

Note to EC the OP: you should probably skip this poll and the next few with incremental changes, and leap frog up to the polls with game changing variables. This one is for all intents and purposes the same as the last, which we've weighed in on and done already.

Like, since Red gets to be safe, a Red vote blinds the voter permanently, regardless of outcome. Blue already put his metaphorical balls on the chopping block, so no new liability needs to be introduced. Do Reds still feel like its not worth saving others, or does their self interest again override things?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Really interesting article from Reason dot com on this. They also thought you should push Red, and kind of soft pedaled that you are directly voting to kill Blue voters by doing so.

I really strongly disagree with your framing on this. Voting for Red isn't choosing to kill Blue pushers. Electing to not go walking barefoot in the desert is not choosing to kill people who chance the rattlesnake bite by going barefoot in the desert. Electing not to jump off a cliff without a parachute isn't choosing to kill people who do decide to walk right off the edge.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I think my formulation makes it crystal clear (slight change from previous posting of it) : you can pick up a red gun or a blue flower, if you pick up the red gun you must hunt down and kill anyone who picked up a blue flower unless more than 50% picked up a blue flower. That then makes what is happening very relatable and understandable, pick red if you want to kill people who think different to you, pick blue if you don't want to kill people who think different to you.

This is completely irrational framing Darat.

The red button does not kill anyone. You're attributing action to people who chose none. You're framing the red button as actively trying to kill blue, and you're framing blue as being completely without consequences. But in reality, blue comes with risk and red with no risk.

Blue is playing Blackjack in a casino with everyone's money. Red is not gambling at all. Blue might lose - and then everyone else who decided to play Blackjack also loses their life savings. Blue might win - and then the rest of the people who joined in the gamble get to keep their houses.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Note to EC the OP: you should probably skip this poll and the next few with incremental changes, and leap frog up to the polls with game changing variables. This one is for all intents and purposes the same as the last, which we've weighed in on and done already.

Like, since Red gets to be safe, a Red vote blinds the voter permanently, regardless of outcome. Blue already put his metaphorical balls on the chopping block, so no new liability needs to be introduced. Do Reds still feel like its not worth saving others, or does their self interest again override things?

Why wouldn't you re-evaluate your selection if there's no chance that someone will pick blue at random or without knowledge? Why do you think anyone would pick blue, given that everyone understands the question and has the cognitive ability to make an informed choice?

ETA: I'm stepping through variables associated with the discussion points. One of the more common themes among blue here and elsewhere is the question of babies smashing buttons at random. A lot of people think that's a good reason to take the risk, to try to save all the babies. If that is controlled for - if those who cannot understand the choice are already guaranteed to be safe - what is your remaining motivation for choosing blue?

 

[Thermal]

I really strongly disagree with your framing on this. Voting for Red isn't choosing to kill Blue pushers. Electing to not go walking barefoot in the desert is not choosing to kill people who chance the rattlesnake bite by going barefoot in the desert. Electing not to jump off a cliff without a parachute isn't choosing to kill people who do decide to walk right off the edge.

I know you disagree with that framing. You're a Red voter.

The part the Red voters have to turn a blind eye to is that it makes no difference 'how you prefer to look at it'. The bottom line, practical voting result is Red wins, Blues are killed. Blue wins, everyone lives. Since we can count on Blue votes like the sun rising in the East, that's the overriding framework.

 

[Thermal]

Why wouldn't you re-evaluate your selection if there's no chance that someone will pick blue at random or without knowledge? Why do you think anyone would pick blue, given that everyone understands the question and has the cognitive ability to make an informed choice?

Have you read nothing in these discussions, here and tweetyland and elsewhere?

We pick Blue because we know others will, and it is the best odds for everyone coming out alive. To vote Red is to actively want Blue voters to die. There's no second whitewashed version of that choice. As I said earlier, with three people voting (or similarly manageable group), I'd lobby for Red for all. Globally, that ain't happening, so we adjust the priority.

Eta: when you say "informed choice" and "understands the question", you are really saying "agrees with my blind spot framing, and the ones that die can ◊◊◊◊ right off". Many of us don't subscribe to that last bit.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I know you disagree with that framing. You're a Red voter.

Actually, I'm only a red voter in some scenarios. My unstated assumption in the original framing was that since it's already a magical button with a magical outcome, then everyone in the world will magically be given the ability to understand the consequences. Thus, people picking blue are intentionally taking on risk that doesn't need to be faced at all. On the other hand... if babies are smashing buttons and haven't been gifted magical understanding... then I'm probably going to pick blue. Similarly, the percent of people needed to gain safety makes a difference to me.

I'm willing to risk my life and the wellbeing of my loved ones, but only for a really good reason. I value my life enough to not risk it thoughtlessly and without need.

The part the Red voters have to turn a blind eye to is that it makes no difference 'how you prefer to look at it'. The bottom line, practical voting result is Red wins, Blues are killed. Blue wins, everyone lives. Since we can count on Blue votes like the sun rising in the East, that's the overriding framework.

If I'm reading you correctly, you're assuming that some people with fully functional brains are still going to put themselves at risk. And you feel compelled to save them from themselves?

In this scenario, ***why*** do you think anyone would pick blue?

 

[Thermal]

Actually, I'm only a red voter in some scenarios. My unstated assumption in the original framing was that since it's already a magical button with a magical outcome, then everyone in the world will magically be given the ability to understand the consequences. Thus, people picking blue are intentionally taking on risk that doesn't need to be faced at all. On the other hand... if babies are smashing buttons and haven't been gifted magical understanding... then I'm probably going to pick blue. Similarly, the percent of people needed to gain safety makes a difference to me.

I'm willing to risk my life and the wellbeing of my loved ones, but only for a really good reason. I value my life enough to not risk it thoughtlessly and without need.

If I'm reading you correctly, you're assuming that some people with fully functional brains are still going to put themselves at risk. And you feel compelled to save them from themselves?

In this scenario, ***why*** do you think anyone would pick blue?

For the same reasons we beat to death in the last poll discussion.

Also, you'll note we were right and won, here and on Twitter and Reddit and everywhere else this poll was run. "No deaths" if capturing 51% of the vote, versus No Deaths capturing 100% of the vote is so universally attainable that most humans are on board with that without having to wring their hands much.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Actually, I'm only a red voter in some scenarios. My unstated assumption in the original framing was that since it's already a magical button with a magical outcome, then everyone in the world will magically be given the ability to understand the consequences. Thus, people picking blue are intentionally taking on risk that doesn't need to be faced at all. On the other hand... if babies are smashing buttons and haven't been gifted magical understanding... then I'm probably going to pick blue. Similarly, the percent of people needed to gain safety makes a difference to me.

I'm willing to risk my life and the wellbeing of my loved ones, but only for a really good reason. I value my life enough to not risk it thoughtlessly and without need.

If I'm reading you correctly, you're assuming that some people with fully functional brains are still going to put themselves at risk. And you feel compelled to save them from themselves?

In this scenario, ***why*** do you think anyone would pick blue?

I don't feel compelled no, but I feel it's the right thing to do, if I can save others easily by pressing a button, and the only risk is that less than 50% of people feel the same, then it seems worth it to me. If the risk calculus was different, say 99.9995% of people had to press blue to prevent any deaths, then I'd feel different, and probably vote differently.

 

[Emily's Cat]

For the same reasons we beat to death in the last poll discussion.

But the reasons in the last poll were heavily influenced by the assumption that some people wouldn't be able to understand the question, babies would be smashing buttons, and various others without sufficient cognitive ability would be picking at random.

Those reasons have been removed... so what remaining reason do you have?

Also, you'll note we were right and won,

You know it's not a competition, don't you?

here and on Twitter and Reddit and everywhere else this poll was run. "No deaths" if capturing 51% of the vote, versus No Deaths capturing 100% of the vote is so universally attainable that most humans are on board with that without having to wring their hands much.

If I'm reading you correctly, you're assuming that more than 50% of people will be willing to risk their lives on a bet even when there are zero babies at risk? Even when the risk is completely created only by choosing the blue button, and does not exist at all otherwise?

Blue: Hey, there's a trolley coming down the tracks.
Red: Okay, good thing we're all on the sidewalk and nobody is on the tracks then.
Blue: Well, if enough of us jump on the track at the same time, we'll be able to stop the trolley!
Red: Why do you want to stop the trolley? Just stay off the tracks.
Blue: Well, someone might step on the tracks though, then they'd die if there aren't enough of us.
Red: Are those people hopping onto the tracks babies, or are they otherwise mentally infirm?
Blue: No, they're all adults will normally functioning brains. All the babies are perfectly safe.
Red: If all the babies are safe, why is anyone stepping on the tracks? You could just stay here on the side and let the trolley whistle past.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I don't feel compelled no, but I feel it's the right thing to do, if I can save others easily by pressing a button, and the only risk is that less than 50% of people feel the same, then it seems worth it to me. If the risk calculus was different, say 99.9995% of people had to press blue to prevent any deaths, then I'd feel different, and probably vote differently.

Do you genuinely think it's the right thing to do to risk your life on a coin flip when there are no innocents at risk?

In this scenario, every single person has been guaranteed to understand the tradeoff. Can you explain why you believe anyone would choose the blue button in the first place?

 

[Thermal]

But the reasons in the last poll were heavily influenced by the assumption that some people wouldn't be able to understand the question, babies would be smashing buttons, and various others without sufficient cognitive ability would be picking at random.

No, it wasn't influenced by that much at all. Babies et al were mentioned a couple times quasi-rhetorically, mostly in the context of not being clear on what the parameters were. It had no influence at all on my arguments, for instance.

{eta: you seem to be confusing twitter arguments with ours, maybe? You also said political associations were 'at the fore'. They got mentioned peripherally i think once, and that was about it}

Those reasons have been removed... so what remaining reason do you have?

The same ones argued at length and in detail. Are we really going to do this on this thread too?

You know it's not a competition, don't you?

Of course it is. That's the raison d'etre for the forum at large, and in this one specifically it was a race to 51%.

If I'm reading you correctly, you're assuming that more than 50% of people will be willing to risk their lives on a bet even when there are zero babies at risk?

Sort of. We wouldnt see it as a significant risk, or at least one that we are supremely confident the non-ghouls would be on board with us in powerhouse numbers. We believe this because the human species works like dat.

Even when the risk is completely created only by choosing the blue button, and does not exist at all otherwise?

We've said this a hundred times already, but: we know Red is fail safe. But we also know on a planet of billions (even with infants/the mentaly infirm excluded) that some will go Blue. You literally just argued with Darat about that. Are you still unable to wrap your head around the concept that people think differently than you, and are moved by different values and assessments?

Some people are going to look at this and focus on some Blue votes being inevitable. Some people, with fully functioning adult brains, weigh the idea of contributing to death to be unconscionable. A Red vote, like it or not, will cause death if the total is over 50% but less than 100%. Blues only need to nudge over 50% to keep everyone alive. The idea that Reds think "well if 100% of the planet thinks like me then it will all be fine" is self centered to an obnoxious degree. And don't kid yourself- the last thread kicked off with Reds saying "Die, Blue dumbasses!". Some were right up front about it. Their argument morphed a bit when they realized everyone could hear them, lol.

Picture someone who cannot stomach the idea of their Red vote contributing to millions or billions of deaths, if in some hateful alternate universe, Red won. They are willing to put themselves at risk, having faith in others to do the right thing and look out for strangers they can't communicate with (your trite stories about trolleys gloss over not being able to reach the planet). Take it as a given that he, and billions of others who think that way, are voting Blue.

Why would you vote Red, knowing that?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

how long are babies going to live if their parents are suddenly gone?
Do Blue Voter Pilots get to land their commercial plane before they get killed?

It is childish to pretend you are making a rational or moral decision when you are stipulating that there are no real consequences for who's left either way.

Even a world where most people voted Blue would be fundamentally changed by the fact that a scary number of fellow human beings would willingly accept widespread death of others for their own safety and that there is a magical entity that can kill us all anytime it wants.

 

[grunion]

I think the method of killing matters. If it’s a short sharp shock, I may opt for that over spending my remaining years with a bunch of murderers. But if it’s slow and torturous it might give me pause.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Do you genuinely think it's the right thing to do to risk your life on a coin flip when there are no innocents at risk?

In this scenario, every single person has been guaranteed to understand the tradeoff. Can you explain why you believe anyone would choose the blue button in the first place?

1. It isn't a coin flip, it's a belief that more than 50% of the world has beliefs aligned to mine. As I said, if the odds turn significantly against that I would reconsider, but blue wins in the polls.
2. Suicidal people might choose blue, I believe most, or at least many, people who make a failed suicide attempt are ultimately glad it failed. I prefer not to help them do something they don't really want to do.

 

[Darat]

This is completely irrational framing Darat.

The red button does not kill anyone. You're attributing action to people who chose none. You're framing the red button as actively trying to kill blue, and you're framing blue as being completely without consequences. But in reality, blue comes with risk and red with no risk.

Blue is playing Blackjack in a casino with everyone's money. Red is not gambling at all. Blue might lose - and then everyone else who decided to play Blackjack also loses their life savings. Blue might win - and then the rest of the people who joined in the gamble get to keep their houses.

Hey that you don't like what is at the heart of the "question" isn't my fault. You can dress it up in any clothes you want, you can claim to be the greatest Vulcan ever or the most intelligent person ever or the second coming of the Pauline Jesus or the most compassionate person in the world to explain your choice, but only one choice chooses the potential to kill others.

You seem to think this class of dilemmas have a right or to remove them from further from being seen as a value based answer a correct answer (and that is the one you favour).

It's akin to the prisoners' dilemma's classic scenario, it attempts to hide many of the value assumptions behind a veneer of "rationality", the "only" variable is not how long each prisoner spends in jail.

These dilemmas can be useful to help us understand our and others behaviours, to challenge our often unstated assumptions about ourselves and each other and so on but there is never a right/correct or wrong/incorrect answer.