Reformed Offlian
Illuminator
None. Why?
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Button Poll #2: Only those with normal cognitive capacity are given buttons.
- Thread starter Emily's Cat
- Start date
Thermal
August Member
Sometimes help was welcomed. Hell, I was initially asked to join because I jumped in to a car wreck before the troops arrived. Often it was not helpful, because we'd be tripping over each other and it makes more sense to give us room to move because we had the equipment and training.
Oh, you were hoping for the trite scripted response, that we didn't want more victims? Funny how real world scenarios don't follow from game theory, huh?
That *really* doesn't work for the voting scenario, where you need to maximize helpers to prevail. Shoo them.off and you are moving towards death to the victims.
You really don't think you are doing exactly that as well, do you?
Eta: and that was a serious question that you yet again avoided. Blue voters take that into consideration, because we think it through farther.
Last edited:
Reformed Offlian
Illuminator
It didn't appear in the post I was responding to, so I'm not sure what you mean by saying I skipped it. But yes, those are the correct labels.
Thermal
August Member
Had you remotely been paying attention, I stopped doing so once you indicated it upset you. Since then, I've been dealing strictly with your arguments and their various shortcomings, while you get progressively more personal and insulting.
I understand it, as I demonstrated clearly. I don't think very highly of it, nor am I likely to unless you change it. Do you now think bullying me into respecting your position is the move? Kinda ironic.
Not offended in the slightest. Why would you think that? Is it in the script? I keep trying to tell you, no one is following the script. You should really resign yourself to that.
And I've gone to great lengths to explain that my position is motivated by the practical. I guess you forgot to read the posts, though?
That's a lie. You said nothing about me or anyone else having emotions. You just cooked up in your head that it my argument was emotionally driven (let me guess- it was in the script?).
Again: you forgot to read the posts and take note that I stopped when you said it upset you.
Probably best to just give it a rest. I've made my case, rebutted yours, and you continue to ignore the ◊◊◊◊ out of everything posted in favor of this script you are determined to follow. C ya on the next one.
Last edited:
You mean just here on the ISF?
Ignore my post above you answer in the above.
What makes you think this has only run in English speaking/"western" cultures?
A quick check (here I think AI search shows a plus as I wouldn't be able to read non-english sites) with Google AI search has blue coming ahead in non-english speaking/non-western societies as well. It seems blue is the majority answer worldwide.
Reformed Offlian
Illuminator
Another thing I want to remind people of is that the OP does not specify what happens if exactly 50% vote blue. Emily's Cat has claimed that means the red outcome goes into effect, but rereading the OP does not support this. The OP only specifies what happens if <50% vote blue or if >50% vote blue. Suggesting otherwise seems to be part of an attempt to construct red as a default outcome, rather than one that requires action on the part of red button-pushers to enact.
Last edited:
Thermal
August Member
I really do get a kick out of the argumentation here:
Blue means Everyone Survives. Red means ONLY Red Survives.
*pushes red* "I didn't just vote to kill you. You committed suicide by voting for *checks notes* Everyone Survives".
Game theory holds that Red is indeed the individual's best bet out of self interests, but the flip side is that you vote to kill others. Red voters cant face that, so they say "Everybody is free to think exactly like me and everything would be fine". They don't seem to understand that applies to Blue voting to. Except that Blue voting only needs 51% to avoid horrors and Red needs 100%.
It's surreal, in a macabre way.
Blue means Everyone Survives. Red means ONLY Red Survives.
*pushes red* "I didn't just vote to kill you. You committed suicide by voting for *checks notes* Everyone Survives".
Game theory holds that Red is indeed the individual's best bet out of self interests, but the flip side is that you vote to kill others. Red voters cant face that, so they say "Everybody is free to think exactly like me and everything would be fine". They don't seem to understand that applies to Blue voting to. Except that Blue voting only needs 51% to avoid horrors and Red needs 100%.
It's surreal, in a macabre way.
Reformed Offlian
Illuminator
I would press things further and point out that, even if 100% somehow vote red, they are still implicated in the morally repugnant decision to condition survival on voting red. If I walk into a room full of people and declare: "Here are two buttons; only people who press the red button get to leave this room alive" it's still morally vile if everybody presses red and no one ends up dying.
Last edited:
Thermal
August Member
Agreed, but that ties into whoever is forcing this sicko choice on us. Alien Jokers, or something? I forget.
I finally googled this a little, and it seems the divide we have ITT is common. They even have cool names for them: Red voters favor the Nash Equalibrium, which is about strict self interest. Blues favor the Pareto Optimal Outcome, which is the one that does the least amount of damage overall.
The big difference (as we keep pointing out) is that both can claim that if everyone else votes as they do, there's no problem. But Blues only need 51% for the optimal outcome, and Reds need 100%. Blue is realistic; Red is not.
Reds simply don't care about the optimal outcome (you can tell because a <100% Red win is gruesomely suboptimal for everyone, if they thought about it at all).
Whattaya gonna do? They vote "me first and ◊◊◊◊ you", even if it brings on a totally avoidable hellscape.
Eta: also interesting about Reds is they are sure everyone else is really as purely self interested as they are, and would switch votes last minute. They literally can't conceive of not looking out for #1 at all costs and in any situation. When I got married and had kids, the idea of me being #1 at all times dropped right off. I guess both voters can't imagine how the other prioritizes who or what is #1?
Mo ETA: why, if Red voters are motivated by self interest, do they not push Blue, just to be able to go home and still have the lights on? I really can't figure out how they don't see that they are shooting themselves in the foot.
Last edited:
Reformed Offlian
Illuminator
The red button rationales on offer in this thread are not only selfish, but also strongly risk-averse. Self-interest in itself does not entail risk aversion. Financial speculators are often quite selfish, yet they take significant risks in pursuit of outsized rewards (for themselves). One could, as you point out, press blue for purely selfish reasons, such as keeping the lights on and getting to see your kids graduate (which you might not if they press blue and you don't).
ETA: or not having your financial investments tank.
Last edited:
And I disagree with your reasoning.
You say the blue button is fatal by default; I disagree. The blue button is not fatal by definition UNLESS a specific threshold is met. Only beyond that threshold does blue transform to be fatal.
Blue only becomes fatal after and if a majority of people push red. It is absolutely non-fatal up until that point.
All of your other examples use the opposite framing; they are all based on a choice between {always safe} and {fatal unless a lot of people do it}. How about instead doing the opposite? Try picturing it as forcing everyone to move to stand either on a trap door, or a platform that may operate the trap door. Then it's {if more than 50% of people move to stand on the trap door, the door is not triggered and everyone remains safe} vs {if more than 50% of people move to stand on the platform that operates the lever that opens the trap door, the trap door will open and anyone who was standing on it will be killed}.
Blue is non-fatal until the votes are counted and the tally is over 50% red; it remains non-fatal unless a lot of people push red.
Standing on the trap door is not fatal as soon as someone hops on there; it remains non-fatal unless a lot of people join in to operate the trap door's lever 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 red means anyone and everyone who pushed blue is now at risk of dying. The default on blue is life for everyone... and you have to overcome a barrier to prevent the outcome of life for everyone.
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
Late as usual and skipping a bunch in the middle, I'm going for blue (or would if it were possible to vote but I don't see the option here).
It is of course a guess, how nasty is the rest of the world? How thoroughly have they thought about it and how nasty do they think the rest of the world is, and so forth. Clearly if everyone voted blue, everyone would live, and clearly voting red keeps you alive and ◊◊◊◊ everyone else anyway. If I vote blue I'm putting myself at risk, but it is absolutely certain I put nobody else at risk. That level of certainty is nowhere close if I vote red. I'm sure the multibillionaire techbros will all vote red. Ultimately I guess it's another one of those problems which just reminds us that when team Kant and team Bentham scrimmage there will be blood on the field. I'm guessing blue this time.
It is of course a guess, how nasty is the rest of the world? How thoroughly have they thought about it and how nasty do they think the rest of the world is, and so forth. Clearly if everyone voted blue, everyone would live, and clearly voting red keeps you alive and ◊◊◊◊ everyone else anyway. If I vote blue I'm putting myself at risk, but it is absolutely certain I put nobody else at risk. That level of certainty is nowhere close if I vote red. I'm sure the multibillionaire techbros will all vote red. Ultimately I guess it's another one of those problems which just reminds us that when team Kant and team Bentham scrimmage there will be blood on the field. I'm guessing blue this time.
Reformed Offlian
Illuminator
Rumor has it that Bentham refused to press a button, and that you can still see him in his voting booth to this day.
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Red has no threshold for when red pushers die. That's kind of the point.
Reformed Offlian
Illuminator
It certainly wasn't my point.
Reformed Offlian
Illuminator
To go into more detail and less snark:
You were trying to suggest that there was something significant about the fact that a blue result (i.e., everyone survives) doesn't go into effect unless more than 50% vote for it. No ◊◊◊◊, Sherlock! That's how voting works in a two-way race with no opt-out works.
My point was that this is no different than for a red result (i.e., only the red survive), which also does not go into effect unless more than 50% vote for it. This cannot be used as an argument that red is some sort of default outcome.
Last edited:
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Every single blue pusher has voluntarily put themselves in harm's way, on purpose, with intention, knowing the risks. There are no victims.
Generrally, no, I'm not expressing contempt for you for your choice. I'm not assigning malice to your motivations, nor am I trying to bully or shame you into changing your vote.
I am, however, trying to convince you that calling red pushers killers, cowards, and selfish is counterproductive and I'd like you to stop. I'd like you to
It's conceit on your part. You believe that you are better at thinking this through, because you came to a different conclusion. I disagree.
If this scenario involved innocents who didn't know any better, I'd say you had thought more broadly. But since there aren't any innocents, and every single person pushing the blue button is doing so intentionally and with the full and complete awareness that they're voluntarily placing themselves at risk of death when there is a completely safe option available... well... I disagree that you've "thought through farther".
Let me ask you a general question. If a person intentionally does something that they completely know and understand to be dangerous, and when they have an easily available safe alternative available that is equally accessible... are they responsible for the consequences of their own choice?
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
It was in a post that you completely skipped.
Thank you for confirming.
Now then...
Blue: Everybody survives
Red: Only red voters survive
What scenario results in both labels being true at the same time?
Reformed Offlian
Illuminator
100% of people vote red. Pretty sure everybody understands this by now.