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

[Emily's Cat]

The same as I have posted, explained, and elaborated on in multiple postings across two threads now.

No. You have absolutely NOT provided any explanation for my question here at all. Not once.

When a 'framing' is incomplete, misleading, deceptive or otherwise does not give a full picture, that is either due to dishonesty or stupidity.

What is incomplete, misleading, or deceptive about either of those scenarios?

What is the LOGICAL difference between these two?
What is FUNCTIONALLY different between them?
In what distribution of selections do they produce DIFFERENT outcomes?

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.​

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

I'm not blaming you for my selection in this specific scenario. I'm calling you out for insulting me and everyone else who voted red in this specific scenario.

On the other hand... You seem to think this is a competition between Blue and Red, and even though Blue "won", you're STILL blaming Red for your win. You're a horribly bad winner.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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?

I would like you to answer directly and clearly just once.

At some point you think you said something. Nevermind that whatever the hell you think you said is clear as mud at midnight... you're just going to continue to regurgitate your claim to have already answered.

Well buddy, you have absolutely not answered this question. Not once have you actually expressed what the difference between those two framing actually is in terms of logic, functionality, or outcome. Not a single time.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

Again, the choice is NOT between everybody survives and only red survive. 49.99% of people could select blue and not survive, therefore "everybody survives" is not the choice. The choice is "take the risk that enough other people engage in risk with you, and then maybe you survive".

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.

It's my ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ OP and my ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ framing. I rather think I'm an expert on what I think and what I intend. If you disagree, I encourage you to sign up for that $1M prize and prove your ESP.

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.

It doesn't need to. It's not incomplete. It's merely worded differently, with different emphasis in its framing.

Reread the scenarios:

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, give me one single example where a distribution of selections produces a DIFFERENT result between those two framings.

Furthermore... you say "it doesn't specify that *all* blue voters survive if more than 50% vote blue". It does if you read and use your brain. It's not logically for functionally different from Framing 1, which does not specify that blue voters die if <50% push that button. It's implied, but not explicitly stated.

Fairly basic logical inference here: A will happen unless B occurs. That translates logically to: If ~B then A. Thus the logical complement: If ~A then B.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

I find it amusing that you leave this so vague and elide identifying who is trying to wriggle out of what.

The framing that I've provided is to illustrate that the outcomes are literally identical in every single possible distribution of votes... and that at least some of the people choosing Blue have done so based on motivated reasoning - they've succumbed to emotional framing. And that's rather evident by the fact that even having "won" they still feel the need to denigrate those who chose differently, and to insult us by calling us killers and cowards.

 

[Darat]

I find it amusing that you leave this so vague and elide identifying who is trying to wriggle out of what.

The framing that I've provided is to illustrate that the outcomes are literally identical in every single possible distribution of votes... and that at least some of the people choosing Blue have done so based on motivated reasoning - they've succumbed to emotional framing. And that's rather evident by the fact that even having "won" they still feel the need to denigrate those who chose differently, and to insult us by calling us killers and cowards.

It was as neutral as I could make it. It’s up to folk to decide if it applies to them or not.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Again, the choice is NOT between everybody survives and only red survive.

Yes It is. Those are explicitly the two outcomes on offer according to the OP. Remember the OP? The two different outcomes, only one of which can prevail. The two outcomes, the decision for which is determined by which buttons people choose to push.

49.99% of people could select blue and not survive, therefore "everybody survives" is not the choice.

Yes, it is their choice. It ends up not being the *outcome* because they didn't win, because they were outvoted by people who chose "only red survive" instead.

That's the way votes usually work: you choose an option, but you only actually get the outcome you chose if you get enough votes. Otherwise, you end up with what the other guys chose.

None of this is hard to grasp.

The choice is "take the risk that enough other people engage in risk with you, and then maybe you survive".

Show me where the OP says anything like that. You keep accusing me of reframing the problem, and doing so dishonestly, yet you are the one who describes the choice in terms the OP doesn't even mention.

It's my ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ OP and my ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ framing.

The OP says what it says, not what you decided later you would prefer it to have said. And since neither the scenario nor the terms in which it is described in the OP are original to you, your intentions are hardly paramount.

 

[Lithrael]

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

Again, this is a strange way to view the dilemma, because with skydiving, there is no threshold percentage of non-skydiving persons that will cause skydiving to become a fatal endeavor.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

It doesn't need to. It's not incomplete. It's merely worded differently, with different emphasis in its framing.

Reread the scenarios:

I did, and stand by what I said. Your framing 2 does not indicate what happens if more than 50% vote blue. At most, it suggests that something other than "all blue voters die" will happen, which is not all of the information the original framing provides.

 

[bruto]

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

Nonsense. Your decision not to skydive has absolutely no effect on the relative safety or hazard of skydiving. I have never skydived, and don't ever plan to. A large majority of the people in the world do not skydive, and yet, one might notice, skydiving is not fatal for all who do it. Nor does any skydiver's decision whether or not to do it have any effect on the hazard to other skydivers. If, suddenly, a majority of the world decided to skydive, it would not guarantee the safety of the pursuit.

You obstinately refuse to acknowledge that in the scenario we're talking about, all decisions are interdependent. The degree of dependence and the argument for a decision can be argued about, but this interdependence exists even if you were to prove to everyone's satisfaction that you are right and others wrong.

 

[Thermal]

I'm not blaming you for my selection in this specific scenario. I'm calling you out for insulting me and everyone else who voted red in this specific scenario.

You seem to have forgotten the order of insulting, here. Team Red was the first in the first poll to call Blues 'dimbulbs' and 'brain-dead virtue signallers', when I was mostly joking around and not calling anyone anything. I took that as a tip that this would be a bare knuckle match, and that's what you belatedly wandered back into, and as I've said more than once now, I stopped cold when you got emotional about it.

So call me maybe if you like, Brittney, but I didn't hear you calling out your insulting kindred spirits. I guess that's a one-way street for you?

On the other hand... You seem to think this is a competition between Blue and Red, and even though Blue "won", you're STILL blaming Red for your win. You're a horribly bad winner.

You are really bad at reading. I don't blame Red for the Blue win. I am still shocked that anyone would vote to have others killed, given an equal choice for all to survive. And spare me another repetition of the risk aversion speech: Reds risk global catastrophe if getting a 51% to abt 80% majority, so you love apocalyptic risk taking. Everyone Survives is the minimal risk option, given that a 100% global Red win is not a possibility.

 

[Thermal]

No. You have absolutely NOT provided any explanation for my question here at all. Not once.

See below where you quote what you say I didn't give you.

What is incomplete, misleading, or deceptive about either of those scenarios?

Myself and others have pointed out that it doesn't even state the result of a Blue win, which is an incredibly dishonest 'framework' because a blue win is far and away the single most desirable outcome. Before you say it, no, a 100% Red win is not a possible outcome on a planetary vote, so by voting Red, you are voting for the deaths of others. Who, shall I remind you, are voting for everyone to survive.

What is the LOGICAL difference between these two?
What is FUNCTIONALLY different between them?
In what distribution of selections do they produce DIFFERENT outcomes?

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.​

Short answer: same as I said above. Longer answer: they are similar, with some typical politician spin put on to mislead.

{Eta: medium answer: I don't care. 'Reframeworking' is evasive used car salesmanship}

I don't understand what this obsession of yours is with 'reframing'. Did you just discover that things can be made to look other than what they are? Cuz I've known that for a long time.

To my way of thinking, the shortest and clearest expression of what the results would be is the best 'framework', and those that try to distort/omit outcomes are deceptive and should be treated as such. The OP says it very clearly, IMO. Red votes for only Red to survive, Blue votes for everyone to survive. That alone should stop anyone from even considering Red any further, since an optimal choice is freely available. Voting against the optimal choice speaks for itself.

Yes, as we said a dozen times, you can only be killed by voting Blue. The flip is that you can only kill by voting Red. Those are the two factors that loom largest. The next largest is that Blue only needs 51% for everyone to survive, while Red needs 100%. Blues odds are dramatically better for everyone to survive. Voting Red is piss-poor odds of any kind of happy ending across the board.

 

[Lithrael]

EC's viewpoint in this entire thread depends on seeing 'pushing the red button' as identical to 'not pushing the blue button' but they are not in fact identical.

EC tries to support the idea that red pushers have nothing to do with what happens to blue pushers, by pointing out that if the choice actually was between 'pushing the blue button' and 'not pushing the blue button' then suddenly some people have no problem with the people who would push no button.

Whereas I would say that 'push' vs 'inaction' is a significantly different scenario.

'Push this or that' maps nicely onto the 'move onto the trapdoor or move onto the platform that sets off the trapdoor' machine, which makes red's contribution hard to ignore. The trapdoor only becomes lethal if more than half of everyone chooses to step onto the platform.

'push this or nothing' would be the same machine but with different starting conditions: where the Dilemma Makers have put everyone on the trapdoor-operating platform, and people have the option of getting up and wandering over onto the trap door. If more than half of the people get up and leave the platform for the trap door, then and only then will the trap door be safe.

This second scenario is the one all of EC's hypotheticals try to evoke (from the blue side). They present red as not only the safe option, but the default option. But in the original dilemma, it is not.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You seem to have forgotten the order of insulting, here. Team Red was the first in the first poll to call Blues 'dimbulbs' and 'brain-dead virtue signallers', when I was mostly joking around and not calling anyone anything.

Wow. The very first post in the original poll calling Blues dimbulbs was #36.
Prior to that we had:

Why is this even a question? Blue. If I pick red and I'm right, I'm stuck with a bunch of psychos.

Half the people in the world are holding guns to the heads of the other half?

If I'm dead, then the people I despise are just as dead to me as I am to them.

Blue: because I'm not quite a total idiot, and I'm confidentish that that is true of a touch more than 50% of humanity.

It's the standard "Homo homini lupus est" attempt to prove that all people are selfish bastards, so it's okay to be one yourself, and only idiots think of humanity as a whole.

Fact is that it takes a lot of disfunctional education to make someone indifferent to their fellow humans.

So you take offense at Blues being called "dimbulb"... but you seem perfectly okay with calling Reds psychos, murderers, despicable, idiots, and selfish bastards.

You also spent several posts cheering for the death of a bunch of people, and celebrating Blues making "sex slaves" out of the Reds after the fact. I'm not sure your concept of what is offensive really bears much resemblance to those of normal people, my pal.

I took that as a tip that this would be a bare knuckle match, and that's what you belatedly wandered back into, and as I've said more than once now, I stopped cold when you got emotional about it.

Dude, you stopped for about three pages before you were right back to it. Also, [many expletives deleted] your "got emotional about it [many more expletives deleted]. Why not just come out with it and tell me I'm making a big deal out of nothing, and I should calm down?

[Near infinite string of very angry expletives deleted]

So call me maybe if you like, Brittney, but I didn't hear you calling out your insulting kindred spirits. I guess that's a one-way street for you?

I spent a whole slew of posts not insulting or calling out anyone at all. Again, you really should review before you go off of memory, as it seems quite flawed. I also have spent many, many posts defending the motivations of Blue button pushers.

I really only started arguing when you and a few others were absolutely dead set on calling all Reds killers, sociopaths, murderers, cowards, and selfish... and you couldn't even have the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ decency to take a step back and pretend to not view them with utter contempt.

You are really bad at reading. I don't blame Red for the Blue win. I am still shocked that anyone would vote to have others killed, given an equal choice for all to survive. And spare me another repetition of the risk aversion speech: Reds risk global catastrophe if getting a 51% to abt 80% majority, so you love apocalyptic risk taking. Everyone Survives is the minimal risk option, given that a 100% global Red win is not a possibility.

See, you pretend like you stopped because I "got emotional about it' [insert a pile of expletives of your choice]... but you CONTINUE to frame it as voting to have others killed.

Quit saying you stopped when you've done nothing of the sort.

 

[Thermal]

Wow. The very first post in the original poll calling Blues dimbulbs was #36.
Prior to that we had:

All posters that quickly left the discussion, I note.

So you take offense

I do not. Bareknuckle is just another kind of fun. You get upset and offended. I laugh a lot.

at Blues being called "dimbulb"... but you seem perfectly okay with calling Reds psychos, murderers, despicable, idiots, and selfish bastards.

And you relish in asking over and over and over why I 'taunt death' and jump in the blender pleading for help and the other silliness.

You also spent several posts cheering for the death of a bunch of people, and celebrating Blues making "sex slaves" out of the Reds after the fact.

That was just directed at Jack-by-the-hedge. He's a bit of a looker.

I'm not sure your concept of what is offensive really bears much resemblance to those of normal people, my pal.

Word. You're learning.

Dude, you stopped for about three pages before you were right back to it. Also, [many expletives deleted] your "got emotional about it [many more expletives deleted]. Why not just come out with it and tell me I'm making a big deal out of nothing, and I should calm down?

I'm keeping time with your "why do you taunt death" bull ◊◊◊◊. Drop your silliness, I'll drop mine. Deal?

[Near infinite string of very angry expletives deleted]

I spent a whole slew of posts not insulting or calling out anyone at all. Again, you really should review before you go off of memory, as it seems quite flawed. I also have spent many, many posts defending the motivations of Blue button pushers.

Yes you did. And your other posts make it crystal clear that it was lip service, and you think blue voters are too stupid to understand the game theory (that we understood before reading the first poll OP), or are begging to be saved from.their foolhardiness (which couldn't be farther from the truth).

I really only started arguing when you and a few others were absolutely dead set on calling all Reds killers, sociopaths, murderers, cowards, and selfish... and you couldn't even have the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ decency to take a step back and pretend to not view them with utter contempt.

You are taking this waaaaay too seriously. It's a pretend poll.

See, you pretend like you stopped because I "got emotional about it' [insert a pile of expletives of your choice]... but you CONTINUE to frame it as voting to have others killed.

It is. Red votes, in your own words for ONLY red to survive. That literally means they vote for blues NOT to survive.

Quit saying you stopped when you've done nothing of the sort.

I've stopped what I said I stopped. The declared effect of the Button push stands.

 

[Thermal]

The thing that I get stuck on is like so:

You have a Blue Button choice for Everyone Survives. That's a nice choice. Then you have the Reds saying "conform to our group or you die". That's all they offer- death by threat. That's what puts Blues in peril.

It does kind of say a lot about how people think, and I can understand why it would be so important to Reds to try and whitewash what their vote does. I mean, a brother gotta sleep at night.

 

[bruto]

The thing that I get stuck on is like so:

You have a Blue Button choice for Everyone Survives. That's a nice choice. Then you have the Reds saying "conform to our group or you die". That's all they offer- death by threat. That's what puts Blues in peril.

It does kind of say a lot about how people think, and I can understand why it would be so important to Reds to try and whitewash what their vote does. I mean, a brother gotta sleep at night.

Kind of going round and round again, but though I think your version describes the outcome pretty well, I don't think it covers all the possible reasons for it coming about. There's a gamble involved, a nice versus smart calculation, and an inverse relation of consequences. Or maybe "smart" is too nice a word. If you fear the rest of the world is as venal as you are, you will vote red. If you are right in your fear, your vote is smart, and if you are wrong, your vote is inconsequential at least on the public end, so seen as an individual event, a red vote is always smart. If you do not fear the rest of the world so much, and value your part in it, you vote blue. If that guess is right, your vote is publicly inconsequential, and if your guess is wrong, you and many others die. From the public records point of view, only a winning red vote is visible, and only a losing blue one.

In the real world, I would expect that hypocrisy should be seriously counted too. Assuming you're not an elitist psychopath who actually wants the population to dwindle, and not a suicidal person who wants to be among the dwindled, you should, if you can, mount a concerted campaign to get everyone to vote blue, but vote red just in case.

 

[Darat]

Out of curiosity I'm wondering if anyone else was surprised about their answer? As I was reading the dilemma I expected I would pick red, after all I consider it to be a rational choice, logically it means I survive no matter what, but when I thought about what my answer would be I realised for me the answer is blue. And that surprised me. One of the reasons to consider such a dilemma is to test your own thinking and this one did that for me.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Out of curiosity I'm wondering if anyone else was surprised about their answer? As I was reading the dilemma I expected I would pick red, after all I consider it to be a rational choice, logically it means I survive no matter what, but when I thought about what my answer would be I realised for me the answer is blue. And that surprised me. One of the reasons to consider such a dilemma is to test your own thinking and this one did that for me.

It never even occurred to me to vote red.

I basically see the question as: "Should any and all blue voters die? Press Red for Yes; Press Blue for No. (P.S.: You'll be fine either way if you vote Red)." The ensuing discussion has been dominated by Team Red members pretending that they only saw the postscript.

 

[Thermal]

Kind of going round and round again, but though I think your version describes the outcome pretty well, I don't think it covers all the possible reasons for it coming about. There's a gamble involved, a nice versus smart calculation, and an inverse relation of consequences. Or maybe "smart" is too nice a word. If you fear the rest of the world is as venal as you are, you will vote red. If you are right in your fear, your vote is smart, and if you are wrong, your vote is inconsequential at least on the public end, so seen as an individual event, a red vote is always smart. If you do not fear the rest of the world so much, and value your part in it, you vote blue. If that guess is right, your vote is publicly inconsequential, and if your guess is wrong, you and many others die. From the public records point of view, only a winning red vote is visible, and only a losing blue one.

I'm a little hung on calling it 'smart'; I mean yeah, from the individuals guaranteed survival standpoint, you can't die. But is it 'smart' to vote for the virtual certainty of societal breakdown? Red's best hope is to barely squeak over the 50 yard line (if poll results are representative), and it seems like being plunged back into the stone age with the people that only look out for themselves is not a smart thing to do.

In the real world, I would expect that hypocrisy should be seriously counted too. Assuming you're not an elitist psychopath who actually wants the population to dwindle, and not a suicidal person who wants to be among the dwindled, you should, if you can, mount a concerted campaign to get everyone to vote blue, but vote red just in case.

I think the opposite, for similar reasoning to Darat's. Maybe Red seems like the cool and rational decision, but anyone contemplating what is likely to happen in a Red win (especially if they have likely Blue loved ones) would be terrified of pushing that button.