Support NeoGAF

[Three]

if there was no red button you would still vote by abstaining. not pressing blue has the same result as pressing red in the original post.
it's the same problem, just with a different phrasing.
that's the point.

by rephrasing it without the red button being there it makes blue look way more insane than before.

there are still 2 teams, just that 1 team actively pressed a potential suicide button, while the other side didn't press it.

The red button is as much a "murder" button as the blue is a "suicide" one.

Pressing red changes the outcome so it is not the "I'm not participating in this" button.

 

[near]

if there was no red button you would still vote by abstaining. not pressing blue has the same result as pressing red in the original post.
it's the same problem, just with a different phrasing.
that's the point.

by rephrasing it without the red button being there it makes blue look way more insane than before.

there are still 2 teams, just that 1 team actively pressed a potential suicide button, while the other side didn't press it.

The original scenario doesn't give you the option to refuse, you only have the two options, and both choices contribute to the outcome and you have to choose. Not have the red button would change the entire dilemma. So I'm not sure what you mean.

 

[nkarafo]

This poll needs to be done in every country and discussed everywhere so we can all be prepared in case it really happens.

 

[kevboard]

The red button is as much a "murder" button as the blue is a "suicide" one.

Pressing red changes the outcome so it is not the "I'm not participating in this" button.

not participating always changes the outcome of something.
every situation you can think of is altered in some way by you refusing to participate in it.

you could go to Ukraine and fight with the foreign legion against Russia... or you don't. you not participating will change the outcome, even if it's just a small change in the outcome.

you could be the one person tipping the scale, or the scale would have tipped in either direction with or without you, you can't know.


the red button is the same as abstaining and staying home.
the blue button is the same as running into war with the chance of dying. the more people that run into war with you the more likely it is that any one soldier will survive.

 

[Trilobit]

Bad thing happens to someone + you don't allow it to happen to you = You must be OK it happened to someone.

Right now most people are not volunteering their savings and time to travel to dangerous African or MENA countries to try to save as many kids as possible. They are more comfortable with just amassing wealth for themselves in the safety of their own countries, and I'm also talking about middle-class people and below.

With the logic some people have, it means that the majority of people (and probably including themselves) are perfectly happy with a lot of kids dying. But few people are actually okay with kids dying, despite acting selfishly.

 

[Three]

not participating always changes the outcome of something.
every situation you can think of is altered in some way by you refusing to participate in it.

you could go to Ukraine and fight with the foreign legion against Russia... or you don't. you not participating will change the outcome, even if it's just a small change in the outcome.

you could be the one person tipping the scale, or the scale would have tipped in either direction with or without you, you can't know.


the red button is the same as abstaining and staying home.
the blue button is the same as running into war with the chance of dying. the more people that run into war with you the more likely it is that any one soldier will survive.

Not really. By voting red you are directly tipping the scale to those voting blue being killed. This is not the same as abstaining. Abstaining is not voting at all or not fighting the war on either side. The former is not permitted in this theoretical game so you are very much tipping the scale.

 

[chromhound]

 

[IDKFA]

For you it's still 50% because you don't know and choice is binary.

It's not completely random but he's saying if you don't know your family/friends choice well it's a simple 50/50 chance. If somebody asked me what would my parents or siblings vote it would be hard for me to guess which they would vote so I would assume 50/50.

Sorry, but I still disagree.

In probability, a 50/50 chance (like a coin flip) only exists when there are two outcomes and zero influence or bias toward either one. But as soon as you add a logical reward or a penalty, (in this case, death) it stops being a 50/50 chance and becomes a behavioral calculation.

In fact, if this was real, I am almost certain a vast majority of planet would pick red.

The reason being is because if you pick red, you survive whatever the outcome. If you pick blue, you only survive if a majority of the world picks blue, otherwise you're dead. With stakes that high, I am confident there is a far greater probability that my family will pick red.

 

[kevboard]

Not really. By voting red you are directly tipping the scale to those voting blue being killed. This is not the same as abstaining. Abstaining is not voting at all or not fighting the war on either side. The former is not permitted in this theoretical game so you are very much tipping the scale.

not voting at all would have the same outcome as pressing red.

the phrasing says that more than 50% of humanity needs to press blue. not pressing blue is therefore the same as pressing red.
just like you have the option to help someone in distress, or not helping.

yes the original phrasing says you have to press one of the buttons, but if we take away red and only present blue, asking you to chose to press it or not, the actual situation you're in is still the same... we simply replaced the red button with you walking away instead.

again, you are always influencing the outcome. it doesn't matter if there is a red button or not. even if we gave you the third option, Red, Blue or walking away, blue would still need more than 50% of the vote to survive. so what difference does it make if you press red or walk away?

in many real world scenarios, abstaining and deciding against something will result in the same tangible influence on that situation.

 

[Three]

Sorry, but I still disagree.

In probability, a 50/50 chance (like a coin flip) only exists when there are two outcomes and zero influence or bias toward either one. But as soon as you add a logical reward or a penalty, (in this case, death) it stops being a 50/50 chance and becomes a behavioral calculation.

I agree with all that but assume you don't know the behavioural calculation and rely on chance alone. That was Bojji 's point. If you had a dog and you showed it two stuffed animals you don't know which it would pick so you assume no bias and that it is 50/50 before you did the behavioural study. In this case the behavioural study is the result of this test to begin with. How on earth could you assume to know it before doing it?

In fact, if this was real, I am almost certain a vast majority of planet would pick red.

The reason being is because if you pick red, you survive whatever the outcome. If you pick blue, you only survive if a majority of the world picks blue, otherwise you're dead. With stakes that high, I am confident there is a far greater probability that my family will pick red.

I don't think most of the world would pick red. In fact the majority picked blue in the original question on twitter. Only after having it explained to some would this possibly change the outcome. They can be persuaded to pick red thus changing their behaviour and with it the outcome.

 

[Three]

not voting at all would have the same outcome as pressing red.

the phrasing says that more than 50% of humanity needs to press blue. not pressing blue is therefore the same as pressing red.
just like you have the option to help someone in distress, or not helping.

It's not. Not voting would have no effect on the outcome. Pressing red changes the outcome and fate of those voting blue.

yes the original phrasing says you have to press one of the buttons, but if we take away red and only present blue, asking you to chose to press it or not, the actual situation you're in is still the same... we simply replaced the red button with you walking away instead.

That would be changing the situation. If the person knows that walking away is a red vote they might press the blue button. If they walk away and it doesn't count as a red vote at all then that is abstaining. These are not the same thing.

again, you are always influencing the outcome. it doesn't matter if there is a red button or not. even if we gave you the third option, Red, Blue or walking away, blue would still need more than 50% of the vote to survive. so what difference does it make if you press red or walk away?

in many real world scenarios, abstaining and deciding against something will result in the same tangible influence on that situation.

The difference is that if I press red I'm directly tipping the scale. If I walk away I do not influence the outcome at all in either direction. Voting red in this 3 options scenario would simply be "I choose to murder those voting blue just because I'm a menace".

 

[kevboard]

That would be changing the situation. If the person knows that walking away is a red vote they might press the blue button. If they walk away and it doesn't count as a red vote at all then that is abstaining. These are not the same thing.

walking away is the same as pressing red as more than 50% would need to press blue for blue to survive.

the person knows that anyone who presses blue dies if less than 50% of humanity presses blue as well.

therefore walking away is identical to pressing red in this modified scenario.

The difference is that if I press red I'm directly tipping the scale. If I walk away I do not influence the outcome at all in either direction. Voting red in this 3 options scenario would simply be "I choose to murder those voting blue just because I'm a menace".

no you're not. literally not. if 50% of humanity needs to press blue in order for everyone who pressed blue to survive, then pressing red or walking away have the exact same influence on blue button pressers surviving or not.

 

[Tams]

Here's one for you.

If we're using that analogy, you can be red, get up and remove yourself from the situation (the only sure way to not be facing that psychos wrath) and as you leave tell her she can either come with you and live or stay and maybe be murdered.

 

[Three]

walking away is the same as pressing red as more than 50% would need to press blue for blue to survive.

the person knows that anyone who presses blue dies if less than 50% of humanity presses blue as well.

therefore walking away is identical to pressing red in this modified scenario.

You're just changing the physical action to a vote and claiming it's the same as abstaining. It's not at all.

no you're not. literally not. if 50% of humanity needs to press blue in order for everyone who pressed blue to survive, then pressing red or walking away have the exact same influence on blue button pressers surviving or not.

It's not 50% of humanity. It's 50% of the votes OR 50% of humanity if everybody is forced to vote. I'm not sure why you're trying to conflate that with abstaining though. If the person knows that walking away is a red vote then it's a red vote regardless. You can even add an arbitrary 4th option of jumping through a hoop that counts as a red vote. it doesn't make a difference. This is not the same as a true third option of not tipping the scale by abstaining.

 

[kevboard]

You're just changing the physical action to a vote and claiming it's the same as abstaining. It's not at all.

yes... because abstaining from a situation ALWAYS influences that situation...

It's not 50% of humanity. It's 50% of the votes OR 50% of humanity if everybody is forced to vote. I'm not sure why you're trying to conflate that with abstaining though. If the person knows that walking away is a red vote then it's a red vote regardless. You can even add an arbitrary 4th option of jumping through a hoop that counts as a red vote. it doesn't make a difference. This is not the same as a true third option of not tipping the scale by abstaining.

that's why I say it's a REPHRASING not a new problem.
if you REPHRASE the question then blue looks like an insane choice. that's the point.

if you simply tell people, "press blue and you might die if more than half of humanity doesn't press it as well. do you want to press blue?". would people press blue?

the point is to be the exact same situation just rephrased. not participating is also a vote in every scenario in the real world.
if you live in a democratic country and don't vote then you are actively influencing the outcome of the election.

that's why I rephrased the situation, to look at it from a different perspective. not to change the situation.

 

[John Bilbo]

It's not 50% of humanity. It's 50% of the votes OR 50% of humanity if everybody is forced to vote. I'm not sure why you're trying to conflate that with abstaining though. If the person knows that walking away is a red vote then it's a red vote regardless.

"Everyone in the world has to take a private vote by pressing a red or blue button. If more than 50% of people press the blue button, everyone survives. If less than 50% of people press the blue button, only people who pressed the red button survive. Which button would you press?"

From Tim Urban on Twitter.

I think for the main scenario:

No foreknowledge or ability to discuss strategy with other people. Everyone chooses at the same time. Children also must choose. Babies are given the Lone Wolf and Cub treatment and can signal by crawling to a prop visually representing each respective choice, something appropriate for their development. Abstaining will result in the person's death.

We can discuss alternate scenarios too though like one where the choice happens one month after announcement.

It is more than 50% of people pressing the blue button = everyone lives. And abstaining from the vote will kill you.

Now the question is whether you are still counted as a person if you abstain from the vote and die from abstaining. This is not made clear in the rules.

If you still are counted as part of the people after abstaining and dying, you influence the vote in a similar fashion as the red vote but you yourself just die.

In this scenario the blue vote seems even more insane.

But if you lose your personhood when abstaining and dying, you are disqualified entirely of the final outcome.

 

[John Bilbo]

Will the people who died from abstaining come back to life if team blue wins the vote?

 

[Three]

yes... because abstaining from a situation ALWAYS influences that situation...

it doesn't because the outcome is unaffected by you abstaining. To the outcome it's like you never even existed. I don't think you understand the concept of it.

that's why I say it's a REPHRASING not a new problem.
if you REPHRASE the question then blue looks like an insane choice. that's the point.

if you simply tell people, "press blue and you might die if more than half of humanity doesn't press it as well. do you want to press blue?". would people press blue?

Phrasing changes outcomes I agree but this is not the same as abstaining so why do you claim it's the same as abstaining when it's not?

Conversely you can ask:

"press this red button and you might kill the minority of humanity who haven't pressed it. Do you want to press red?"

Walking away now counts as blue because that's the same as abstaining to you. The red button is now a murder button.

the point is to be the exact same situation just rephrased. not participating is also a vote in every scenario in the real world.
if you live in a democratic country and don't vote then you are actively influencing the outcome of the election.

No you're not. It's the same as you not existing at all. I don't think you get it. You have made no difference to the outcome.

that's why I rephrased the situation, to look at it from a different perspective. not to change the situation.

Rephrasing doesn't change the fact that abstaining is not the same as voting and influencing an outcome.

 

[IDKFA]

I agree with all that but assume you don't know the behavioural calculation and rely on chance alone. That was Bojji 's point.

But they are my family. I can never know fully, but I could form a decent idea on what button they would pick because I know them well. Therefore it stops becoming a 50/50 chance.

If you had a dog and you showed it two stuffed animals you don't know which it would pick so you assume no bias and that it is 50/50 before you did the behavioural study. In this case the behavioural study is the result of this test to begin with. How on earth could you assume to know it before doing it?

The dog example makes no sense here.

I know my family and I know there is a far more likely chance they push red than blue, thus it is no longer 50/50.

I don't think most of the world would pick red.

If we assume the rules are clealry explained, then a majority are picking red.

Either way, if the majority did pick blue, then it wouldn't matter to the people who voted red. They live regardless.

In fact the majority picked blue in the original question on twitter.

Most people on GAF voted red, but I'm not shocked. I always knew a majority of GAF members had higher IQs than other social media platforms.

 

[LordCBH]

 

[Bojji]

Most people on GAF voted red, but I'm not shocked. I always knew a majority of GAF members had higher IQs than other social media platforms.

Higher IQ or bigger percentage of sociopaths and people with Antisocial Personality Disorder?

GAF have no children (or even young people based on poll in a different thread), no (truly) old people and first and foremost - no women, that have higher empathy levels (for better or worse in some cases). Sample is non representative.

 

[kevboard]

No you're not. It's the same as you not existing at all. I don't think you get it. You have made no difference to the outcome.

but you do exist and you could go and vote in the election. you not voting means your missing vote could tip the scale one way or another. so yes, it influences the outcome.

many analysts believe that Brexit happened because a lot of younger voters who were in favour of remaining in the EU didn't go and actually vote to remain. almost 30% of the UK didn't participate, and the majority of them were younger voters that in most cases ideologically were in favour of remaining.

this means that it is possible that more people in the UK were in favour ot remaining in the EU than against it, yet the vote went against it, possibly due to the people abstaining from the vote.

in the real world every single decision you make has an influence on everything around you. you can not escape it.


but again that's a different scenario. all I wanted to do is rephrase the original scenario.

 

[Three]

But they are my family. I can never know fully, but I could form a decent idea on what button they would pick because I know them well. Therefore it stops becoming a 50/50 chance.



The dog example makes no sense here.

I know my family and I know there is a far more likely chance they push red than blue, thus it is no longer 50/50.



If we assume the rules are clealry explained, then a majority are picking red.

Either way, if the majority did pick blue, then it wouldn't matter to the people who voted red. They live regardless.



Most people on GAF voted red, but I'm not shocked. I always knew a majority of GAF members had higher IQs than other social media platforms.

I know that it's possible to predict behaviour especially if you know the person or their thinking. his claim of a 50% chance was based on not knowing/predicting the result though, that was his/my point. Not everybody can predict other's choices with any kind of accuracy especially on such a dividing question like this. As I said I don't think I would know my parents vote. Friends I would have no chance, especially in a private vote setting which might be different to what a person tells you when telling you their choice openly.

 

[Bojji]

I know that it's possible to predict behaviour especially if you know the person or their thinking. his claim of a 50% chance was based on not knowing/predicting the result though, that was his/my point. Not everybody can predict other's choices with any kind of accuracy especially on such a dividing question like this. As I said I don't think I would know my parents vote. Friends I would have no chance, especially in a private vote setting which might be different to what a person tells you when telling you their choice openly.

And you can predict with some accuracy how your family would vote in presidential elections some referendum etc. Not answer to the question they see for the first time in their lives.

 

[Denton]

Adults should be fully aware and accepting of the consequences of their actions. I support their right to make that choice for whatever reason, but given they have just as much ability to make the alternative choice as I would, do not respect any expectation they might have that I should risk my life to protect them should their idealism fail to achieve what they'd hoped.

That's great. So fucking what? If the scenario happened, shit ton of people - billions likely - would vote blue. Voting red and getting 51% still kills them. You can wax poetic about how it is their fault all you want, but they are still dead, and you still live in post-apocalyptic hellscape.

Question is, do you really think there will be enough of them who will press blue so you can have a chance to not die with them?

If yes, sure it makes sense. I would also take that chance. But if not then would you still do it? And if yes then why?

I think there is probably 55/45 probability that blue would win.
But even if it lost, I probably wouldn't want to live in a world where millions/billions died and I contributed to it. Especially if some of the dead would be my own family members and friends, because I am pretty sure at least some of them would also vote blue.

 

[IDKFA]

I know that it's possible to predict behaviour especially if you know the person or their thinking. his claim of a 50% chance was based on not knowing/predicting the result though, that was his/my point. Not everybody can predict other's choices with any kind of accuracy especially on such a dividing question like this. As I said I don't think I would know my parents vote. Friends I would have no chance, especially in a private vote setting which might be different to what a person tells you when telling you their choice openly.

Higher IQ or bigger percentage of sociopaths and people with Antisocial Personality Disorder?

GAF have no children (or even young people based on poll in a different thread), no (truly) old people and first and foremost - no women, that have higher empathy levels (for better or worse in some cases). Sample is non representative.

You are right that no one can predict individual choices with total accuracy, but when you zoom out to 8 billion people, the 50/50 chance actually disappears. This is because human behavior isn't random (like a coin) and is driven by incentives.

For a 50/50 split to happen, the choices have to be equally attractive. In this game, they aren't. One choice is guaranteed survival and the other is possible survival or death. One is high risk and the other is low risk.

If we ran this 1,000 times, you would almost never see a 50% result. In fact, I would bet Red wins in a landslide 80% of the time because people are afraid of the guaranteed death of a failed blue vote.

 

[nkarafo]

I think there is probably 55/45 probability that blue would win.

Υou have waaaay much more faith in humanity than me.

My bet would be 20/80 for red.

 

[TheUnicornGuy]

The more I read this thread the more retarded the whole thing seems. You have people arguing both sides of a non existent situation which has zero effect and zero consequences. You might as well ask "would you kill a billion people to get a big mac", in which case I'm saying yes, because I want one.

 

[Bojji]

You are right that no one can predict individual choices with total accuracy, but when you zoom out to 8 billion people, the 50/50 chance actually disappears. This is because human behavior isn't random (like a coin) and is driven by incentives.

For a 50/50 split to happen, the choices have to be equally attractive. In this game, they aren't. One choice is guaranteed survival and the other is possible survival or death. One is high risk and the other is low risk.

If we ran this 1,000 times, you would almost never see a 50% result. In fact, I would bet Red wins in a landslide 80% of the time because people are afraid of the guaranteed death of a failed blue vote.

Υou have waaaay much more faith in humanity than me.

My bet would be 20/80 for red.

Original vote with almost 100k people voting has close to 60/40 results for blue.

 

[nkarafo]

Original vote with almost 100k people voting has close to 60/40 results for blue.

Want me to say again how this in no way reflect a real case scenario?

 

[Bojji]

Want me to say again how this in no way reflect a real case scenario?

It's much better reflection of real world scenario than GAF vote.

 

[nkarafo]

It's much better reflection of real world scenario than GAF vote.

Neither reflect a real case scenario.

 

[Three]

but you do exist and you could go and vote in the election. you not voting means your missing vote could tip the scale one way or another. so yes, it influences the outcome.

I've tried to explain the difference from abstaining and counting towards the outcome as best I can and I'm not sure how else to explain it at this point. You can choose to abstain and not influence an outcome at all. My vote can be that I wish to not influence the result. This is not tipping the scale at all and my vote is not really "missing", my vote is that I don't want to influence the result either way. That is a true third option. Your idea of walking away and being counted as a red vote is not. In the original theoretical question the abstaining option doesn't exist because you're forced to vote. "Everyone in the world has to take a private vote" is the opening line. "Everyone on Earth has to press a button" the title of the thread. I'm just trying to figure out why you created an arbitrary third action for a red vote and even consider pressing the red button as an abstaining option.

many analysts believe that Brexit happened because a lot of younger voters who were in favour of remaining in the EU didn't go and actually vote to remain. almost 30% of the UK didn't participate, and the majority of them were younger voters that in most cases ideologically were in favour of remaining.

I get that somebody being lazy and not voting even though they do wish to tip the scale exist. I'm trying to make the point that this isn't the same thing as abstaining and choosing not to tip it. You not voting doesn't count as a vote for brexit does it? Somebody voting remain isn't the "I'm not participating in this" vote either is it? You made the claim that pressing red is the "I'm not participating in this" button when you're actively voting and influencing the outcome. It's not the same as abstaining or not participating.

this means that it is possible that more people in the UK were in favour ot remaining in the EU than against it, yet the vote went against it, possibly due to the people abstaining from the vote.

in the real world every single decision you make has an influence on everything around you. you can not escape it.


but again that's a different scenario. all I wanted to do is rephrase the original scenario.

Those people who were in favour but didn't vote were not abstaining votes. It was a decision to tip the scale which they didn't act on. They still will not influence the outcome though unlike pressing the red button.

 

[IDKFA]

Original vote with almost 100k people voting has close to 60/40 results for blue.

Because it's not real. On social media in a fun poll with zero risk, people will likely vote blue to take the moral high ground. This is virtue signaling bias where people vote for who they want to be, not necessarily who they are.

If this were real, then based on the basic survival instinct we all have, I very much doubt blue would win because it's a gamble based on blind trust.

In a scenario where you cannot communicate, the only stable strategy is the one that doesn't require you to make a blind and potentially fatal leap of faith is hitting that red button.

When the stakes involve death, the human brain isn't wired for hopeful gambling. It's wired for risk mitigation and survival. This is why if this were real, red would always win.

 

[Bojji]

Because it's not real. On social media in a fun poll with zero risk, people will likely vote blue to take the moral high ground. This is virtue signaling bias where people vote for who they want to be, not necessarily who they are.

If this were real, then based on the basic survival instinct we all have, I very much doubt blue would win because it's a gamble based on blind trust.

In a scenario where you cannot communicate, the only stable strategy is the one that doesn't require you to make a blind and potentially fatal leap of faith is hitting that red button.

When the stakes involve death, the human brain isn't wired for hopeful gambling. It's wired for risk mitigation and survival. This is why if this were real, red would always win.

Remember that poll was done on X, not bluesky. So you can't argue that only virtue signalers were voting blue.

I don't think red would win real world voting, but we will never know...

 

[HRK69]

Or you could be alive in a world where no-one died, you seem to have forgotten that option.
Ultimately this is a glass half full, glass half empty question - people aren't really choosing the best scenario - they are picking the one they think would win. If you assume red would win - picking red is the only logical choice. If you think blue would win picking blue is the obvious choice if only so you can look your kids in the eye afterwards.
Ultimately no-ones single vote would make a real difference in an 8 billion vote poll - the answer to the question is about what you think of yourself and what you think of other people.

You just proved my point. If my single vote doesn't tip the 8 billion scale, then picking blue is just an empty, symbolic gesture

If blue wins, I live whether I picked red or blue. But if blue loses, picking blue means I'm dead for the sake of a 'sentiment'

Red is the only choice that doesn't rely on a 'hope' that might not exist

Ultimately, I get the optimism. It's a nice thought to imagine a world where everyone trusts each other enough to hit blue and move on. There's definitely a certain strength in that kind of collective faith even if my math lands me on a different button

 

[Denton]

You just proved my point. If my single vote doesn't tip the 8 billion scale, then picking blue is just an empty, symbolic gesture

If blue wins, I live whether I picked red or blue. But if blue loses, picking blue means I'm dead for the sake of a 'sentiment'

Red is the only choice that doesn't rely on a 'hope' that might not exist

World is extremely divided, lot of elections lately get decided with razor thin margins;
Reds better fucking hope blue wins because they do not want to live in the red only world.

 

[HeisenbergFX4]

Red team

 

[Three]

Remember that poll was done on X, not bluesky. So you can't argue that only virtue signalers were voting blue.

I don't think red would win real world voting, but we will never know...

A lot of people here seem to think "expected utility theory" always matches empirical results when it comes to human psychology and they're basing their votes on that alone. The truth is that it doesn't and it's always a mix even if the choice seems lowest risk to them. I don't think picking red is even the lowest risk because you would almost certainly lose people you cared about.

Look at Newcombs paradox for example or the Allais paradox. not all people make the decision where they value certainty when it comes to Newcomb or in the Allais paradox where they overvalue certainty/zero effect but it doesn't maximise utility.

here people would rather pick the zero risk (to themselves) choice but it would almost certainly mean people would die (most likely even people they know). In Newcombs paradox you would expect people to pick (box b) blue because everybody lives (you maximise utility) but unfortunately some will choose not to pick it regardless due to 'dominance'.

 

[Jenov]

Blue. And if red people win, then I'm fine with leaving them to a hell fate on earth where they can fight amongst their selfish selves to miserable death.

 

[Dice]

A lot of people here seem to think "expected utility theory" always matches empirical results when it comes to human psychology and they're basing their votes on that alone. The truth is that it doesn't and it's always a mix even if the choice seems lowest risk to them. I don't think picking red is even the lowest risk because you would almost certainly lose people you cared about.

Yet I would still be alive to manage the disappointment. I grew up in the hood. I have lost plenty of people in life. Some by tragedy, some by betrayal, many by their desired utility to get from others changing to something different than what they valued about me. Tribalism makes a person change their tribe when their survival gets staked on available opportunity and not all are blessed to develop and reside within contexts so stable that people stay devoted for life. Humanity is fickle and resilient. I have known the fickle and have been the resilient. I would manage just fine and have friends in the newly shaped world, as I always have.

Blue. And if red people win, then I'm fine with leaving them to a hell fate on earth where they can fight amongst their selfish selves to miserable death.

A world where people are less inclined to be all up in imposing on other's business seems like it would have upsides, although I wonder if people would keep their inclinations or if some would shift their personality to fill in the roles? Human psychology is very complex and it is possible that covering the bases of familiar archetypes is part of us as a collective.

 

[Atrus]

The result is going to be based on trust and messaging. Blue is the overall better choice since it doesn't reduce the human population unnecessarily and accidentally, but you're going to get people with conspiracy theories or ideologies that will frustrate the messaging and make the Red choice competitive.

If Blue turns you gay or is an evil western lie or some other nonsense, people will pile into Red and a sizeable chunk of the world dies, throwing the globalized economy into chaos. Ultimately, choosing Red isn't consequence free unless you live in a place like North Korea and vote with Kim Jong Un. The concerted global effort for Blue will likely hold Red voters accountable once they survive, especially since duress is not a valid defense for murder in most legal systems.

 

[Three]

Yet I would still be alive to manage the disappointment. I grew up in the hood. I have lost plenty of people in life.

Some by tragedy, some by betrayal, many by their desired utility to get from others changing to something different than what they valued about me. Tribalism makes a person change their tribe when their survival gets staked on available opportunity and not all are blessed to develop and reside within contexts so stable that people stay devoted for life. Humanity is fickle and resilient. I have known the fickle and have been the resilient. I would manage just fine and have friends in the newly shaped world, as I always have.

A world where people are less inclined to be all up in imposing on other's business seems like it would have upsides, although I wonder if people would keep their inclinations or if some would shift their personality to fill in the roles? Human psychology is very complex and it is possible that covering the bases of familiar archetypes is part of us as a collective.

Whether you can live with yourself after the fact wasn't really my point. Expected utility theory is about maximising gain (utility) not about using others. It was just to demonstrate that as you say people are fickle and other decision theory paradoxes show this fickle behaviour. People are inconsistent and often make stupid decisions trying to be clever.

You're in a game where there are no winning odds, only losses or status quo. People pressing red are voting for a loss because it provides certainty effect/zero effect for a predicted greater loss (to them), not realising they are the risk creators in this losing game to begin with. If everyone was truly smart and relied on causal decision theory or possibly even evidential decision theory (if "news" is that red is the minority) they would pick blue but they pick red.

This decision theory problem can be broken down into 3 outcomes.

(Nothing changes) (a loss) (a greater loss)

What is a loss or a greater loss depends on your world view but I'm assuming the person voting considers himself/herself dying the greater loss.

Most people when presented with 3 options like this would pick nothing changes but because some people don't want "a greater loss" with certainty they pick "a loss" and subsequently increase their probability of that loss. It's fickle human behaviour. It's neglect of causal decision theory with no evidential decision theory to base it on either leading to a poor outcome.

 

[Major Insano]

Ultimately, choosing Red isn't consequence free unless you live in a place like North Korea and vote with Kim Jong Un. The concerted global effort for Blue will likely hold Red voters accountable once they survive, especially since duress is not a valid defense for murder in most legal systems.

Why would there be legal consequences for red if blue won? Everybody was forced by the state to make a choice on which button to press. You can't hold them accountable when they were compelled to act by state authority.
There might be some social consequences, much like voting choices today, but the responsibility for the deaths would only be on the authority that implemented this system and the people who would've 'pulled the trigger' on the blue.

And duress is absolutely a valid defense in most legal systems. It might not prove innocence, but it can prove there was no premeditation.

 

[IDKFA]

Remember that poll was done on X, not bluesky. So you can't argue that only virtue signalers were voting blue.

I don't think red would win real world voting, but we will never know...

Doesn't matter if it was X, Bluesky, Insta......as it's not real it's not a fair reflection of human behavior.

Red would absolutely win in real world voting because it removes the risk of death.

What makes you think blue would win besides the poll on X?

 

[thief183]

World is extremely divided, lot of elections lately get decided with razor thin margins;
Reds better fucking hope blue wins because they do not want to live in the red only world.

Exactly, living in a world with only red ppl would be a nightmare.

 

[Bojji]

Doesn't matter if it was X, Bluesky, Insta......as it's not real it's not a fair reflection of human behavior.

Red would absolutely win in real world voting because it removes the risk of death.

What makes you think blue would win besides the poll on X?

Like I said, empathy about your family members - some of them will choose blue by accident, some of them will not understand the question, some of them would want "good" choice to win.

Women (over 4 billion people) are way more oriented towards other people then men, especially their family members, our brains are wired differently and GAF doesn't represent that. If Red wins YOU WILL lose some people that you know, maybe even your closest family members.

All the men that that throws themselves into danger to help others would also vote blue, same for old people that usually put their their families before them. Red vote winning would mean that the most selfish and "evil" people are left on the planet - good luck!

 

[Wildebeest]

If the blue voters die you are left with the egoists who think that everything revolves around them. You not giving them attention, your problem. You not enabling the lifestyle they want, your problem. You get Karen world. Blue people are the ones who say, live and let live.

 

[IDKFA]

All the men that that throws themselves into danger to help others would also vote blue, same for old people that usually put their their families before them. Red vote winning would mean that the most selfish and "evil" people are left on the planet - good luck!

That's a very narrow mindset to assume if one is evil or selfish by pushing the red button.

Choosing to survive when you lack faith in a massive, uncoordinated group is a defensive maneuver, not necessarily a malicious one.

If the majority chooses red it means there is a collective lack of trust. This tracks human behavior because we're tribal and naturally distrust each other.

Red wins. Always. You can say that women are more empathetic etc, but it boils down to a fear cascade. If I think there's even a 10% chance that the world is more than 50% selfish, then blue becomes a suicide button.

In a group of 10 friends, blue wins easily. In a group of 8 billion strangers who cannot talk to each other, the spiral of distrust almost always takes over. People don't press red because they are evil, but do so because they are terrified that everyone else will.

 

[Bojji]

That's a very narrow mindset to assume if one is evil or selfish by pushing the red button.

Choosing to survive when you lack faith in a massive, uncoordinated group is a defensive maneuver, not necessarily a malicious one.

If the majority chooses red it means there is a collective lack of trust. This tracks human behavior because we're tribal and naturally distrust each other.

Red wins. Always. You can say that women are more empathetic etc, but it boils down to a fear cascade. If I think there's even a 10% chance that the world is more than 50% selfish, then blue becomes a suicide button.

In a group of 10 friends, blue wins easily. In a group of 8 billion strangers who cannot talk to each other, the spiral of distrust almost always takes over. People don't press red because they are evil, but do so because they are terrified that everyone else will.

We are tribal but our natural habitat were groups of ~100 people that would have to agree on most things and help each other to survive.

People voting would think about their closest groups (family and friends, neighbors, village and so on...) first and foremost, not some hateful Muhhammad in Iraq (or Park Samsung in north korea). And if most people vote so people in "their group" can survive - blue wins.