WhiskWraith retuiteado
all these people saying they’d risk their lives for the social good
yet not even 10k could give this guy a heart for providing the discussion for two days
English
WhiskWraith
319 posts
@CptAncapistan Incorrect. The first hypothetical changes the question entirely by making the reds actively kill the blues.
I'm not morally responsible for your suicide. I am morally responsible if I actively kill you even if pressured to do so.
English
These are the two best reframings of the button question I’ve seen. They’re both essentially the same concept, but one makes blue the easy choice and the other makes red the easy choice.
Sorry, I just find this thought experiment fascinating.
Tim Urban@waitbutwhy
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?
English
@bidetblade @waitbutwhy Blues just keep proving how dumb they are.
The reds, who don't trust more than 50% and are risk averse, are going to trust the blues to not harm them? Especially after hearing blue's say they don't want to live in a world with reds.
English
@WhiskWraith @waitbutwhy If the blues and the reds went to war, the blues could just tell the reds: if you surrender we will spare you, but if you fight we will end you. And then all the reds would surrender since it’s the decision that is “optimal” lol
English
Ok, I'm convinced. I want someone like @MrBeast to do this experiment in one of his competitions for like 5 million bucks. If you hit red you stay in, if you hit blue you only stay if half the people also pick blue. What do people do with real stakes on the line beyond virtue signaling for the internet?
Covfefe Anon@CovfefeAnon
This twitter classic "red button / blue button" [everyone who picks blue dies unless more than 50% do; everyone who picks red lives] question is cursed but we've learned a lot about people since it went around on the timeline the last time First to get this out of the way - there is zero actual reason to push blue - none - there is no "payoff to cooperation" being modeled since the payoff on offer - not dying - is the same for both choices. The only rational reason to pick blue is that you *hope* less than 50% of people pick blue so you can end your life and escape the person who is putting you in contrived hypotheticals for his own amusement With that out of the way - what we've learned in the 2 years since this hit the timeline the first time is that many, many people are simply next token predictors and when they see this example they say they will pick the "cooperative" choice (which isn't actually that!) We have also learned that when confronted with the stupidity of this position, they will simply costlessly double down and "argue" about it forever rather than admit error Really, the question is extremely revealing
English
@dadadadaffy @nic_carter The blender version makes it obvious Blue people are dumb. It also tells you that the situation and framing the question is more important for their vote. Meaning a real life situation will change a lot of blue votes.
English
@nic_carter if you changed it to roko's version, very few people will pick blue. The reason they're picking blue is because they don't *feel* it as dangerous. x.com/RokoMijic/stat…
Roko 🐉@RokoMijic
We're doing the "Blender" game again There is a large blender. Everyone in the world has to decide whether to step into the blender. If at least 50% of the people do step into the blender, it will be unable to overcome their inertia to get started, and everyone survives. If less than 50% of the people step into the blender, then they all get blended up into paste and die. People who do not step into the blender suffer no adverse effects. Would you step into the blender? (Blue=step into the blender, Red= don't do that)
English
Red is unambiguously the "game theoretically correct" position, but it's actually encouraging that the majority still picks Blue, because it means that a majority of people are willing to take on meaningful personal risk to save their neighbor, which I think is beautiful
English
@nic_carter It all depends on how the question is framed. Reframe the same question and you can easily get a Blue voter to change. This also means if it was a real life scenario blue voters would change their vote.
English
@ZPostFacto No they don't. Reframe it to a blender or wood chipper and they change their vote. Blues try to emotionally blackmail you with children. Point out the person in charge of the button dilemma is morally responsible for death and they still say reds are killing blues.
English
Imo, most of Team Blue totally understands Red's arguments, but they disagree with the framing or assumptions.
otoh, most Red-pushers I've interacted cannot really articulate what the Blue position is. So they knock down a straw man.
The replies to this post will prove it.
English
@strajk_ @waitbutwhy SAW makes you actively shoot the other person. Me pressing red is not me killing a blue and I would feel zero guilt for pressing red. It's your choice to put yourself at deaths door.
People die from drugs everyday and I don't try to stop them. I'm not killing them.
English
@WhiskWraith @waitbutwhy It doesn't matter who puts me in the danger, once I am in the situation and there is no way out, the danger shifted from the one that caged me to the Red voter.
If SAW gave you a gun, it is still YOUR CHOICE what to do with it.
English
@strajk_ @waitbutwhy The danger is coming from whoever put you into the button dilemma in the first place. Red pushers aren't killing anyone. No one has an obligation to vote blue.
English
@WhiskWraith @waitbutwhy "Choosing suicide", that's not what it was
It was Blue trying to stop the harm, which were Red voters, it was Blue trying to stop murderers to enact their selfish sociopathic tendencies =)
Red IS the danger they're ironically trying to protect themselves from.
English
WhiskWraith retuiteado
If you vote differently in these scenarios congrats you are irrational.
Time to do some introspection and figure out why you respond emotionally to things rather than logically.
English
@plasmarob A lot of "I choose blue but reds need to die"
A lot of "I choose red and everyone should choose red"
English
@dopamine273 Didn't he directly say he was infertile due to the drugs and operations he's had?
English
is there a polymarket for the kid being black
KickChamp👑@Kick_Champ
Clavicular broke down in TEARS after finding out his girlfriend he met 10 days ago is PREGNANT, leaving him overwhelmed and in SHOCK after becoming a father at just 20 years old 👀
English
@kareem_carr "moral injury" WTF is this 💩?
Blue pushers are absolute psychopaths. They are saying red pushers are killing people. Whoever forces the button dilemma is the one who is morally responsible for deaths.
English
If you press blue, the worst case is you die.
If you press red, the worst case is you took part in an action that killed just under half of humanity.
Clicking blue minimizes the worst-case moral injury.
It says you’d rather die than risk contributing to the death of another.
Tim Urban@waitbutwhy
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?
English
@OrthoJayFrog Nah, when you get older your back is going to be in bad shape. Get a halfway decent chair.
English
@Amalgamyte_VT This is where I call people psychopaths. I'm not killing anyone even if I push the red button. I won't feel guilty at all. They chose to kill themselves. Why would feel guilty about that?
Oh but the "moral" people pushing blue insist I am evil and am killing people. No, I'm not.
English
Suicidal empathy. If everyone presses the blue button, everyone survives. Versus taking the chance that by pressing the red, you were the one that tipped the favor, and all the blue button pushers die. You would survive no matter what by pressing red, but would you be able to carry the guilt of mass murder for the rest of your life? Even if 1% of the global population pressed blue, that's still a lot of people dead, partially by your own hand
vittorio@IterIntellectus
why would anyone even press blue?!?
English
@oliveegger Blue pushers add children into the mix which any reasonable system does not have children vote thus changing the entire question.
Even if kids are in the mix, you still pick red on the chance your child chooses red. They need a parent.
At every level red is correct.
English
@oliveegger The problem is that I'm simply rephrasing the question. I'm not changing the question at all. I'm making it obvious the blue pushers are dumb. They change their votes realizing they are dumb.
Meanwhile blue pushers have to change the question entirely to justify their answer.
English
@alex_libertybtc @BobMurphyEcon America+Europe is like 1/8th the population. You can't even guarantee America+Europe is 51% blue.
The only way you choose blue is if you have a small child and you can't pick their vote. Even then you choose red, because if the child does choose red they need a parent.
English
@BobMurphyEcon Haha. Red is still obvious. I would never change my vote to the irrational blue answer with my only hope being that the majority of people are irrational. Plus, if people were choosing in real life, you can bet a majority would vote red.
English
OK I think I'm done. I believe the exchange below summarizes much of the conversation. (Note: I'm not even saying Red is obvious anymore, largely because so many people are pushing Blue.)
English
TIL Blue pushers are psychopaths.
Change it to a blender and they change their vote. Same question different vote.
Not only that. They choose the "moral" option then call red pushers evil and openly say the world is better off without red pushers.
Absolute psychopaths.
English