..

@prerat @cremieuxrecueil You're wrong actually, when the red button says "nothing happens" it is correct, you have a 100 percent survival chance but when blue is labeled "nothing happens" then you will die if more than half the people logically choose red and GUARANTEE their own safety

@cremieuxrecueil it's all framing effects

If this was how the buttons looked, what portion of humanity would press blue? It'd probably be a large enough number due to mistakes, the young, altruists, etc., such that it remains wise to press blue.

@I_is_like_stuff @JPCatulus @BjornW8916 @redtachyon And if children vote it certainly complicates the whole thing and makes blue logical but im assuming kids who cant understand the problem cant vote for either side and this specific post implies the most intelligent family member votes

@I_is_like_stuff @JPCatulus @BjornW8916 @redtachyon Your fallacy is assuming blue wins and gets every vote, theres a decent chance blue wins but its not gauranteed, so for each person individually voting blue they are risking their family's life on the fact 50 percent of people vote blue, which is risky when red isnt

Red button, blue button, blah blah you know the drill. However, for whatever reason you're also asked to vote on behalf of your child, or any other person that you love very much. What do?

@I_is_like_stuff @JPCatulus @BjornW8916 @redtachyon 30 percent of people or 2.4 BILLION are not "slipping" right when they vote, and the entire concept of voting makes me think it implies the person wanted to choose that

@GSJS_1 @JPCatulus @BjornW8916 @redtachyon And now pretend it's the opposite way around. Everyone. Everyone chose red. Unequivocally unanimous. But 2.4 billion slipped and pressed blue. They all die. For what? Nothing. All because of an accident. That's the risk of red.

@VirtualRageMstr @BobMurphyEcon Actually in the red version that means every single human chose the rational option of simply living and they TRUSTED other people to choose the live button, the blue voters dont have any trust and try to save people which complicates it all

The outcome isn't the same if everyone picks red, while no-one dies in either 100% vote outcome, the social implications are radically different. You either inherit a world where a) everyone trusted everyone to save each other b) everyone trusted the live and let die button Blue is still objectively the better end-game.

OK kids: in this game, if a single person dies, that’s not a Nash equilibrium. Also, if everyone “defects” and picks Red, that’s outcome is the same as if everyone “cooperates.” There are billions of equilibria where more than 50% pick Blue. So, I stand by my claim that this is not a prisoner’s dilemma.

@I_is_like_stuff @JPCatulus @BjornW8916 @redtachyon Everyone survives in both situations but if everyone voted red-red then they risked absolutely nothing and just chose to live, but if its blue-blue that means everyone bet their whole family's life on the fact 50 percent wouldnt choose to save themselves.

@JPCatulus @BjornW8916 @redtachyon Whats the difference between choosing red red vs blue blue? In this hypothetical assume everyone, and I mean EVERYONE unequivocally chooses red red or blue blue. No what ifs or anything. We all chose red red or blue blue. What is the difference?