Karleuh

Richard Dawkins has officially been one-shot

@corsaren "blue is immoral" was here from the start i think. It sleped through initially with the "would you advise your mom to press blue?" But reds were afraid to say it explicitly as their default mode is "morality < rationality" (and lean on a no-moral involved at all psyop)

It’s reflexive, so convincing others that you are correct makes you more correct. Yapper catnip. Yapnip. What’s crazy is I’m still learning new metagame dynamics 1 week in. For instance: apparently there is a significant contingent who thinks that the *blue* button is evil/wrong

@Legerdemaen The original has votes for "everyone to survive" and for "only reds to survive", as i said in an other the bias is slightly blue actually in the original wording. But that's (i think) more revealing about the intentions lf the maker than the moral interpretation one should deduce

@TheClassicEXP Equivalence is not just used in mathematical contexts. Your example isn’t equivalent as the options now involve votes to kill others vs. do nothing; the original has votes to kill yourself vs. do nothing. It also comes with confounds of the elected person’s character & policies.

The button test has unintentionally revealed a deficit in people’s ability to understand equivalences. Notably, it’s primarily blue voters who display this deficit—this could explain why red wins on tests whose meaningful parameters are equivalent but phrased more explicitly.

@Legerdemaen OG (slight blue bias) Red : survive no matter what Blue : all survive if >50 Heavy blue bias : Red : kill all blue if > 50 Blue : nothing happens = bus guy Heavy red bias : Red : nothing happens = bus guy Blue : suicide if >50 Is how i see it. Outcomes r equivalent for all 3.

@TheClassicEXP I never rejected red=evil and I never accepted blue=dumb. I don’t know how else to explain that the man going about his business had nothing to do with the observers placing bets on him, as that is the factual thing that happens in my given hypothetical. He is not in on the bet.

@Legerdemaen Because equivalence is used in mathematical contexts and you seem to use it to reject moral framing/real world applications comparisons. Biden : kill all trump voters if >50 Trump : nothing happens Is a strict equivalent to og problem outcome wise for ex.

@TheClassicEXP How so?

@Legerdemaen However, if the words don't impact the abstract math, they do impact the data to compute a decision. This is why the problem is reflexive, a change in wording changes what an agent will predict of other agents behavior.

@TheClassicEXP You and your friend see a man walking towards a bus stop. “Bet you $1 he takes the bus,” you say. “Okay,” your friend replies. The man walks past the stop. “Hey!” you shout at the man. “You lost me $1!” The man did not in fact cause you to lose $1. He was not part of the bet.

@Legerdemaen If you strip the OG problem, A > 50 and B < 50 are equivalent as A+B = 100. Putting the "kill", or "do nothing" word next to the A or B button description shifts perceived responsibility, not the logical frame, as both options are tide together by A+B = 100

@Legerdemaen A choice between 2 options (yes/no) is mathematically equivalent to a choice between 2 options (nothing/yes) or even (fish/carrot). Now your moral/emotional arguments may be relevant, they don't particularly convince me but idk, that's not for me to say

@Legerdemaen I think it kindof reveals a deficit in your ability to understand mathematical equivalences (also words have meaning). But yea clearly the guys u quoted don't build morally equivalent scenarios to what you imagined based on ur personal moral frame and bias the og problem to be

@TheClassicEXP It is, with the caveat it saves yourself and others who opted into possibly killing themselves. I’m not among those who’d represent the blue button simply as “suicide” necessarily, because I see valid reasoning for people to press it precisely because of that caveat.

@Legerdemaen Well imo the most interesting thing is indeed that you can find stricly (logically) equivalences to the problem that will make anyone change his vote. I know understand you meant "equivalence" as a personal moral agenda, and not a mathematical claim. In that case OK.

@Legerdemaen The $ scenario having less blue is due to intuitions for money favoring internal harm > external harm. Where as when a life is on the line, christian heritage changes most folks intuition to external > internal.

@TheClassicEXP Do you disagree with life being more valued than money? If not, do you disagree with the idea people would tend to gamble with money rather than with their life?

@Legerdemaen Also the outcome (death), can be stricly equivalent logically to a suicide/murder situation. The non-equivalent part is the emotional/moral part but logic wise it would be the same.

@TheClassicEXP Because murder is not among the options given in the OG problem.

@Legerdemaen Immediate QT is changing the situation and keeps the outcomes the same. Original scenario has no specific information on wether there are folks in need of saving nor on an obvious causality/responsibility chain. Still seems like cope (coming from both sides!) to reject scenari

@TheClassicEXP The immediate QT exhibits an “equivalence” where everyone is in need of saving yet the original scenario has no one in need of saving. The most common misinterpretation of the original parameters is that the red button kills people.

@Legerdemaen It's not the absolute moral value of each that is pointed to be different but the utility function mapping outcomes of scenario to payoffs.

@TheClassicEXP Re: money vs. life, yes moral value is placed differently on each yet if money<life then people would more readily gamble with money than their life. Re: red being “passive,” it’s because the function of red opts out of such gambles.

@DenzilZA @Truthcoin @EleganteStache - A button that doesnt kill you - Buttons don't kill people => The button does nothing at all It's not only absolutely flawed reasoning, but also (somehow) irrelevant AND both the premise and conclusion defeat your original scenario 😂

@TheClassicEXP @Truthcoin @EleganteStache Yeah. More simply stated. A button that does not kill you actually does nothing because buttons dont typically kill people haha

The Red button is portrayed as no risk, but this is not true. If you Red button, you might: * Live (100% red) * Live (>50% blue), but your friendship with the majority of the population (the blues) is over * Live (blue ~2%), but we endure a mass tragedy worse than 9/11 You may also: * Die (>50% blue), surviving blues take Shakespearean revenge and murder all reds / red-advocates * Die ( 25-49% blue ), while you survive the button, society collapses into mad max chaos since the economy cannot handle losing half the workforce, half the lovers, friends, etc

@DenzilZA @Truthcoin @EleganteStache Quick sanity check : Push : if > 50, all nopushers die Nopush : if > 50, all survive Yea it's a strict equivalent just replace push and no push with red and blue hmm.

@TheClassicEXP @Truthcoin @EleganteStache This scenario is different. My scenario is identical to the original