Sabitlenmiş Tweet
English
Sandor 🦔
4.3K posts
Sandor 🦔
@AlexAegis
𝐂𝐎𝐃𝐄𝐗 𝐄𝐒𝐓 𝐕𝐄𝐑𝐈𝐓𝐀𝐒
Budapest, Hungary Katılım Mayıs 2011
312 Takip Edilen107 Takipçiler
The "private vote" is doing all the heavy lifting here.
In reality there's no private vote. There are a series of decisions within a cultural framework, and those decisions don't occur instantly, but occur within a dynamic, reactive system.
If you return this back to a complex system you get high trust/low trust behaviours emerging exactly as they do in reality.
Low trust, red button societies collapse.
High trust, blue button societies thrive.
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
@MitraHispana @breakingbaht The problem is about colored buttons with an obfuscated danger, you making the threat obvious IS changing the problem.
English
@AlexAegis @breakingbaht Ferocious predator threatens your whole tribe.
You can fight or flee.
If you fight, you’ll die unless 50% of your tribe fights with you.
If you run, you live but everyone who stayed behind to fight dies if they’re fewer than 50%.
English
The irony is they *clearly* dont care about death. Ive seen multiple replies from them saying theyd want red button people shot or to reverse uno the situation and all reds die.
They don't care about death. Blues - love - death. They just want to control who dies and they want it to be the person that disagrees with them.
Max@minordissent
Blue voters are so full of shit on so many levels. 1. The question is not over whether you are selfless its whether you think most people are. Even the most holier than thou lib believes most people are selfish and thus would not press blue. 2. If everyone just presses red no one dies. blue adds unnecessary death. 3. They are moralizing the experiment to ask “what is the good person answer” rather than honestly reflecting on what theyd do if it really happened. I guarantee you that you put any person in that room and say “if you vote blue but most people dont, we will SHOOT YOU” that not one single person will take that risk, especially given #1.
English
@NfthmblStudios And the point it shows is that for the button problem to work, you have to have this intentional manipulation of obfuscating the danger, triggering a fear of others might choosing wrong, increasing the odds of blue massively.
It is not wrong, you just missed the point.
English
@NfthmblStudios The guillotine doesn’t change the problem from an “action vs action” one to an “action vs inaction” like the blender (just don’t step in!) but it does surface the imminence of danger (blade va no blade) because the buttons are only different in color.
English
that's intellectually wrong, the button problem has no perfectly correct answer, it's not supposed to, that's how dilemmas work
Sandor 🦔@AlexAegis
Here's an actually equivalent scenario to the red vs blue button scenario where red is the correct answer: Which one you'll put your head in? If at least 50% of people put their head in the bladed Guillotine, it won't drop, but if less, it will.
English
@soggycinnamons A twitter poll without danger is very different than a real world scenario.
English
You notice how most people pressed blue? Thats your reason to press blue. Because most people arent dickheads.
vittorio@IterIntellectus
why would anyone even press blue?!?
English
@oliveegger @SakiKojiro @MoffFrieren After spending hours with this topic, if you can think in third order effects, you do circle back to red.
People will falter in the face of danger. it will be shameful to press red, but many many will do. Can you trust that 50% of the people trust 50% of the people?
English
@SakiKojiro @MoffFrieren You’re not thinking about second order effects tho so maybe it’s not the most rational
English
@oliveegger This is definitely something that should NOT be written by a single person, but at least two with exact opposite views.
English
@oliveegger I had the exact same though!! This whole topic is so exciting and interesting! I think it would be very quiet for a while, would single out turncoats (who advocated for blue originally), but the rest would ultimately band together
English
@itsjustgavinidk @aoinxsco Quick, now we have to convince 5 billion others to maybe kill themselves to save you!
I'm so sorry
English
Everyone in the world has to take a private vote by pressing a button.
If 80% or more press the purple button, everyone survives.
If purple is less than 80%, everyone who pressed purple will die.
If you press yellow, nothing will happen to you.
Which button would you press?
English
@TruueDiscipline action vs action (the button scenario) and action vs inaction is fundamentally not the same things. That's why the votes are split differently. The physical presence of imminent danger (blender blades vs colored buttons) are also important factors.
English
There is a giant blender. If you walk into it you will be killed. However if 50% of people walk into it, it will be enough to stop and nobody will be harmed. (everybody knows this) Do you walk into the blender?
English
@MitraHispana @breakingbaht Funny, but this is also not the same situation.
English
@Logo_Daedalus Yes, everything you said is true. Do you think at least 50% of humanity is brave? Or more precisely, do you think at least 50% of people think at least 50% of people are brave?
English
I would press the blue button because for everyone to survive it would only require half of everyone press it, while the red button requires literally perfect coordination for everyone to survive.
English
@SCHIZO_FREQ YES! And I say this as someone who voted blue. Irl people would falter and chose to self preserve because I trust our natural hard-wired instincts more than our morality. Press red, but then mourn those who didn't, and shun those who switched and have not advocated for red.
English
People somehow don’t realize that posting about how you’d pick the blue button online is totally different than picking the blue button in real life
There is no actual downside to posting online about how you’d press the blue button
But if this example were made real life, pressing the blue button means actually risking your life
Everybody can pick the happy chungus meme option when there are no consequences, but if you think the results wouldn’t change substantially if people were actually staring down the barrel of the gun you’re just retarded
Peter Hague@peterrhague
Amazing how lots of self appointed game theory experts confidently asserting that blue is the stupid choice. But every time this poll is run blue wins. Not only is the “game theory” answer predicting the wrong outcome, its explanatory power is based on it being able to predict the right answer. So it’s doubly wrong.
English
@truefire87 @choffstein @FlowTraderTM Yeah it's a twitter poll with no stakes. A somewhat tangential real world scenario was the general election held a few weeks ago here in Hungary. The govts polls predicted Fidesz (govt) to win because many people just lied out of fear or just to troll them.
English
I like to think that I would press blue when the moment comes. I like to think that others would too. Maybe even some of the angry reds, when it comes down to it, would find greater humanity.
That said, who can say if I really have the heart. I've never been in a situation like that. I've only ever tested myself with lower stakes.
But this is an is/ought problem.
English
Red looks selfish until you realize: if everyone presses red, everyone lives.
The "cooperative" answer requires coordination and trust.
The "selfish" answer just requires everyone making the same selfish choice.
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
@truefire87 @choffstein @FlowTraderTM The difference is that I also see it as a moral failure, it is indeed shameful. And still.
The OP of the original poll had a very interesting follow up that illustrates this absolutely perfectly: x.com/waitbutwhy/sta…
Tim Urban@waitbutwhy
Suddenly standing alone in the room, I begin by imagining humanity banding together and blue winning in a landslide, and I feel a rush of pride. Red is the genocide button. Blue is the “save humanity from this nightmare” button. I know what kind of person I am. As my hand hovers over the blue button, I can’t help but imagine a gun pointing at my head with a bullet in one of the chambers. I feel a surge of fear shoot through my body. Then I think about all the other people staring at the blue button and thinking the same thing. Surely some of those who initially decided to press blue will succumb to the fear. It starts to feel like a gun with two loaded chambers. A stronger pulse of terror. The more I think about it, the more I worry about other people thinking about it. My heart races. Then I look at the red button—a gun with no bullets in it. A glorious feeling of relief washes over me. Will I hate myself forever if blue wins because enough others were better and braver than me? But don’t I owe it to my family to protect myself? One vote won’t change anything anyway, right? It’s all irrelevant because the mammal I live in has already made up its mind. I wince and press red.
English
(Your post cut off at the end but I get the idea)
I find this to be an admissible perspective, compared to the average red advocate. But I do still consider it a moral failure. We should all strive to be blue pressers. A society can only thrive when the proportion of blue pressers is high enough. It's a bit of a commentary on the compounding destructive force of selfishness (as are most similar game theory problems).
English
@udiWertheimer This is also very interesting! But then you do have to factor in a flight or fight response in the face of imminent danger that will turn many blue advocates to red. But is it enough to tip the scale?
English
almost nobody who has children would press red unless they know for an absolute fact that their kids pressed red
if you think there’s even a 5% chance your kids pressed blue, you will risk your life to improve their odds even by a tiny bit
to take this a step further most women are probably hard-wired to press blue as a motherly instinct anyway, even if they have no children. so at minimum you have a 25% baseline for blue right there, which completely tips the odds
so i think blue actually wins by a landslide if this was the real world and not a social media app for incels
in other words humanity always had the biological programming to ensure blue wins
English
@econcz @waitbutwhy Yes, I noticed it too, but I believe that it is part of the problem, because we do discuss that specific poll about that specific situation.
English
@AlexAegis @waitbutwhy Well yes, that was the point.
Original poll was intentionally pretty manipulative.
Wording, don't specify babies/children (parents should choose for them as in real world) and so on.
English
I’m glad someone did a national poll. But I also think someone needs to serve a prison sentence for indicating red button pressers using dark blue.
David Shor@davidshor
We asked this to a large sample of nationally representative Americans - blue wins by a 3:1 margin!
English
@truefire87 @choffstein @FlowTraderTM Yes I understand I did use the exact same points before myself too. But I trust our flight or fight instinct and will to live more to overpower any sense of morality, in enough people, that it would push blue voters below 50%. And since I see the blue button as the suicide button
English
Red is "correct" in the strictly selfish sense, yes. But that's banally obvious.
If we value lives equally blue is strictly the correct option. (It's even the correct option if we place a higher but not categorically weight on our own life, up to a certain weight threshold depending on the sample size)
It's upsetting "obviously I should save myself over the rest of the world" is taken as as a given when people define what's "correct".
It is correct both morally AND logically if you value human lives in general.
English