@jon_vs_moloch @SZelvenskiy But you didn't. You won an online pool with a fraction of the vote the real problem would have, and which also does not have all the dubious/random votes we were discussing.
English
GamanedesGMMM
809 posts
@SZelvenskiy @Mar36739G I agree; and, for me, that number was in acceptable bounds for my strategy, “vote blue if winnable”. It seemed winnable. Voted blue. Won.
Predicting people is hard; I just did my best.
English
@DerekPederson3 No human society is predicted on the trustworthyness of all strangers on the planet, just on the trustworthyness of your in-group.
English
If the single-iteration prisoner's dilemma were accurate in its predictions about human behavior literally no human society would be feasible at all. Let alone societies that depend on such ambitious and intricate levels of cooperation as liberal democracy does.
CiroccoDruid@stillnotking75
@DerekPederson3 I have no mental model of a person who privileges a single anonymous internet poll on a frivolous thought experiment over the reality of human history. Amazing "People are too damn cooperative," said no Apache, ever
English
@ehyeahwhatever @JormJohn @bloodstreamrunz The point is not that people don't. The point is - is it 50,1% of people in the planet that do this? Because if you misjudge by a single one, you're dead, and so are the other 50% people of the planet.
English
@Mar36739G @JormJohn @bloodstreamrunz OK and people do risk their lives to save people in reality. People jump into water to save drowning children. People don't sit there watching.
English
there is absolutely no chance that blue would get more than 15% in a real scenario, the odds of it winning 50%+1 of the vote are ridiculously minuscule. voting blue isn't even a gamble, it's plain suicide, blue is a death cult of suicidal idiots
Sam || Crafting Vegeto@CraftingVegeto
Okay, so after thinking about this red blue button dilemma for hours, here is where I landed lol At first glance, the correct pragmatic answer is obviously red. You survive no matter what. That part is still 100 percent true. Red is the logical self preservation move. You do not die no matter what the others do. But once you think deeper, you realize that blue actually has a strong moral and collective argument. Blue only needs "just" over 50 percent to save literally everyone, while red basically needs 100 percent for no one to die. So blue is the gamble that gives humanity the best shot at universal survival with the lowest bar. At the same time, tons of people are emotional as hell, not logical or pragmatic, and sadly a lot are straight up virtue signaling kings. That means there is a real chance we end up in that dangerous 40 to 49 percent blue zone where billions die and society collapses anyway. Even the survivors probably would not survive long after that. Good job everyone. So yeah, red is the logical self preservation move, and blue is the more morally correct gamble to try and save everyone. Both sides have a solid point. Having that said... Everyone on Twitter furiously shitting on the other side is an idiot. Blues calling reds selfish monsters are idiots. Reds who cannot even see the collective blue argument are idiots too. But here is the most important part imho. All of this is bullshit. This is just a Twitter thought experiment where everything is easy and fake. If this was real life, an actual button in front of you, and pressing the wrong one means you actually die, everything changes. Heart rate at 180, adrenaline spiking, shitting your pants. I firmly believe there is near 0 percent chance blue gets over 50 percent in a real scenario, which I am not saying is a good thing. All the virtue signaling idiots on the internet would secretly press red in a heartbeat. Sure, some actual idealists who care about the collective more than pure survival would still press blue, and sadly they would die. In a real terrifying dystopian situation like that, red is the only solution, and it sucks.
English
@jon_vs_moloch @SZelvenskiy 1,5 Billion children (2 Billion if under 15 and not 10), 1 Billion with mental health issues. You're left to 5 Billion people not picking randomly, and having to correct any red majority of the previous group.
Of these, a substantial amount will pick based on their survival.
English
@SZelvenskiy @Mar36739G Because sane-ish adults don’t just pick randomly. We are mostly sane-ish adults.
English
@HunterLares @chuvakk @bloodstreamrunz No, you are betting you will achieve a majority. I'm voting so that I don't need a majority to survive.
You killed yourself. It's in your hands.
English
@Mar36739G @chuvakk @bloodstreamrunz I'm not betting on anything. I'm voting for nobody to die and you're voting against that
English
@JormJohn @bloodstreamrunz The concept you're looking for is "Revealed preferences", in economics.
Being real changes everything. People may claim they are voting as they would behave, but they more often than not do not.
English
@bloodstreamrunz blue wins in every poll
why should it being real change anything when the whole point is to vote like it's real
English
@chuvakk @bloodstreamrunz @HunterLares The point is that it's not unknow. In observable behavior, people often choose their survival and self-interest first when in real danger.
Some people don't, but are you willing to bet your life 50%+ of the world population will?
English
@bloodstreamrunz @HunterLares Этот тест не обязан отражать реальность, это тест гипотетический. Есть конкретные условия и формулировки, на основании которых предлагается сделать выбор. Если заменять его другими - то это уже другой тест. В реальности все по другому, но как - не известно.
Русский
@PumpkinEaterXX @jon_vs_moloch Assuming a significant part of the population will vote randomly (or with a slight bias, let's say, for color prefference) makes choosing blue increasingly dangerous.
English
@jon_vs_moloch @Mar36739G it needs to be explained in a way that everyone can understand.
Otherwise, it would have to read something like this: “X% cannot read and vote at random…”
English
@keyokkud Because I cannot trust 4B strangers to vote blue, in an anonymous, private voting booth with their own life hanging in the balance.
I'm not willing to bet my own life on it.
English
why the fuck would you press red? everyone survives if we press blue, it's guaranteed survival for everyone, by default everyone should be pressing blue, without even needing to coordinate. default state of human should be to want and guarantee best outcome, not settling.
vittorio@IterIntellectus
why would anyone even press blue?!?
English
@jon_vs_moloch @SZelvenskiy Absolutly not. But if all children (10 or less) of the world(1.5b~) are a random vote slightly biased towards red on color prefference alone(let's assume this slight bias is just 60%), that's already 900 Million.
It's even more compelling to vote red if many random votes are red.
English
@jon_vs_moloch @SZelvenskiy The experiment is about people making a decision. If a kid can't understand the terms of the experiment and yet are forced to participate, I'd bet they'd choose the more visually compelling button, and that's red.
Adults show prefference to color blue, kids to red.
English
@SZelvenskiy @Mar36739G Kids aren’t smart and I don’t think they should die for that.
English
@CypressDahlia @TheCustomerGuy The pool is meaningless. Red always wins regardless of the pool outcome.
Blue is the only one dependant on the expressed vote being the same as the anonymous, for real vote to survive.
English
@TheCustomerGuy Except you did lose the poll. If your intention was to survive and you survived, good for you. But you also want me to think you're right. You want approval for your choice. And that's where you lost. And that's why you're here.
English
Final thought: the argument seems to be that "in the real world" (aka you lost the poll) people are selfish, and therefore you must press red. But... you also pressed red. Every red vote claims they are a victim of other red votes' selfishness. But nobody confronts this idea lol
English
@asuka_chiquita No patriarcado machista supremo todo esse contexto de homem assediar mulher por aí pra encontrar uma parceira sexual provisória desaparece porque o único contexto socialmente aceito de relação sexual é o casamento sem divórcio.
Português
No machismo esse cara seria executado
No feminismo ele fica uns 2 anos na cadeia e já tá solto pra fazer isso de novo porque a cor da pele dele é escura
Yves ౨ৎ@yvessirae
"We don't need feminism." A girl was stabbed over 50 times just because she said "no" to a man.
Português
@Philrightagain @meadandjuniper Many third-worlders would push red deliberately if they knew most americans would be pushing blue, because they hate America.
English
Ok, I’ll admit it. I was a redpiller, and I was wrong. I chose red because I didnt trust my fellow humans to look out for me, but it turns out they would. I’m sorry for doubting you humanity
David Shor@davidshor
We asked this to a large sample of nationally representative Americans - blue wins by a 3:1 margin!
English
@meadandjuniper "We sampled a large group of americans. This is representative of the world".
Also this is still a pool with no stakes. People would not choose the same with their life at risk.
English
@_space_punk_ @RyanPMcGowan It's a death game. The only win condition is survival.
English
@Mar36739G @RyanPMcGowan Why would they choose the red option if they arent even aiming for the win condition?
English
The thing I don't understand about red/blue button is everyone saying the red option is the option for those who considered game theory when their reasoning seems to largely be entirely bereft of it?
"I chose red because red means I live; no I didn't consider the potential actions of others in my choice smh you don't understand game theory like I do"
?????????
English
@_space_punk_ @RyanPMcGowan No one pressing red is aiming for a 100% threshold. They're expecting a significant part of the population of the PLANET(not just your family, neighbourhood, city or country) to act in their own self-interest(anonimously) at the expense of others, thus they will also do the same.
English
@RyanPMcGowan Are you though? Because red considering the actions of others would require a genuine belief that a 100% threshold is easier to attain than a 50% threshold
English
@Stretchedwiener If you add that a significant part of the voting population is voting at random, picking blue becomes an entirely irrational choice.
You couldn't even consider the motivations of others, as many of them would be just coin-flipping, so you might as well guarantee you'd live.
English
If you want to propose a different version of the thought experiment - write it up.
This one, the one we're talking about - "Everyone" votes. Not just people over certain age, not just people who understand the question, not a subset. Everyone.
You don't vote for your kids. You don't even get to tell them how to vote. They vote. Everyone votes.
And plenty of adults "vote" by choosing randomly, in real elections. Because they don't have a strong grasp of what they are voting for. They don't deserve to die, regardless of the callous insulting opinion so of "red choosers" who want to cull "low IQs".
As a parent - you make choices that risks their lives without their consent more often than you want to know.
Christian Ohnimus@ChrisOhnimus
@Stretchedwiener @waitbutwhy If true, I push Blue. But it doesn't specify how edge cases are handled. "Vote" implies intention and not random assignment. For example, if I have to vote for my kids (or other dependents) am I obligated to choose Red, since Blue risks their lives without their consent?
English
@bitcloud The planet is a low trust society, because it's not even a singular society. It's hundreds of societies, often (if not perpetually) at odds with one another.
English
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