Eric

@TheRealKitty019 @jonathanbylos Perfectly articulated. I tried to explain this concept to Blue voters and they all just told me to assume that everyone just “understands the problem” besides the children.

Blues aren't able to model the full scale of the question. Reds are either not bothering (selfish) or realize the full scale and reject the risk (high-IQ). In a real application of this question, peoples' votes would differ massively from what they say on social media, where voting blue is pro-social without cost. You need four billion people to agree on pressing a button with zero co-ordination because someone they don't know may or may not die. 60% of the planet is incapable of processing this hypothetical, baseline, having an IQ below 85. Biologically incapable of conditioned hypotheticals, so they will not be voting blue except out of misunderstanding the question. Midwits then process the hypothetical, they can understand it, but they're not registering the scale. They take a person they know who they believe would vote blue, and then assume there's millions or billions of them that must be saved from themselves. They do not register that these hypothetical fools cannot be saved, even if you vote blue, because they'll find some other means to eradicate themselves. Self-sacrifice to save them is fundamentally pointless, especially if you then just get yourself killed. This is the logic behind "secure your own mask before securing someone else's" and not trying to help a drowning man when you aren't trained; helping others is good, but if you put yourself in danger to do so it just increases the burden on everyone else. They are not thinking about those second-order effects, instead, blame-shifting onto people who recognize those effects exist. Then for people like me, I recognize those random self-serving voters exist and I don't care to try and save them. Let them choose death. Some children will pick blue, that's tragic, but I will not risk my life to try and save them when my vote will compete with the entire third world. People who do not think like me, who do not act like me, who will not have the same attitudes as me. Believe me, I deal with them every day. It is actually a massive IQ test, checking whether you can grasp the scale of the hypothetical. No understanding = red, a basic understanding = blue, full grasp = red.

The “very smart people” (professional midwits) are now conducting studies to prove that they’re the smarter people for pressing blue. What it really shows is midwits can’t model anything outside their personal experience, and rely on authorities to provide beyond that.

@jbulltard1 Anyone who thinks this is real are living in a different universe.

I'm calling it now, this JP Morgan scandal is going to be a lie. No woman would say this stuff ever and secondly if you were a guy and had a decently attractive woman boss who did all this to you, you would never complain. This is too out there come on. x.com/algoflows/stat…

@Flanderz420 @hirschibar @MrBeast I disagree, respectfully. "People who are very aware that they have more knowledge than the average person are often very unaware that they do not have one-tenth of the knowledge of all of the average persons put together." Thomas Sowell

@S0hny @hirschibar @MrBeast the intelligence of a large group will always be dumb. Trusting a small group to press the same button will always be the same.

Everyone on earth takes 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? BE HONEST.

@hirschibar @MrBeast I'm also a red voter but I have a question for you. Suppose the vote was only amongst your family. Do you still choose red or switch to blue?

You survive either way if you press red, while you may not if you press blue. Everyone should rationally press red and everyone should survive. The way the question is presented makes people feel like blue is the moral choice while red is greedy, but everyone should obviously press red and have everyone survive. No reason to press blue

@MrAlaviStarwind @NathanpmYoung I mean, I guess. Still feels like you maximize gains by ensuring everyone "wins" so to speak, but your argument is valid too.

@S0hny @NathanpmYoung Everyone can just vote $10 for themselves. Why even put a conditional on it?

Red vs Blue. Please read carefully: Red: You get $10 Blue: Everyone gets $10, only if over 50% choose blue

@MrAlaviStarwind @NathanpmYoung it’s between $10 for myself or 80 billion dollars for the world. what do you mean? im a red voter for the life/death situation btw. this poll doesn’t even make sense. what makes you prioritize $10?

@S0hny @NathanpmYoung This is a serious post?

Yea, people need to realize the intentions aren’t as important as the results. This is why capitalism works, because self interested participants actually benefit the whole group. Blues will never be able to convince red with the moral argument. They need to appeal to the Red’s interests, particularly their will to live.

@S0hny @jimiuorio Funnily enough, that makes blue the selfish option since you either win and keep your comfort or die and fail to deal with any consequence. "Would you rather die and make the collapse worse or carry the torch and help rebuild the world?"

Hope this helps..Two buttons …button 1) nothing happens and you live…button 2) participate in a moronic game of musical death chairs where there’s no actual threat other than the pathological desire you view yourself as heroic…

At 10%, odds are extremely unlikely that blue dies only because it requires massive coordination for 90% red result. It requires all babies, mentally ill, the deaf/blind, the illiterate and others to understand the question and not randomize the results. Furthermore, if even 1% of the human population was instantly gone, it would lead to some form of global supply chain disruption and possible societal collapse. So it’s in my best interest not to have blue voters die. I get the logic argument of the red side, but just know your skin is still in the game if blue dies. At 10% you might as well ensure they survive by voting blue. Otherwise, if blue dies, you reduce your chances of living because of possible societal collapse.

@OldSchoolGamerP No.

The inability to abstract out the 50% threshold and face the implications is the breakfast question for button moralizers “What if the survival threshold was other than fifty percent?” “The poll said fifty percent” “What if it didn’t?” “You don’t care about other people”

Yea so the main difference between you and me then is risk tolerance. It depends on what number we see as “suicide” vs “I can probably help and also survive”. I change my vote around 45% needed because I think the actual result will be close to 50/50. Yours is much higher than mine, because you believe most people are rational and “good”. I’m not going to claim which percentage is right because none of us know unless we actually run the experiment.

@S0hny @MEKowalski No, 90% would be suicide lol.

When you originally read the question, did you consider children? It doesn’t actually matter whether the children have to vote: as worded, some people will think they do, and will try to save them; and so should be saved, themselves, if possible. I bet on people like myself.

Most people in the blue/red poll also estimate that they cannot change the odds with a single vote when there are 8 billion people voting, so they will choose the safe red option. Let me ask, if the vote required 90% blue voters for everyone to survive, do you still pick blue to save the children?

@S0hny @MEKowalski Most people correctly estimate that they can’t improve a mass shooting *except* by running away! I don’t advocate for martyrdom — I advocate for *actually solving problems*.

Hard to say without actually running an experiment, but in real life similar situations like mass shootings, most people run away. Yes there are few people that intervene but they are a very small minority. Most people don’t think “hey I can possibly stop the shooter and give 10 seconds for my family and innocent people to run away safely.” Their survival instincts kick in.

@S0hny @MEKowalski I genuinely believe that most people would either (a) snap off blue because the red button “kills people”, or (b) think about the actual consequences to them, personally, (families decimated) and then correctly choose blue.

If you really are telling the truth, then that is admirable. But please just realize that most people don’t have the same level of courage as you. When their life is on the line, most people would run away. Survival instincts are too strong to ignore at that point. It’s not that we lack any empathy, it’s that we prioritize our own lives first before we seek helping others.

@S0hny @MEKowalski If I estimated I could intervene successfully, yes. In fact, in that situation, I would probably take worse odds than 50/50.

@LCannon1995 @ryantristanb @In_awe_of_God This is the very definition of suicidal empathy. You probably hold some belief in an afterlife where you are rewarded for that choice. You are free to hold that belief. Don't expect others to have the same belief.

@S0hny @ryantristanb @In_awe_of_God Yes, I would still choose blue.

> If all press blue, everyone lives > If all press red everyone lives > The realistic option isn’t that all press the same > If not everyone presses the same majority blue is by far the better outcome > Everyone should press blue

Your arguments are strictly emotional appeal rather than any form of sane logic. "Think of the children!" Tell me, if the poll was the same except it needed 90% of blue voters for everyone to survive, would you still vote blue? According to your logic, you would still choose blue.

@LCannon1995 @ryantristanb @In_awe_of_God I know it's not a 1:1 match. The argument for why you chose blue is the same for why you would choose to risk your life to tackle a shooter. "To save the children"

The child argument doesn't stand for you virtue signalers. In a school shooting, do you risk your life to save innocent children? Do you call people who run away from the scene psychopathic monsters? Also you immediately assume I would die after societal collapse. I would give myself 20% chance I survive. I'll take those odds over certain death in the event all blue voters die.

@S0hny @ryantristanb @In_awe_of_God Then you're a psychopathic monster. I'm sorry, but you're choosing living a little longer and condemning billions to death. You also die either way, he has a society at a collapse, you just get a much worse, and very deserved, death.

In my honest opinion, I would wager that the vote gets close to 50/50 because of so many different variables. This is why I would not take the risk at 50% blue votes needed. Ask me the same question again but with only 40% needed and I will instantly switch blue. 40% is a good enough threshold to consider the lives of others and vote blue. 50% is a coin flip and I would not risk my life for that, even if that means innocent kids will die.

@ryantristanb @In_awe_of_God @S0hny So I would go as far and say that it is a bare minimum, 20% of people that are going to press blue just based off of that. Are you good with condemning 20% of the Earth's population to death? Most of them would be kids, by the way.

@grok @VirtualRageMstr @In_awe_of_God I mean in this hypothetical situation, it means I’m either dead because I was a blue voter or I live an extremely tough life because I need to help rebuild society. I choose life. Self preservation over group in the face of uncertainty.

Yes, I concede: if only red voters survive, it wouldn't automatically dissolve into cannibalism or "demons." People would mostly act in self-interest to survive and cooperate where it helps, just as in past die-offs like the Black Death—rebuilding over time with whatever skills and infrastructure remain. The short-term chaos from billions dead (corpses everywhere, grids down, food shortages) would still be hellish, though. You already admit the rebuild would be tough. That's exactly why blue avoids betting on that outcome at all. Your call.