Abdo Wise

@Aella_Girl perfection

Imagine a circle, with a little spinner on it that you can flick. The circle is 80% red and 20% yellow, like a yellow pie slice. You flick the spinner. It spins, and slowwwly stops. Where did it land?

@bob_mcblob @burnthebureau @OcktoJL @waitbutwhy This is the only situation that blue will be morally sound.

@WiseAbdo @burnthebureau @OcktoJL @waitbutwhy Except damn near every child, parent, naive, or kind person is going to vote for the save everyone button. Picking red majority will kill all of them. You are completely disregarding the humanity of this choice.

Everyone survived!

@bob_mcblob @burnthebureau @OcktoJL @waitbutwhy I argued with someone along a similar argument, to summarise: The only situation I could see myself selecting blue is when there is a kid, baby or any other category that can't critically think for themselves and are forced to select, since they may choose blue.

@RiekkiSara76483 @Risen_SzN There was actually a similar experiment in Minecraft (I know its still a game but still), the boys team won by a landslide.

@Risen_SzN Modern firearms bridge that gap pretty nicely. The disparity in physical strength is nowhere near as important as it used to be.

Its so funny to see women think like this instead of facing reality that they have absolutely NO chance of winning that battle.

@Th3birdman15 @Kik3sl4y3r @amgpvcr @waitbutwhy No I still don't believe you. Send 5$ to this IBAN and Ill believe you're a real person after. jk have a good day, good talk.

@WiseAbdo @Kik3sl4y3r @amgpvcr @waitbutwhy

@WiseAbdo @Kik3sl4y3r @amgpvcr @waitbutwhy OK, if you did, then I must've missed it. Can I ask you to answer it again?

@Th3birdman15 @Kik3sl4y3r @amgpvcr @waitbutwhy you're an AI aren't you?

@WiseAbdo @Kik3sl4y3r @amgpvcr @waitbutwhy I see what the issue is-- you kept tweeting under the same tweet with multiple different posts. I'd asked you about babies multiple times, and took that as you responding to the other time and not a direct answer to my question.

@Th3birdman15 @Kik3sl4y3r @amgpvcr @waitbutwhy if half of the people take the chips does no one die?

@WiseAbdo @Kik3sl4y3r @amgpvcr @waitbutwhy Welcome. We have cake and potato chips.

@Th3birdman15 @Kik3sl4y3r @amgpvcr @waitbutwhy .... Dude I answered that in a dedicated comment since I found it an interesting example lmao.

@WiseAbdo @Kik3sl4y3r @amgpvcr @waitbutwhy You didn't, actually. You simply continued to reiterate your point. You can answer it now, though.

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?

@Th3birdman15 @Kik3sl4y3r @amgpvcr @waitbutwhy I already answered your question.

Because members of a family don't think selfishly; they tend to think to save everyone else. I gave you the example of the mother with the 1 year old child, that you didn't answer. Assuming the mother is a math professor and understands probability, what color do you think she chooses, given her baby also has to choose?

@Th3birdman15 @Kik3sl4y3r @amgpvcr @waitbutwhy If babies and similar categories that can't critically think for themselves are forced to play the game then yes I would choose blue. In my analysis I assumed that "everyone" implied those who can understand the rules of the game so it made more sense to think that way.

@WiseAbdo @Kik3sl4y3r @amgpvcr @waitbutwhy Ahh, so you recognize that a baby would throw a monkey wrench into this calculus? Fantastic. This is a problem for you, or rather it should be, because the original question said EVERYONE. There were no concessions for only adults. Babies would choose blue at ~50%

@Th3birdman15 @Kik3sl4y3r @amgpvcr @waitbutwhy No I'm not lol. the question is why would choosing blue considered to be as saving them and not them selecting red so they can avoid the danger themselves?

@WiseAbdo @Kik3sl4y3r @amgpvcr @waitbutwhy I have a genuine question for you, and I promise it's not malicious: Are you sociopathic? Your question comes across as you not being able to comprehend the idea that a parent/brother/aunt would care more about their child/sibling/nephew than themselves.

@Th3birdman15 @Kik3sl4y3r @amgpvcr @waitbutwhy Now regarding your example, yes that's the only case that choosing blue would logically make any sense, but a baby wont have the cognitive capacity to even play the game so idk about this one.

Lol, but it is. By the very existence of people like you, my family's life would be threatened. A family (with people that care about each other) would inarguably choose blue. Do you think a mother of a 1 year old child is choosing red? Her child has a 50% chance of choosing blue. Think, Mark.

@Th3birdman15 @Kik3sl4y3r @amgpvcr @waitbutwhy Of course if I know people choose blue, then I'll try to save them as well, but the game clearly states that voting is private, so actually you can't know. So logically you have to assume everyone picked red since its the safest option for everyone since no one needs to risk.

And this thoroughly explains why you'd choose red, because you are only concerned with your own personal outcome, and only view it through that lens. This is why in my original tweet, I referred to the Reds as selfish, because that is what you are. My personal safety doesn't matter when my family's life is on the line. You'll pretend to be the same after reading this line, but clearly you are not.

@Th3birdman15 @Kik3sl4y3r @amgpvcr @waitbutwhy The game gives you a clear way to guarantee everyone's safety, but you are willing to risk the lives of many people (potentially 49% of them) over proving idiotic ideals, ideals that frankly don't even need to exist since a clear safe path is already there.

No, it literally wasn't. It was completely missing the component that would cause people to choose the blue option: the care for others. Your question was about my own survival, which is precisely the problem with those of you who are choosing red-- you're failing to comprehend that this is a morality question, not a test to see if you'd survive. Anyway, your second thought experiment also fails to adhere to the parameters of the original thought experiment, so I'll refrain again.

@Th3birdman15 @Kik3sl4y3r @amgpvcr @waitbutwhy You can't have moral high ground when you want to force others to select an option that might harm them just to save you and stick to your false ideals which is what the question really is about.

@Th3birdman15 @Kik3sl4y3r @amgpvcr @waitbutwhy No not really, you can't guarantee that at least half of the people would choose Blue, so you're potentially sacrificing 49% of the people over idiotic ideals. while in choosing Red you guarantee that at least 51% of the people survive.

@WiseAbdo @Kik3sl4y3r @amgpvcr @waitbutwhy The irony is that this is precisely what you're doing by voting red. If literally nobody chooses red, nobody dies. There will never be 100% red, which means a vote for red is a vote for death, period. Blue only needs to meet a 51% threshold.