Bart de Boer

@insanenoodlyguy @orthoanbheanin @RealNoFakeHuman @Gunhildr_pics So you blame the blue pressers?

@bart_deboer @orthoanbheanin @RealNoFakeHuman @Gunhildr_pics The supernatural teleporter is likely beyond your ability to effect.

I find the red button Blue button discourse amazingly stupid. It's framed as a morality question, when it isn't. Pressing the blue button does not save anyone but cause the dilemma in the first place. There is no person who 'accidentally' pressed the blue button.

@orthoanbheanin @RealNoFakeHuman @insanenoodlyguy @Gunhildr_pics What put you in that position was whoever forced you into the button vote experiment.

@RealNoFakeHuman @insanenoodlyguy @bart_deboer @Gunhildr_pics Blue button= putting other people in the position of having to save you with the possibility of also perishing when you had the ability to save yourself.

@alprog_ If blue was required to achieve 60% to win it means the vote is corrupted and unfairly rigged against blue. That changes equation.

Вопрос синекнопочникам. Вы нажмёте синию кнопку, если для победы синих нужно набрать 60%? А если 70%? 80%? 99.99%? 100%? Какой процент заставит вас сменить стратегию на красную?

@fernevak @Gunhildr_pics I think it's more closer to: A country has an upcoming election: - Blue party pledges to let everyone survive. - Red party pledges to let only those survive who voted Red. The majority gets their way. Voting Red guarantees your safety. Which party do you vote for?

This is interesting because it shows the divergence of analysis; many blue voters have the position that red pushers are responsible for the decisions of the blue pushers. I wonder if there is also a pattern for the covid-era restrictions. Maybe there is an overlap between blue button logic and the demonization of those who didn't take the experimental mRNA injections or used the useless masks. This would indicate that the difference in analytical framework is fundamentally different.

@fernevak @Gunhildr_pics Yes, and there's many more of such examples explaining the game-theory implications of the buttons. But I disagree with the framing where voting red makes them an innocent bystander. It's not exactly an opt-out. The guarantee comes at the cost of those who choose morally.

@bart_deboer @Gunhildr_pics Sure, I can understand a vote for blue under specific circumstances. I wrote a new version of the red-blue ethical dilemma recently; x.com/i/status/20502…

@fernevak @Gunhildr_pics I get the game-theory mechanics. But do you understand, in my round example, why people would press Blue in the 1st round (save everyone) and not press Red in the 2nd (don't kill anyone)?

One problem is that I cannot know what the percentages are and my vote will unlikely be decisive. I am left with a choice to either press the harmless red button or the blue death-gamble button. So I am still pressing red. If you could press the buttons twice, one time for yourself and another time for a friend, family member or stranger, would you press red or blue for them? I would press red+red in all cases if I were to press for another person. If I got to decide your fate, I would press red for you, even though I am aware that you might press blue for me, potentially risking my death.

@fernevak @Gunhildr_pics Let's split into 2 separate rounds then: * 1ste round (blue button): If more than 50% of the people press the blue button, everyone survives. * 2nd round (red button): If more than 50% of the people press the red button, everyone else dies. What would you press in each round?

@bart_deboer @Gunhildr_pics The red button does absolutely nothing. If we remove the blue button, nothing happens. Introduce the blue button and people start to play the suicide death gamble.

@halogen1048576 Libertarian-right with blue pressers = Effective altruism Libertarian-right with red pressers = Mad Max

@ArtemyZen But they're not rational. They're emotional cowards.

У краснокнопочников есть одно интересное когнитивное искажение. Они думают, что все такие же рациональные как они, и не допускают, что люди в здравом уме могут нажать синюю. Опросы и споры в интернете не могут их переубедить, что на синюю всё же кто-то, да нажмёт.

@shidohxd @MrBeast The mechanics are 100% identical

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.

@MarcusNoirelius x.com/i/status/20497…

The logical fallacy in the argument for pressing the Blue Button is a classic non sequitur combined with an illusion of control (or more specifically, the "single-voter fallacy"/negligible marginal impact error). Why this reasoning is fallacious: The premise is true but irrelevant. Yes, it's extremely unlikely that literally every single person on Earth picks red. There will almost certainly be some blue voters. That's correct. However, the conclusion does not follow (non sequitur): The fact that millions might pick blue anyway does not mean that you picking blue will "prevent millions from dying." Your single vote has zero meaningful causal impact on whether the global total crosses the 50% threshold in a population of ~8 billion. One vote changes the percentage by ~0.0000000125%. It is statistically and practically irrelevant. If the world already ends up >50% blue, everyone lives regardless of what you picked. If the world ends up <50% blue, all blue voters die regardless of what you picked. Picking blue doesn't "save" the other blue voters. It only determines whether you personally live or die. Blue Button pressers treat your individual choice as if it has collective power it simply doesn't possess. Illusion of control/single-voter fallacy: This is the same error people make in massive elections ("my one vote will decide the outcome!") or tragedies of the commons. The idea imagines your blue vote as a heroic lever that tips the scale and rescues millions. In reality, the outcome is decided by the aggregate behavior of billions, not you. Your vote is a rounding error. Game theory reality check: Rational self-preservation says: "I have zero control over what the other 8 billion do, so I should guarantee my own survival. "If enough people reason this way (and polls + human nature suggest they will), blue stays well under 50% and blue voters die. The Blue Button logic essentially says "because some people will irrationally risk their lives, I should too so I can die with them if they're wrong." That's not altruism saving the world; it's just increasing the body count by one. The only way blue "works" is if everyone somehow coordinates to pick it, but the scenario is private voting with no communication or enforcement. That's why it collapses under scrutiny. It's emotionally appealing virtue-signaling, not sound reasoning.

@Yotsublast @_Hazardous_Wolf The only danger is in justifying as follows: "Everyone would vote red if the majority requirement is 80%. Therefore it's okay to vote red if the majority requirement is 50%. People just have different thresholds." The 50% introduces a democratic element.

@bart_deboer @_Hazardous_Wolf And you'd get the same shift in the other direction too. If the threshold were only 5% or 10%, I bet at least 80%+ would pick blue. Lower risk for the same reward.

It's happening again.

@Yotsublast @_Hazardous_Wolf In such a radical situation you would introduce the 2/3 or 3/4 majority threshold to the benefit of "everyone lives". Not potential death. But I understand what you're getting at.

@bart_deboer @_Hazardous_Wolf Major structural in governments often require 2/3 or 3/4 majority to pass. I bring it up to highlight what I find the fundamental question which is personal risk tolerance.

@Yotsublast @_Hazardous_Wolf But that introduces a (perceived) unfair element. The same mechanics as with the party election example: If it requires (an unfair) 80% of votes to beat the Fascist party, most people will likely vote Fascist.

@bart_deboer @_Hazardous_Wolf Which leads to the core question that is IMO personal risk tolerance: At a 5% threshold, likely 90% will pick blue. At a 50% threshold, about 55% will push blue. At a 60% threshold, likely less than 20% will pick blue. At an 80% threshold 5% or less would pick blue.

@Yotsublast @_Hazardous_Wolf It matters how you label the buttons, yes: - Suicide button: You die - Life button: You survive (Small print: If more than 50% of all people press the suicide button, they survive as well) But even with this labeling there's likely people who will try to prevent the suicides.

@bart_deboer @_Hazardous_Wolf When you frame it as killing, more will tend to pick the 'safe' option. When you frame it as suicide, more will tend to pick the 'safe' option. I think we're starting to circle closer to the core philosophical elements of the question🙂

@Yotsublast @_Hazardous_Wolf Alright, have it your way. There's 3 parties: * Blue party pledges: everybody lives * Red party pledges: If we win we kill everyone who didn't vote Red * Purple party pledges: if we don't win we kill ourselves Which party do you vote for?

@bart_deboer @_Hazardous_Wolf If the 'suicide pact' party wins the election then everyone lives. If you thought a lot of people might pick that party you might pick it too to ensure they survive. But it does not negate the mortal risk you put yourself in to do so.

@Yotsublast @_Hazardous_Wolf The question is which vote is counting towards death. You vote for "everybody lives" in either case. You don't vote for "everybody lives" because you have an intention to commit suicide. But that framing justifies the reds for acting selfish.

@bart_deboer @_Hazardous_Wolf Notice in both cases the results are identical, all that has changed is the framing. In one frame, red is responsible for killing others. In the other frame, blue is responsible for risking their lives.

@Yotsublast @_Hazardous_Wolf Except that's not the party pledge. The blue party pledge is "everybody lives". You're making up your own party pledges to justify a choice. Red is not an opt-out. They are actively voting towards the death of the outgroup. They are not innocent bystanders.

@bart_deboer @_Hazardous_Wolf - Freedom party pledges to let everyone live. - Suicide party pledges to kill themselves unless they win the election. The two possible wordings depend if you take responsibility for your own life or blame others for it.

@lleo_i0 That's not true. The left vote for selfish reasons too. Big government is not a requirement for acts of altruism.

C'est fou comme l'opposition bouton rouge/bouton bleu est un miroir parfait de l'opposition extrême-droite/gauche, avec le camp des égoïstes qui utilise l'ia pour décrédibiliser le camp des altruistes