Jon 🌌

Monty Hall gives you the 🔴🔵 problem. You pick 🔴: he opens a red door, revealing a 🔴 button. Then, he opens a second door, revealing 100 toddlers, 48 of whom have pushed 🔵. The studio audience votes 🔴 or 🔵 in secret. Finally, Monty asks: Do you want to switch doors?

@francip I recognize that we are not all from high-trust societies. I am not, either. I still collectively believe in us when the right thing to do is sufficiently clear.

@jon_vs_moloch That is not even remotely the same as "different cultures think differently than me"

Reds: “It’s not a theory of mind problem!!” You can stop telling me this, I *already know* that you can’t tell it’s a theory of mind problem! I have theory of mind! You would understand this if you did!

@anthokni It’s outside the scope of the naive version of the game that people seem to be advocating for; you have to treat people as irrational actors to get to the real-world optimal solution.

@jon_vs_moloch I was a bit confused. If you mean theory of the mind as in thinking what others will do/what they are thinking, then it’s not clear to me how that’s different than game theory. Game theory includes thinking what others will do

@Person012345 Lol. Lmao, even.

@jon_vs_moloch Ok, I don't care what he meant, he presented the question wrong. The thought experiment stands as it was asked. If he wanted there to be a group that did not have agency he should have stated it. Period.

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.

@takestime2build Yeah but I believe the author. And also, like I said, it really doesn’t matter whether the kids have to vote or not, as long as it reasonably looks like they might.

@jon_vs_moloch That completely changes what the experiment is about and is absurd. It makes no sense and is inconsistent with the point of the hypothetical. Children, invalids, people physically unable to press a button would be bound by the decisions of the masses.

@jon_vs_moloch If it is not then it is generally assumed that everyone involved is represented as an average person.

@nooriginalnick I agree.

@jon_vs_moloch that's not the reason the majority of blue voters chose blue, I'm pretty sure

@SkagthePrince “Everyone who doesn’t pick red” dies if blue doesn’t win, so “unable to vote” is still dying without intervention.

@jon_vs_moloch Did you? Nevermind none of you actually read the question because it says everyone. Which includes people who can't or won't press a button. Which nulls the whole vote.

@JimmyRu52630895 If you did the math to the best of your ability and estimated wrong, I cannot fault you; it is a very difficult problem. I could’ve just as easily been wrong.

@jon_vs_moloch Bet is the perfect way to put it. If you think it’s unlikely the world as a whole in the moment reaches 50%, red is the more ethical choice. And vice versa for blue. I personally doubt high population cultures will vote blue, and we should avoid dying in the attempt to rescue

@BattleJeff1 Yes, I would vote Red if I did not think Blue was winnable. It was, so I picked Blue.

@jon_vs_moloch "look, I can curse, I'm so tough" Let's cut through all that bullshit. If the question was "only people who can read", do you switch to red? Now there's no babies. I was gonna say "only people who understand the question", but that would also remove the blue voters.

@PickenChews I think this amount of ambiguity resolves to “enough people will think so that it’s correct to help”. I don’t know if it makes the conversation better or worse. It certainly makes people angrier.

@jon_vs_moloch I keep going back and forth in my mind about whether the puzzle should include that, exclude that, or leave it ambiguous. What do you think? Excluding removes the cop-out, but then I've seen ppl cite them for both colors. Does it cheapen the conversation? I'm not sure.

@muhkayfabe @Aprilcots255097 Yes, I am saying I have some knowledge about how people are.

@jon_vs_moloch @Aprilcots255097 We aren’t just talking about “uncertainty”. We are talking *absolute* uncertainty *everything* has uncertainty. The question is to what degree The mere ability to reason under some amount of uncertainty implies a level of confidence and known probabilities

@TheNewMeta911 Correctly, yes. When we are unsure of something we should not just throw our hands up; we should do our best.

@jon_vs_moloch You assume

@ColinHi57449530 Completely valid. If you calculated it and came up with a different estimate, I can’t fault you; it is a hard and messy estimate. If I had come up with a different estimate I would have voted differently.

@jon_vs_moloch For most people I think it's actually a utility/risk aversion problem At a 70% required threshold, very few people would choose blue as its futile At 10%, many more would choose blue is it is almost inevitable So it really depends on your priors. 50% is too high for me

@lightblight1 Understandable.

@jon_vs_moloch Some of us have to press red to tend the children who press red and live. Insurance policy.

@OUnderfolder Children are not smart.

@jon_vs_moloch cool. so why would those who are disadvantaged not seek self preservation?

@pseudorandompi I’ll ballpark 25% without thinking about it very hard. Might be 20.

@jon_vs_moloch How low would the "save everyone" percentage need to be to get you to vote blue if parents can vote for their children?

@muhkayfabe @Aprilcots255097 @ManifoldMarkets There are priors for altruism and reasonability. For what people think is the right thing to do. It is messy; but I think I can do better than 50/50.

@jon_vs_moloch @Aprilcots255097 @ManifoldMarkets You’re giving an example with known prior probabilities There are no such prior probabilities in the Red vs Blue dilemma

@takestime2build I read it like this.

@jon_vs_moloch Children don’t vote anywhere. Voting is rare on this planet overall and where it does happen children are excluded and parents/guardians vote in their stead. You’re just making up unstated counterfactuals to justify your decision. Counterfactuals that have zero basis in reality.

@SZelvenskiy @Mar36739G That’s understandable; I just don’t think it’s the right thing to do.

@jon_vs_moloch @Mar36739G I'll tell my children to press red, will press red and live happily ever after. I wouldn't live with myself knowing I put my children at risk.

@Piccini You don’t have to be 100% certain; and in the marginal cases, your vote matters.

@jon_vs_moloch No, picking blue is only a good strategy if you know that the rest of the world will vote exactly 50-50, so your vote is the deciding one. If you are confident that blue will win, there is no point in voting blue