potted_succulent

@ConceptualJames > I know how most of them would treat me in reality Who is "them" here? This seems to indicate you have either, low trust in all people, or have ascribed some political labels to the colors. The majority of American voters regardless of political party choose blue.

You didn't say I was wrong about my fact. You said it isn't going to happen in practice. Those aren't the same thing. Am I responsible for the people who make the wrong choice? Not rey, tbqh. And I know how most of them would treat me in reality, so I'm kinda happy about red.

@Undertalle420 @rodrigokiller @wybeka @MrBeast It's a valid interpretation. Blue voters only die if red voters reach over 50%. Collectively, blue voters risk their own lives to save everyone Collectively, red voters risk other people's lives to save themselves

@rodrigokiller @wybeka @MrBeast that's wrong if you press red you're not a killer you arent forcing anyone to press blue

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.

@0xPBIT @pawelk411 @Geero_Gero Sure, but rational high trust individuals estimate the group's ability to implicitly coordinate on a given action. You are essentially just shifting the original threshold from 50% to 99.9...% Most people voting blue in the original scenario don't do it to just prove a point.

@pawelk411 @Geero_Gero This is what I’m getting at somewhat.

Everyone must put a gun to their own head. If everyone pulls the trigger, no one dies. If anyone does not pull the trigger, only people who did pull the trigger will die. Let’s hear it.

@ConceptualJames @charliespeefeet @deadmousefive I somewhat agree, but it's not just blue voters who "justify being mad". I've had numerous replies say that the world would actually be better off without blue voters. I also think most blue voters aren't really mad, just dismayed, they accept that many people will choose red.

@charliespeefeet @deadmousefive My true feelings are that the whole button game premise is a moral extortion and a trick to get the people who would choose blue to justify being mad at the people who would choose red. That's the extent of my feelings, that it is an evil manipulation, yet again, by bad people.

It's remarkable because the blue button is like the anti-self-preservation button, like passive-aggressively putting your fate in the hands of others as an exercise in justifying hating them. It's willfully stepping out of self-preservation and being mad that not everyone did.

@ConceptualJames @deadmousefive > Everyone lives if everyone pushes red This is a poor argument since: "Everyone lives if everyone pushes blue" is also true. And a voting blue strategy has high margin for error, while red has zero margin. All suboptimal outcomes only occur if there are too many red voters.

@deadmousefive Everyone lives if everyone pushes red. People only die if some people press blue.

@graphtheory @lumpenspace The primary motivation in most blue voters I see is to save their own children or loved ones who might vote blue. Deceptively signalling sameness would only apply to a small minority who don't care about anyone, but think blue will wind, and see utility in appearing altruistic.

@lumpenspace That makes sense within the context of the hypothetical, but I feel like people are posting saying they’d choose blue because the mode poster seems to believe it’s more moral Their utility lies in signaling sameness to people who they are honestly deceiving Oh fuck ur right

Since the red and blue button discourse is still going on, what makes any of you so sure that people are saying what they’d really pick? It seems obvious from a game theoretic standpoint that you should say blue and press red. My position was would press red and say red too.

@BryanOnTheMic @theramblingfool @TheLaurenChen It's specifically part of the scenario though. Also, there are plenty of situations in real life where risk your own life is required to save innocent people. That's why high trust societies vote blue at higher rates.

There is no situation where a child is forced to make a life or death choice like this. In the event that it did happen, the vast majority of children know what red is and what blue is. If you have to warp the question to be "can you confuse a child into committing suicide", then you're really fucked up in the head. Cause that's what you're actually doing here.

Reading people's justifications for pushing the blue button is actually spiking my cortisol levels If everybody pushes red - nothing happens! So why on earth would anyone press blue? It's a needless gamble, but it's being painted as the altruistic decision for some reason

@MadamSavvy The only person creating a problem, is the one imposing the coordination problem on all of humanity Once we're in the scenario, suboptimal outcomes only occur if there are too many red voters Blue: risk your life to save everyone Red: risk other people's lives to save yourself

The red/blue post going around i feel like is a watered down version of the original. Idk why it was pushed by the botspam accounts. Anyone who picks blue belongs in a padded room. In the current state of the copypasta, there is no reason to pick blue. Instead, anyone who picks blue is looking to create a problem where none exists so they can feel good about their “sacrifice” later. Sound familiar, doesnt it?

@LuisPay99 @FreeArchivist @MadamSavvy The original scenario specifically involves "everyone in the world". If you didn't consider that could mean *everyone*, that's simply a lack of critical thinking on your part. Also, you literally can save your loved ones. Every poll where blue wins is an example of that.

@FreeArchivist @MadamSavvy Where in the question are unwilling voters involved? That is a different question. What if they do not vote, or they vote red like me? Because like-minded people WILL vote red. Under that context, voting blue is still suicidal, and I can't save my loved ones from themselves.

@NICKYN00DL3S @UTDssam @Kyle280743 @LumLotus Consider: Your village is being attacked, and you have to make a split second decision to flee or defend. If you are a coward and flee, you survive. If you defend, you might die, but as long as >50% of people defend, everyone lives. Structurally, this is equivalent.

@UTDssam @Kyle280743 @LumLotus There is a gigantic wood chipper. If you don't jump in, you are ok. If you jump in, you might die, or you might live, as long as 50%+1 decide to jump in as well and jam the wood chipper. Do you jump into the wood chipper?

New concerning thing with blue people... I've been called a conspiracy theorist for noticing a discrepancy/ issue with polling. None of them are listening even when shown directly the evidence. ...

@LumLotus This is obviously not the case though, since there are many variations of the question which get different results. Such as:

Proof in point of what I said about them not listening. Wonder how all blue are going to feel after they find out polling really is broken.

@FarmingWithYHWH @TrueHighKing69 To be clear, I actually think you're right, in that your proposed scenario is structurally equivalent as a coordination problem. This is why (1) framing matters a lot, and (2) the specifics of the voting population matters.

@FarmingWithYHWH @TrueHighKing69 No, it's specifically part of the thought experiment. Everyone means *everyone* If you didn't consider that "everyone in the world" could mean *everyone*, that's simply a lack of critical thinking on your part.

Take the Red Pill you aren't poisoned. Take the Blue Pill and you are swallowing poison, and will only be given the antidote if 51% of the populace makes the same suicide pact to swallow poison.

@Tcoll86 @FamedCelebrity Sure, if you only care about your immediate self preservation. But, you need to consider the second order effects of red winning in the scenario, which causes many people's children and loved ones to die, and causes mass global death and civilizational collapse.

@FamedCelebrity This is what I gather from the whole situation as well. They are lying online for virtue signal feel good serotonin points. Or they are actually stupid enough to think that they are the smart people for failing a basic test of self-preservation and Common Sense.

I do not believe most Blue advocates, and think they are lying. I am morally certain, therefore, Red would win the vote.

@le76455 @FamedCelebrity You're forgetting that *everyone* votes, so in real life, people's children and loved ones are on the line Also, blue is always a large proportion of the vote, so red risks mass global death and civilizational collapse For many, that would increase their chances of voting blue

@FamedCelebrity Blue consistently scores 56-57%. There is no doubt in my mind that, in a real life situation, at least 7% would break to press red if their life was on the line.

@tessonna @spooky_dreams @wybeka @MrBeast Yes, I did, and you haven't identified an incorrect statement in the framings above. As a coordination problem, they're structurally equivalent. The moral terms are up to interpretation.

@pottedsucculent @spooky_dreams @wybeka @MrBeast Did you read before answering ? It's not equivalent in moral terms.

@TheAutisticBro @SteelSmack @wybeka @MrBeast Yes, humans do have a strong survival instinct, but they also have social bonds. You need to account for the fact that many people recognize their children or loved ones might press blue. This has been reproduced many times, and blue often succeeds in high trust groups.

@pottedsucculent @SteelSmack @wybeka @MrBeast They don't humans have quite a strong survival instinct and a lot when given the chance in private will take the guaranteed safety

@Duhmeee @micsolana @RoachofWallSt @durpurdurp I'm aware. First, I was just pointing out that your proposed problem wasn't just a change in framing. Second, for the original scenario, you don't need to be terrified, since recursion actually acts as a stabilizer. That's why we see many repeated blue majorities in practice

@pottedsucculent @micsolana @RoachofWallSt @durpurdurp You've got Exponential branching which is what this kind of is. Then you have Ackermanns base function which is exactly what this. If you're aware of the runaway cascade on Exponential branching then you should be terrified of Ackermanns base function.

fwiw, and this is embarrassing but I'm going to admit it, my instinct was blue, and I pressed blue. then I thought about it for a moment and the answer was clearly red. I can't make a rational case for blue, but understand where blues are coming from (they are wrong).

@Duhmeee @micsolana @RoachofWallSt @durpurdurp From a pure game theory perspective that's true, but in the real world cooperation can still occur in one-shot anonymous games That's because, in practice, there's potential for implicit coordination due to social factors That's why high trust groups vote blue at higher rates

@pottedsucculent @micsolana @RoachofWallSt @durpurdurp You can't run a coordination problem with anonymity. You guys are EVing doubt.

@micsolana @RoachofWallSt @durpurdurp Yeah, I think it mostly comes down to (1) the framing, and (2) the specifics of the scenario (are children included, etc) Consider this framing: Everyone has to vote, Black or White. If ≥50% vote Black, all Whites die if <50% vote Black, everyone lives It's equivalent

@RoachofWallSt @durpurdurp convincing argument, never thought of it that way before, thank you