> this is irrational and doesn’t likely reflect what people would actually do
People are irrational. I guarantee it’s likely that a lot of people would actually do it.
> The idea behind claiming you’d choose the blue button is to appear noble and altruistic.
Not at all. If the majority of people can’t be bothered to press the button that says “nobody dies as long as half of the other people say nobody dies” rather than “you don’t die,” I’m happier not being around. It’s purely selfish and blue is a win-win.
For me, blue is the purely selfish choice. Because I have no interest in living in a world where red wins a majority on this one. It’s not even a tough call.
You aren't interested in living in a world where people are generally unwilling to risk their lives for no benefit beyond the possibility of contributing to saving the lives of people who don't need saving (as they can trivially save themselves)?
Of course the framing affects how people vote. The thought experiment demands we use the framing as given. Some people might reason themselves into your analogy, others won’t.
So is your general take on the problem that because the way it's worded (blue => "everyone survives", red => "only those who press red survive"), enough people would choose blue that therefore the empathetic/moral thing to do would be to also choose blue to save them? I can get on board with that line of reasoning
In the Slashdot days, I suspect the weight of views would be on the side of "remove the warning labels, let Darwin sort it out." Interesting change in "hacker" culture.
You don’t get to reframe the problem with different wording or circumstances to demonstrate your intelligence to others before they choose and you choose. That’s part of the thought experiment.
Yes, when you completely rephrase the problem you will have different sentiments.
The thought experiment demands that the phrasing that was used actually be used, and you don’t get a chance to show the dumb blue people how smart you are before they pick their button.
It is rephrased. Any phrasing besides the original exists only in your head and not in anyone else’s.
The only reason I’m in my tomb is because you and people like you voted to kill me instead of voting to do nothing. Luckily for me, I’m dead and don’t care.
Congratulations! Enjoy your life with people who think like you.
Well, that is one way to rationalize, as I guess there is an infinite number of ways to do so.
The point remains, only one singular choice guarantees your own safety. And another has a Chance of death. Take the stupid choice because you think everyone else is also stupid? Thats your choice.
It doesn’t guarantee my safety, though. It puts me in a world where the only people left were so afraid of dying that they opted into a completely avoidable mass murder.
It may not have been completely avoidable though. What if the maximum number of people who would ever vote for blue is 30%
If that's the case then it's truly impossible to save them.
Your assumption is there is more than 50% of people who will vote blue or could be convinced to do so.
It's a terrifying thought that there could be such a deficit of empathetic people. But without any evidence you're just hoping based on your own beliefs that over 50% believe in blue like you do.
What if I'm not afraid of dying. But I'm just not willing to throw my life away unless there's decent evidence it could succeed and we could get above 50%
I notice that this thing you and others call empathy doesn't extend to the outgroup: if anybody doesn't subscribe to it, fuck 'em, is the general sentiment.
No idea! Well, I must assume good faith and believe you. To me it looks like you're labelling everybody you dislike as "probably a psychopath, best disposed of". I suppose that's consistent with saying they're not the outgroup, it's just a practical necessity or something.
In this instance of course what you're proposing is very mild: you think they should suffer one another's company - which you imagine would be a terrible experience. Unless you further imagine that they'd like it? But my impression was that you thought they'd have a bad time, and since they're your non-compassionate outgroup, you very compassionately don't care.
You read a bunch of things into what I wrote that simply are not there. I like plenty of people who would press the red button without hesitation. Their decision is their decision and my decision is mine. Might they “have a bad time?” Maybe. Maybe not. I’m certain I would have a terrible time, if I joined them in the majority.
It’s a made up toy problem. It exists for fun. The stated problem has some implicit assumptions. But you can rejigger the rules and assumptions to tweak the incentives and ethics. That’s the whole point. You could take the puzzle and apply it to a band of pirates held in a jail. That might make the outcome more obvious. Or you could imagine what would happen if the voting order were sequential. These are all just different formalisms that are fun to speculate over, but the rules can be interpreted many ways.
These types of analyses always treat voting red and ending up in the majority as preferable to voting blue and ending up in the minority. I don’t think that assumption is universally valid.
In the first case you contend with living in a world after a catastrophic population loss — likely including at least some of your loved ones — knowing that had some of you and your fellow survivors voted differently, nothing bad would have happened.
In the second case, you don’t care at all. Because you’re dead.
Not snowing customers with slop.
reply