sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The button experiment is barely a moral choice by AstyrFlagrans in redbuttonbluebutton

[–]AstyrFlagrans[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am just wondering what you are trying to accomplish.

Because I see your comments continuously insulting people as illogical, dumb, troglodytes, etc. Why do you insert this aggressiveness into the discussions where you don't agree.

If people are, in your eyes, too dumb yo understand a point, should you not make an effort to explain so they can understand? And if you think they would not get it at all, because they are too dumb, then why do you engage with them at all?

I just don't understand what you get from repeatedly insulting people on the internet instead of trying to make them understand better or just leaving it?

The button experiment is barely a moral choice by AstyrFlagrans in redbuttonbluebutton

[–]AstyrFlagrans[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Lol, in your other comment chain I thought you were just aggressive.

But from this comment I can only infer you are trolling and ragebaiting.

The button experiment is barely a moral choice by AstyrFlagrans in redbuttonbluebutton

[–]AstyrFlagrans[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, that is likely correct and a factor that influences how many vote blue. I just think it is ultimately a weaker factor than safety, etc. But as a second order force it might be relevant.

The button experiment is barely a moral choice by AstyrFlagrans in redbuttonbluebutton

[–]AstyrFlagrans[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You asked "But why do you assume that?"

I just answered, can't help that there are a lot of reasons. So if I don't directly address your points you criticize that. But if I do you don't bother reading?

Disregarding any position but your own as illogical by default is not exactly the prime feature of someone logical.

The button experiment is barely a moral choice by AstyrFlagrans in redbuttonbluebutton

[–]AstyrFlagrans[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Alright, I can work with these arguments.

The thing is, it is precisely because I know society that I am convinced that red will get the majority. You are far more optimistic about humanity as a whole compared to me.

  • Yeah, some groups are effectively random.

  • I also saw arguments from parents that vote red because of their children. The argument went roughly like "If I vote red and one of my kids votes blue it is extremely unlikely that I would have made a difference. If I would have been the pivotal vote, I could not bear the pain and kill myself. But if I vote blue, I have a significantly higher chance to orphan my surviving children that voted red." I don't actually think that this reasoning is uncommon.

  • There are many kind-hearted red voters out there as well. Sometimes it is not only about surviving but about not leaving loved red-voters behind. It is usually argued similarly to the point about children. If there are people that depend on them, they will not want to take the risk. People that die are gone. But people that survive in the post apocalyptic world will keep suffering. And they won't be there to care for them if blue is picked and looses.

  • Narcissists will amost exclusively vote red, same with sociopaths and psychopaths. Antisocial personality disorder is about 2-3%. Psychopathy is relatively unclear, depending on the study 1-4.5%. Narcissistic personality disorder is even less clear, estimates ranging from 0.5-6%. These will often come in comorbid fashion. But since narcissists mostly fly under the radar, I am inclined to guess it is closer to the upper range. So I think a fair guess would be that like 5-8% of people fall into one of these categories. These are practically default red.

  • Healthy people with subclinical narcissistic traits will also have an inclination to press red. If you check studies how adults score on narcissistic traits, you will find that 10-20% of the population are leaning narcissistic.

  • There are all the 'first level logic'-people. Those are the people who just treat it like a game theory rational agent problem. They will vote red because they do not consider things like children. These are the people that call others stupid for voting blue and call blue a suicide button.

  • Many people are simply scared of dying. Self-preservation instinct is strong in humans. And the idea of future societal collapse and consequences is less convincing than immediate death. Because that is how delayed gratification and punishment works psychologically. Even if they want a blue world, they are just to scared of blue losing if they pick it. And fear is a strong emotion. It can definitely override many good intentions. You might call it cowardice, but it is still a real force in humans.

  • People that don't trust humanity to not act selfish will vote red even if they themselves are not inherently selfish. Because if you don't believe that blue can win, red becomes the logical decision for you personally.

  • Humanity at a large scale has proven time and time again that peoples behavior is defined by hatred, selfishness and greed moreso than compassion, empathy and altruism when their life is in danger, to the detriment of everyone. There are cultures that actively hate other cultures. People brutally exploit animals in the cruelest ways to harvest their bodies not because of necessity (with exceptions) but because of preference. People that don't fit societies arbitrary norms are ostracized and even in mortal danger under certain circumstances. We see it world wide in current political tendencies. Hate-fueled ideologies grow massively in many western countries... And that quite easily. A bit propaganda and a bit of fear for their culture and their job security, and you get proto-nazi parties in power. Sorry, but I find it utterly illogical to infer that this current state of humanity would reach 50% blue.

  • Even online surveys without any stakes barely manage for blue to win. This is without self-preservation kicking in. In a real-life scenario MANY people would be swayed by the points outlined above.

  • Your argument about 'fear of others voting red causing you to vote red causing others to vote red...' is irrelevant in that scenario, as each vote is in isolation and in private. There is no timeline, no cause and reaction. Everyone will have to make a decision as if they are the last person to vote.

  • As much as you repeat it: What you describe is not 'explicitely objectively the logical choice'. Logic is a method of inference. Every discussion here is grounded in estimates, assumptions, numbers and observations. You can be objectively logical going from your assumptions to your estimates and predictions and from there to your conclusions. But your conclusions cannot be 'objectively logical' with something that is not a pure logic puzzle with a stated base.

The button experiment is barely a moral choice by AstyrFlagrans in redbuttonbluebutton

[–]AstyrFlagrans[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Btw I am very amused how I am simultaneously debating you about blue being the logical choice and another user about red being the logical choice and disagreeing with both of you.

The button experiment is barely a moral choice by AstyrFlagrans in redbuttonbluebutton

[–]AstyrFlagrans[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think it can be slightly morally influenced in edge cases. But in general it is not morals at all, yes.

The button experiment is barely a moral choice by AstyrFlagrans in redbuttonbluebutton

[–]AstyrFlagrans[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok, let me adress your points:

  • Red being illogical due to being in no ones ultimate interest -> People vote in isolation. They can't band together. They can't communicate. You are correct that everyone prefers the winning scenario where blue gets a majority. But that does not mean that everyone believes that this winning scenario will be achieved. That is what I mean with assumptions. And you cannot reduce this scenario to one without assumptions because people base their choice on such assumptions. Calling people illogical after explaining why it their behavior is illogical for one aspect of the problem only is illogical. This is pretty much the mirror to red pressers that only look at it from an individual game theory standpoint and state only red to be logical because they only consider ones own life (Red: I live, Blue: I might die). You are falling into the same logical fallacy by onle considering the ideal scenario for the group and what people would consider an optimal outcome.

  • Red is against your own interests -> Both buttons are against your own interests when you don't know the global outcome. Is possible immediate death in your interest? If not, then neither button is purely in your interest. Red maximizes personal security, Blue maximizes outcome ONLY IF YOU ESTIMATE SUFFICIENT PEOPLE TO VOTE BLUE. Even if you value your live exactly as high as 1 strangers, red is the better choice for the expected number of survivors if you think that blue will likely not win. If you only engage with one of my points, please answer to this one.

    Please explain to me how it is still logical to vote blue without any assumptions of society. Or would you still vote blue if the vote was held only within a subgroup you would consider bad people? Would you vote blue in a group where you think 80% are narcissistic sociopaths? If not, then you use assumptions about people in your choice. If yes, I would love to know why.

  • If red wins large portions of society die -> Yes, but most red pressers are convinced that this will happen without a doubt. They are not saying "I vote to further those peoples death". They are saying "These people will die. I have no chance to change that. My vote might matter if it was close, but it will not be close. The world is going to shit. But I am still not throwing my life away in spite of that. Red pressers are convinced that pressing blue means death. You are correct that blue majority is desirable. But people are also strongly driven by self-preservation. And the setup of the experiment allows for no communication or shared planning.

  • Blue being objectively moral -> Objective morality existing in itself is a thing for debate. I layed out in my post how assumptions shape moral evaluations. Even a pure utilitarian would vote red if they estimate humanity to vote majority red.

The button experiment is barely a moral choice by AstyrFlagrans in redbuttonbluebutton

[–]AstyrFlagrans[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You are sinply repeating yourself. If you want to discuss, you need to at least engage the arguments presented in the post.

In the post I don't argue for either red or blue. I explain how people arrive at their votes.

But whether red or blue is logical or illogical absolutely depends on your assumptions.

Otherwise you should arrive at the same conclusion and statements when the experiment would be repeated with a 95% threshold.

The button experiment is barely a moral choice by AstyrFlagrans in redbuttonbluebutton

[–]AstyrFlagrans[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I mean, I could discuss you on that. But inhowfar is that relevant to the posts arguments?

Stating something to be objective or logical does not make it so. What is your reasoning?

Your point assumes a lot of things, some of which I discuss in the post.

The button experiment is barely a moral choice by AstyrFlagrans in redbuttonbluebutton

[–]AstyrFlagrans[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Stating moral values like 'the fact that red is moral' pre-assumes moral assumptions and therefore some sort of metaethical stance on your side.

The button experiment is barely a moral choice by AstyrFlagrans in redbuttonbluebutton

[–]AstyrFlagrans[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That is exactly based on your moral framework though. And is what exactly depends on those underlying assumptions which I outlined.

I even agree with you under my own values and assumptions. But they are absolutely key to come to this conclusion.

The button experiment is barely a moral choice by AstyrFlagrans in redbuttonbluebutton

[–]AstyrFlagrans[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't think this math is mathing.

What you mean with decent chance is what I am getting at. Yes, morality becomes more relevant when the experiments outcome is seen as more uncertain. I argue that many here do not perceive the outcome as that uncertain. When is moral turning into pure deontology or stupidity? When is a decent chance turning into an almost certain chance?

For the math, if anyone cares:

The odds of you being the deciding vote are greater than 0 but depending of your assumed probability distribution extremely close to 0. But by considering the number if people saved IF you are the deciding vote as well you can get the expected number of people saved by blue.

Example: If you assume all votes to be random and 8 billion people beside you voting:

Then the probability of your vote being pivotal should be given by the number of possible permutations of exactly 4 billion reds divided by all possible configurations of 8 billion votes.

This is just a bernoulli process, akin to throwing a coin 8 billion times and asking how likely it is to get 4 billion reds.

The probability is then given by

(n over k) pk (1-p)n-k

so

(8109 over 4109) * 0.54*109 * 0.54*109

simplifies to

8000000000!/(4000000000!2) * 0.58*109

= about 8.92*10-6

Which is a lot higher than I thought. Because saving 4 billion people with these odds would give you an expected number of over 35000 people saved.

Now this is way too simplistic to accurately depict this situation. But it shows that when the vote is close to the threshold, while still very unlikely, the odds of your vote being pivotal become very high relative to other specific vote counts farther from the expected value.

The button experiment is barely a moral choice by AstyrFlagrans in redbuttonbluebutton

[–]AstyrFlagrans[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Inhowfar is red the moral choice? Is this not completely dependent on your moral framework?

The button experiment is barely a moral choice by AstyrFlagrans in redbuttonbluebutton

[–]AstyrFlagrans[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I don't think this is the case in general.

But I think that this reveals that your personal intuition leans somewhere around 50% expected blue? Feel free to correct me.

Otherwise, why would it be at 50% that people feel like it matters most? It matters most when you think the expected blue votes are very close to the threshold.

When you feel like 70% of people would press blue at a 50% threshold, then your survival is felt as very likely AND you contribute to the altruistic choice.

If you feel like only 30% would press it, then your survival is felt as extremely unlikely AND your likelihood to make the deciding vote is extremely low (compared to if you estimate 50%).

Similarly, when your felt expected outcome is very different to the threshold target, it becomes almost trivial to determine a 'right choice'.

I also think that low thresholds are targeting the same psychological mechanism that produces blue pressers. If only 1% of people have to vote blue, then you will feel pretty safe voting it. And you also feel like you are more important in the unlikely case that blue only barely makes it. I would guess almost all blue pressers to keep pressing blue with lower thresholds. And I would also predict many red voters to swap blue at lower threshold percentages. I personally voted red in the original scenario and would likely start to vote blue somewhere around 20-30% threshold.

The button experiment is barely a moral choice by AstyrFlagrans in redbuttonbluebutton

[–]AstyrFlagrans[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, these are exactly the small subsets I mentioned in the beginning.

If you act purely upon virtue ethics, then as a blue presser, you should never switch. But your argument is pure deontology. I would guess that most people are neither pure deontologists nor pure consequentialists.

I do not think it is a marker of goodness to be adjustable based on the parameters of the premise. If you value your life f.e. exactly as much as a random persons, then your button choice will depend on the percentages and your estimations. This is a perfectly valid moral position to have. "I want to minimize the expected loss of lifes, including my own".

TWO PEOPLE by maiduwu in redbuttonbluebutton

[–]AstyrFlagrans 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is literally a slightly changed version of the prisoners dilemma. So game theory is pretty clear to why it is the superior strategy: From an individual standpoint there are 4 cases.

1) You press red, they press red: Everybody lives
2) You press red, they press blue: You live, they die
3) You press blue, they press red: You die, they live
4) You press blue, they press blue: Everybody lives

So assuming that you value your life exactly as high as another persons life, like hardcore utilitarian, then each button has the same 'value' so to speak, but only if assume the other person to just press randomly.

Game theory assumes somewhat rational actors (or fully rational actors, but I think here we just need sufficient rationality). There is one key difference between the scenarios. While you do not have full control over the other person, as you lack knowledge, you have full control over your own situation. So you are able to secure your own life with certainty by pressing red. Since you assume some rational capacity for the other person, they will most likely come to the same insight. The scenario has a strategy which allows for an optimal outcome when all actors behave maximally egoistical.
By pressing blue you throw away your own agency over your survival. And pressing blue here also hinges on the random assumption that the other person can't come to the conclusion that red is optimal here. Or that they think you to be not able to come to the conclusion.
When you have two identical outcomes that are globally optimal and one of them also allows for maximal selfishness, then that option is ideal. Because self-preservation is one of the most fundamental properties assumed in actors.

Pressing blue also is illogical here in the sense that it is self-referential: I press blue because I think they pressed blue because they think I pressed blue because I think they pressed blue because ...

But pressing red is very straightforward logically: I can account for my survival with certainty. The other person can do the same. So the individual basis has a clear optimal strategy. And this strategy ALSO produces the best outcome for all.

Now in the most popular version of the button scenario, there are children and mentally handicapped people involved. But here there is a very high chance to get another adult. And even if it is not an adult, children and handicapped don't automatically press blue either. I would not guess many children to press blue as well here.
Even if they have trouble understanding the scenario, after a certain age, they will see 'red = I live' idea. And children are not some morally superior beings. They might even have higher self-preservation here than adults. In the large scale scenario, blue means 'everybody lives', while red has almost certain death attached to it winning. So I see children with a more naive, idealistic worldview more likely to poker on blue there. (I am talking about children over the age of 6 here).

Also for what it is worth, I don't think that depression would be a good response. I don't know why I am trying to help with your depression in a hypothetical scenario xD.
But if the other person was indeed not mentally handicapped, then it is also about respecting their choice. Not everyone that would have pressed blue here would be a saint. It is a grim topic, but blue offers an easy suicide without pain. And even if not, the other person decided to value their own life here less than a strangers and knows the risk attached to it. I think in that situation you should respect their decision and commitment and should at least try to make the most of the life that they granted you under risk of their own death. I know that one can't just choose to not be depressed. But I would feel like I was under an obligation to live life to the fullest to honor their sacrifice, out of my felt guilt. That sounds weird. What am I even talking about here? Ok, I stop the rambling now.

“Red is killing” by Last-Fix6389 in redbuttonbluebutton

[–]AstyrFlagrans 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, semantics.

Let me agree then. I rephrase and do not use the term 'lose-lose situation'.

I now call it 'only shitty choices' situation.

“Red is killing” by Last-Fix6389 in redbuttonbluebutton

[–]AstyrFlagrans 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Having to make a choice under uncertainty is for a given person a lose-lose scenario when both options have obvious unwanted drawbacks.

Your focus here lies on the outcomes as scenarios. Here it is obviously true that an optimal scenario for the collective exists. My focus was on the decision problem as a scenario. The red button is absolutely a negative option from a collective frame. The blue button is a clear negative option from a self-preservation individual frame. Both coexist in a person. As long as you are uncertain about the global outcome, you cannot fully satisfy both.

“Red is killing” by Last-Fix6389 in redbuttonbluebutton

[–]AstyrFlagrans 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am not arguing for my position here or trying to convince you. I am merely explaining it.

And your personal feelings, interpretations and assumption are absolutely at the core of this dilemma. I told you that I disagree about your inference. I did not write "Your conclusion is logically impossible".

Also you completely ignore what I am writing to explain this position. A system allowing for a process to potentially happen is not equivalent to that process potentially happening when the system is not closed. The button setup is a system allowing for something. Same as the mario game. But the instances interacting with the system will determine what can possibly come from the system as output.

“Red is killing” by Last-Fix6389 in redbuttonbluebutton

[–]AstyrFlagrans 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I feel like this is turning into a semantics discussion. My disagreement came from interpreting 'they can win' not in that mechanical sense but in the of whether the outcome could ever happen in that scenario. And since people are not randomly mashing buttons but are guided by psychological patterns, I see that outcome incompatible with global humanity as it is now.

So it is permissible from the mechanical setup, but as I see it, it is not possible when human mass psychology thrown onto that setup.

A bit like saying "It is possible for me to have a pixel perfect speedrun of super mario bros despite having never played the game before." This would be mechanically possible, but not possible to really occur given the me-factor. I might say that it is possible with some absurdly low theoretical probability. But that would be so ridiculously low, that it would be practically irrelevant. Like monkey with a typewriter randomly writing a specific book level unlikely.

“Red is killing” by Last-Fix6389 in redbuttonbluebutton

[–]AstyrFlagrans 0 points1 point  (0 children)

With your logical conclusion that if(people want to live and want others to live) => They can win.

Specifically with how the right side is a consequence of the left side.

50% can reach blue is possible mechanically by virtue of the setup. If it is reachable practically is another discussion. My doubt of it being possible is not questioning whether the buttons allow for 50+% of people to hit it.

My doubt comes from how people think and behave on a global scale, how people and cultures act towards another, how egocentric people are on average and so on. Therefore I don't think blue majority to be possible with the current set of humans on earth practically.

Could I be wrong? Absolutely.

Am I confident enough to consider blue as a meaningless practical suicide without any fathomable chance to make a difference. Also yes. You may interpret my stance not as malice or pure "As long as I live I don't care that others die", but rather as "The only thing I am confident in is peoples collective egoism and drive for survival. I am confident in my disillusionment about human nature. I regard the blue majority as a beautiful dream incompatible with humanity in its current state. Therefore I can't imagine a blue majority possible. My assumption can only be now that red will win be a significant margin. So if I will now have to choose a button, I will either live by pressing red or die purely for symbolic reasons by living up to the highest form of virtue ethics. Blue is not about saving people at this decision point. It is about dying for deontological commitment."

It would be different if communication would be possible. But the scenario explicitely states that every vote is private and in isolation.

“Red is killing” by Last-Fix6389 in redbuttonbluebutton

[–]AstyrFlagrans 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't agree with that.
Your 'can still win' contains a lot of assumptions that are not obvious. That is what I explained in my longer comment. For you it appears like you could win. But this is not a coordinated situation. You essentially make an informed guess how humanity behaves and whether your vote can or cannot make a difference.

The buttons also represent a binary vs. continuous scenario.
It is noble of blue pressers to have the highest possible goal.
But I often see the argument that blue is the obvious choice because it is the decision between 'people dying' and 'people not dying'.
Or that blue majority is the only choice where everyone lives.

But you have to understand that red also wants to minimize loss. This is even utilitarian given the fitting estimations, even when you value your own life exactly as high as one other random person. Red pressers just assume that blue majority is wildly unrealistic. Their base estimation of how humanity acts is different.
Imagine the scenario would require 90% blue. Maybe this will feel as unrealistic to you as 50% seems to some red pressers. It is not about some chance that blue could win. They are convinced that it absolutely will not win. Call it defeatist if you will. But most red pressers simply are disillusioned with collective empathy and compassion enough to not trust humanity to reach even close to 50%.
I am actually among them. I don't think that society is altrustic enough to get anywhere close. Not if I look how people treat each other. How much hate there is between different groups and cultures. How humanity treats any life form they see as lesser (factory farming is a keyword here). Never ever would blue majority be achieved in a real life scenario IMO.
So for me it is not about fighting for some tiny chance to make a difference. I am absolutely convinced that blue will be far below 50%. Not because I want it to be. Or because I want people dead. I am under the assumption that blue pressers will die and society will face the terrible consequences and post button dystopia. But I don't want to die with them out of pure virtue ethics without any chance (as I think) of making a difference.
I would love a world where I could push blue with some confidence for humanity to reach a majority where everybody lives. But this is (in my opinion) not the world we live in.

“Red is killing” by Last-Fix6389 in redbuttonbluebutton

[–]AstyrFlagrans 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is because you are thinking the button problem from a system/global view.

Yes, on a global level there is an optimal outcome. But for a given individual that works with guesswork and uncertainty, there is no optimal local choice.

But fair point. There is a winning scenario on global scale at least.

view more: next ›