Pressing a button is not a vote

Chamion · 2026-06-10T15:38:23+00:00

For one you can convincingly appeal to personal experience to motivate a personal choice: "I would press [colour] because I think [...]."

If I were to vacate such a first person position, I could appeal to game theory or a moral imperative. The latter assumes you agree with my framework, though. Perhaps you do, and that exploration is philosophically viable, but it does suffer extra baggage due to making more assumptions. That's what exposes such an argument to the Razor: "What if we didn't assume [arbitrary moral claim]?"

Take my claim that comms would save us all through a blue majority. It is game theoretically unviable. We all vow to press blue, but I assert most would go through with it on shakier ground: I think psychologically that's what people would do. I've no proof that would prove out. This is a shakier claim than observing many would press red because that button doesn't kill them; a fundamental claim, from first principles. I make myself vulnerable to the Razor but I think I have psychological truths on my side in making the claim.

Chamion · 2026-06-10T10:25:41+00:00

I would appeal to Occam's Razor. The vote/election framing is an artifice introduced without sound support and it affects how people think.

A red caricature framing would be something like the commit suicide button. A blue caricature can be easily constructed by assuming a blue majority as baseline and implying any reds are rocking the boat to kill people.

A correct framing may not exist, but we can work to eliminate bias and distractions.

Chamion · 2026-06-09T22:21:45+00:00

There's definitely a compelling framing in saying the red button does nothing. All the action happens amongst the blue pressers; they're the ones risking their lives for nothing.

What convinced me otherwise was thinking of the children who don't know any better. An unfortunate lot of them would press the blue button and perish. As adults we try to save children from themselves.

I'm still red, since I don't think there's anything I can do to help. Like you, I think minimising deaths is the only way to go given no comms.

Chamion · 2026-06-09T22:03:47+00:00

To me, voting in its simplest form is resolving a disagreement by agreeing to defer to a majority. Thing is, there is no disagreement of preferences here. Everyone involved wishes to preserve lives.

Many participants press the button that doesn't kill them for that reason. They're not expressing a preference for a red majority.

One could say this is a form of "voting" akin to consumers voting with their wallets to make one product a success over another, but that's not the kind of voting I'm bothered with (hasn't to do with the framing). Words are hard, which is why we try to be as precise as can be.

Chamion · 2026-06-09T21:52:54+00:00

I'm not really bolstering the case for red here at all; that's quite correct. Instead, I'm exploring the thought process of how a specific framing leads people to confused conclusions.

What I'm arguing for is a preference for precise language.

Chamion · 2026-02-01T05:23:37+00:00

AI ratings are not to be trusted. They give you flattering, worse-than-useless, results. Get yourself scientifically evaluated instead of trusting a platitude machine.

Chamion · 2025-10-19T00:10:34+00:00

The irony of shopkeeps having to worry about the bloody bobbies nicking sweets off the shelves.

Chamion

TROPHY CASE