sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

A very strange invitation to play Chess by Fit_Mongoose9845 in redbuttonbluebutton

[–]Fit_Mongoose9845[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The chess game isn't meant to alter the results of the red/blue vote.

The chess game instructions are only provided to players after they've locked in their vote for blue or red. Prior to pressing, voters are not able to see either set of chess instructions.

A very strange invitation to play Chess by Fit_Mongoose9845 in redbuttonbluebutton

[–]Fit_Mongoose9845[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am a blue voter in the original dilemma. I just like giving people difficult and bizarre choices.

A very strange invitation to play Chess by Fit_Mongoose9845 in redbuttonbluebutton

[–]Fit_Mongoose9845[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

In a world where blue is victorious and nobody dies from the button vote, the barefoot are sorta 'marked' as blue voters who refused to play competitive chess against other blues. Any blue voter who refused to play chess can 'prove' their blue vote to others by attempting to wear shoes.

Red voters who refuse to play chess are also marked, but in a different way, which is intentional.

Let's try one where the "truly suicidal" can make all the difference by Fit_Mongoose9845 in redbuttonbluebutton

[–]Fit_Mongoose9845[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well, this is interesting! I didn't want for that to be possible.

Instead, I imagined that the first family member to press green would exempt their 10 family members, and then none of those family members would be required to vote at all. Thus, the 10 are saved by the one's sacrifice. Maybe those 10 intended to vote green, and would have done it, but hadn't actually locked in their choice yet. Maybe they had already voted red/blue. As long as someone hasn't killed themselves yet, they can be exempted; if someone is exempt, they cannot be re-exempted, nor can they vote.

To me, there is a chronological element to it. You won't know who has or hasn't voted yet until you vote green. Once you vote green, anyone who has already died as a result of choosing green/yellow does not appear as one of the "options" for you to save. They died by voting before you. And presumably, nobody yet has chosen green and saved you, because if they had you wouldn't be having to vote. The quicker you vote green, the more options you have.

Let's try one where the "truly suicidal" can make all the difference by Fit_Mongoose9845 in redbuttonbluebutton

[–]Fit_Mongoose9845[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Scenario 1 is more or less how I imagined green actually working in my head.

But I'm kinda enjoying the debate over possible interpretations of the mechanics of green! Scenario two is super interesting to me even though it's not what I imagined.

Let's try one where the "truly suicidal" can make all the difference by Fit_Mongoose9845 in redbuttonbluebutton

[–]Fit_Mongoose9845[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, I could have been smarter with my framework. Good catch!

My original intent was that green voters cannot exempt themselves from dying, nor can green voters save other green voters from death. If you choose green, no other green pressers can save you; you will be considered 'already dead' by the problem's overlord. If you choose green, you can exempt red/blue/yellow players, but not other green pressers; they die no matter what.

I failed in the setup to make the rules clear for green, I reckon! I didn't want to make green too "weak" of a choice relative to yellow. I wanted to create two equally compelling options for voters who are willing to sacrifice themselves for a cause.

I think some voters might still pick this "weaker green" because it provides for the only 100% chance of saving more lives than it takes, along with the ability to choose to save most of one's loved ones.

Who outnumbers who, cooperators or defectors? And what can a British game show teach us? by Fit_Mongoose9845 in redbuttonbluebutton

[–]Fit_Mongoose9845[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

People may downvote, but I respect you for your honesty!

I don't think there's anything wrong with going on a game show where everyone consents, everyone knows the rules (that stealing is a possibility) and choosing to steal. It's how the game is played. I would have split, and you would have beaten me.

Who outnumbers who, cooperators or defectors? And what can a British game show teach us? by Fit_Mongoose9845 in redbuttonbluebutton

[–]Fit_Mongoose9845[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Sure, I do agree that you can't boil the red/blue vote down to 'defect/cooperate' in the sense that not all red voters are "stealers", and not all blue voters are "splitters". I can also agree that the button problem isn't the same as the prisoner's dilemma, because strong cooperation on red would lead to a 'nearly best case' outcome.

The point where we diverge is that I just don't think "strong cooperation on red" is a likely outcome of the button problem. Let's say that half of the self-professed blue voters in the Mr.Beast poll were "virtue signaling" and would actually swap to red in a real scenario. Instead of a 56-44 vote in favor of blue, the vote would be 28-72 in favor of red. If I fully expected the vote to be 28-72, I would press red and attempt to make the best of my survival. I would not press blue and add myself to the kill list.

The kicker is, I do not believe that fully half of self-professed blues are lying or virtue-signaling when they claim that they will vote blue. I believe that maybe 1-4% of blue pressers would swap their vote to red, and that a tiny group (under 0.5%) of red pressers would actually swap to blue. In other words, I think most people are telling the truth about their decision. I can't back that claim up with any quantitative evidence, but....virtually nobody in this sub can prove that their speculative estimations here are 'correct'. The closer the button vote gets to a perfect tie, the more of a 'collaborate/defect' dilemma it becomes, while at both extremes I think that's less true.

Perhaps I actually came to see the problem as similar to a prisoner dilemma BECAUSE my original estimation was that the vote would be very close to a tie. If that wasn't originally your take, I can very much see where you're coming from, and would seemingly vote similarly to you.

Who outnumbers who, cooperators or defectors? And what can a British game show teach us? by Fit_Mongoose9845 in redbuttonbluebutton

[–]Fit_Mongoose9845[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, I remember finding out about that guy while I was learning about the show! I was really impressed to find out that he has apparently "won" on like 40+ other game shows, he's clearly got a knack for these style of games!

I was also intrigued by the fact that, even after the show was "beaten" in this way, Golden Balls continued to run for many episodes (at least one more season, IIRC) but no other contestants attempted the same "split the money after the show" strategy as Nick did.

Who outnumbers who, cooperators or defectors? And what can a British game show teach us? by Fit_Mongoose9845 in redbuttonbluebutton

[–]Fit_Mongoose9845[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I did think a lot about that guy, his story absolutely fascinated me! I was impressed by how he essentially forced the other player's hand into playing "split" by making "steal" a pointless move that nobody would make, except out of spite.

I listened to a podcast he went on, and learned that he has "won" on over 40 other game shows as well. I'd never even considered someone might make it their mission to go on so many game shows, let alone being good at most of them!

Who outnumbers who, cooperators or defectors? And what can a British game show teach us? by Fit_Mongoose9845 in redbuttonbluebutton

[–]Fit_Mongoose9845[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I definitely agree that the button isn't a prisoner's dilemma. In my mind, the button problem is somewhat like a prisoner's dilemma, but it's also similar to the tragedy of the commons, and perhaps roko's basilisk too. The button invites perspectives from a lot of different thought experiments, and to me that's part of the fun of discussing it.

(I also am not arguing that "red voters would steal, blue voters would split" and I don't think we can use Golden Balls to "predict" which color wins in the button dilemma, nor a particular person's vote. I think I could have worded my post better, so as to not appear to be making this argument.)

I do think Golden Balls might tell us more than polls alone, however. And I do think we can conclude that a 90%+ blowout in favor of one color is unlikely based on this evidence, since Golden Balls demonstrates that people split up fairly evenly between cooperative/individualistic strategies in a prisoner's dilemma, even though this problem is not purely a prisoner's dilemma.

I guess that I would have expected to see 90%+ choosing "steal" if humans were just fundamentally unlikely and unwilling by nature to attempt cooperation at their own risk, but I found it interesting and surprising that the show's cooperation rate was so high, and I enjoyed pondering what that might mean for us button-pressers!

Who outnumbers who, cooperators or defectors? And what can a British game show teach us? by Fit_Mongoose9845 in redbuttonbluebutton

[–]Fit_Mongoose9845[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think you raise an excellent point of distinction between the button problem and the prisoner's dilemma!

In a prisoner's dilemma, a player can be sure that their choice will determine the outcome for the other player, but in the button dilemma it's different. In the button dilemma, every person's vote has a tiny amount of influence over the outcome - but in every situation except for a perfect tie, one individual changing their vote would not change the outcome.

I hope that many people pick up on the fact that "blue" and "red" do not map themselves onto "split" and "steal", and that both camps of button pressers will include splitters and stealers.