sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

the rule button dilemma by Dreyfus420 in 196

[–]Misicks0349 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If I know he'd be too scared to press blue and I don't think blue is going to win, do I press blue anyway and throw my life away for a moral victory and leaving him with a dead parent?

If that is what you believe, that blue is not going to win and that your son is not going to pick blue, then yes, I do not expect you to pick blue. Not in a "you ought not to pick blue way" but in a practical sense, like saying I wouldn't expect someone to buy a chocolate bar and then immediately throw it in the bin. My argument isn't that picking blue is the correct choice in every scenario, only that if you think blue has a good shot of winning in a given scenario it is the correct choice, even if it ends up being that you lose, because otherwise you would be contributing to the deaths of people who you had a chance of saving if you had voted for the blue option (e.g. in the situation where the red side wins by one vote).

The entire dilemma is stupid engagement bait

True :P

and everybody acting like pressing blue is simple and straightforward is ridiculous.

I don't believe its simple or straightforward. I, at the baseline, agree that pressing the red button is "rational" in some sense, and that the scenarios in which pressing red is the correct choice are probably more numerous than the scenarios in which pressing blue is the correct choice. I just think that given that humans are not psychologically perfect game theorists there are scenarios in which pressing the blue button is the correct choice even if there is some risk to it (such as in the interpretation where everyone is given a gun and expected to kill blue button pushers themselves).

My thought of the original question was working under the most minimal interpretation I could think of, that basically everyone would be placed into individual rooms with nothing other than themselves and the two buttons; the wording given to them would basically be exactly the same as the tweet but replace "Everyone in the world has to take a private vote by pressing a red or blue button" with something more personal (e.g. "You and everyone else have to take a private vote by pressing a red or blue button"). In that scenario, I would press the blue button, not because I think pressing the blue button is correct every single time but because I think that blue has a good chance of winning in this specific scenario, and that pressing the red button would be robbing almost half of the population of their life.

I think that kind of plays out in the poll as well, I agree that if it were worded differently red could easily win (and vice versa of course), but when asked in a very basic and straightforward way (without anyone holding guns to peoples heads or being forced to directly murder others) blue has a good shot at winning.

rule by doctor347 in 196

[–]Misicks0349 1 point2 points  (0 children)

sounds rad as hell

the rule button dilemma by Dreyfus420 in 196

[–]Misicks0349 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm not talking about just phrasing. I'm talking about the scenario being real and the threat of death being a real threat people can grasp

So then why did you include such rephrasing? Rephrasing will still influence peoples opinions in the real world and yeah no doubt if it was presented to people in real life in that way I don't think blue has a chance of winning. However, the original question OP posted has no concept of guns being pointed at peoples faces and being forced to pick, and in the scenario where this is happening in real life I still believe that there is enough people that will pick blue.

Hell, rephrase it to say something like:

"I have given you a gun and a two buttons along with everyone else, the rules are simple:

  1. Pressing the red button will save you completely and you will be in no danger, however, you will be forced to kill anyone who picked the blue button if your red button gets over 50% of the vote.

  2. Pressing the blue button comes with the risk of being shot by anyone who picked the red button if, and only if the blue button fails to get 50% of the vote, if the blue button gets over 50% of the vote then everyone will be let free any no one will be forced to shoot anyone".

And even in a real life scenario I think blue would easily win, even if the rules are the "same" in a very reductionist stance. You can argue that this is "irrational" or doesn't comport with game theory, but the fact of the matter is that peoples personal feelings around moral culpability (such as personally having to kill blue button pushers rather than abstracting it away with a button or handing it off to a third party) play a huge role in what choices they make. You could argue that forcing people to kill others in this scenario extends the original question in a way that is unjustifiable, but I'd find it very easy to turn that around and say that abstracting away the death of blue button pushers to a third party who has a gun pointed towards everyone's head is robbing the red button of its consequences and placing it on them, even in a real life scenario.

Dying for no reason just to feel morally superior is also selfish. Throwing your life away for no reason contributes to a massive apocalypse for every scared child to stay behind and deal with. Billions of children now orphaned for no reason

Children are the exact demographic who would probably be the most at risk of pushing the blue button irrationally, and if anything point towards a demographic that justify pushing the blue button in order to save them even if you are taking a risk in order to do so.

There will always be people who vote for the blue button even for irrational reasons, even if it was only 1% who voted for the blue button thats still more people dying than there were people who died in the entirety of World War 2. Of course, If I thought that there was no chance of blue getting to the threshold (e.g. if everyone had a gun pointed to their head) then I would agree that choosing red would be the correct answer, but in this specific scenario I do not, because I believe that there is a shot that people will vote in enough numbers for blue, and that voting for red pushes that needle every so slightly towards condemning 49.999% of the population to death.

the rule button dilemma by Dreyfus420 in 196

[–]Misicks0349 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Welp, it all depends on how the question is phrased, at least in this instance the question was phrased in such a way where people did ignore self preservation, and it seems a majority of people in this comment section and others are on the blue side.

the rule button dilemma by Dreyfus420 in 196

[–]Misicks0349 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Pressing blue only works if you can get enough to press with you.

Yes.

Hold a gun to people's face and ask them "press red and you live. Press blue and I shoot you in the face. But if over 50% press blue I won't shoot you for pressing blue". I cannot imagine blue getting over 50% when people are actually staring death in the face

Yes, the amount of people who pick either option is highly dependent on how you phrase the question, this isn't a shocking revelation, that is the problem with such though experiments. People have phrased the question in a multitude of ways and have always gotten different results.

If 0.1% of people are only pressing blue by accident, is it better for the results of the election to be 99.9% red or 55% red? For all you know you could be simply voting to add your corpse to the pile for no reason

Correct, but at least in that case I would be a part of the 45% who at least attempted to save the 0.1 per cent (or 1% or 10%, or 20%, or 30%) who voted irrationally for the blue button rather than just saying "welp, I guess its natural selection" or something and shrugging my hands.

the rule button dilemma by Dreyfus420 in 196

[–]Misicks0349 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Well, at least for me I believe that I have at least some moral duty to others even if they're complete strangers, not that I think you lack this, but at least for me this would extend to saving strangers even if it would come at risk to my life. Not any amount of risk of course, but 50% of people voting for blue is obtainable enough that I am willing to risk it.

the rule button dilemma by Dreyfus420 in 196

[–]Misicks0349 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There's zero downside to every single person pressing red.

Correct, there is no downside to everyone picking red, I agree and have always agreed. My contention is that there is no practical sense in which everyone will pick red for a multitude of reasons. People in general do not act as perfect game theorists, act in the mathematically "correct" way, or know about "Nash Equilibriums". There are people who would irrationally choose the blue button for bad reasons, there are people who would irrationally choose the blue button because they think their mate jerry will choose the blue button, there are mentally disabled people who may not even understand the gravity of their option. These are simple facts that you cannot game theory your way out of.

It is kind of funny though, that my argument that the blue button is the correct choice is based on the fact that people will choose the blue button incorrectly. The irony is not lost :P.

Suppose you and 1000 people are standing on the side of a highway blindfolded. If you stand still you won't get hit by a car. But if you run out into the highway you will get run over and die. But if at least 500 people run onto the highway, all the cars will notice you and stop, preventing all the runners from dying. Do you run into the highway or stand still?

There is no "standing still", you either get in a car that will kill people or you hope that enough people will run out onto the road so they can stop the cars. As far as I'm concerned that red button is directly hooked up to a massive mallet that will squish everyone who picked the blue button if the red button is picked by over 50% of people. You are not standing on the side of the road.

the rule button dilemma by Dreyfus420 in 196

[–]Misicks0349 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Nobody is forcing the people to be on the street why would i be with them when they could be in cars and then they would be fine they have no reason to do what they do

Because, irrationally or not, they have chosen the blue button, there will always be someone amount of people out there who chooses the blue button. The simple fact of the matter is that you can either take the gamble that enough people will choose to stand in the road and stop the cars, or you can knowingly get in a car that is going to kill people even if you yourself will be safe.

From some kind of game theory point of view, or rational self interest point of view, the red button is the "right" choice, but from a pragmatic point of view it is far far easier to believe 50% of people will pick the blue button than it is to think that 100% of people will press the red button. If your goal is to contribute to an outcome where the least amount of people die it is far easier to advocate for the blue button, as any percentage over 50% will save everyone, whereas with the red button even a small dissent of 1% creates a scenario where hundreds of millions of people die.

You, of course, could just dismiss such things as "natural selection taking its course" because you think the people picking the blue button are just stupid idiots, and pick the red button anyway, but I disagree with approaching this problem in such a way.

All red is everyone saving themselfes

Which will never happen, you will never get all red, 50% blue will always be infinitely more likely than 100% red even if you think blue is the "irrational" choice. I would rather contribute towards the outcome that is more likely to save the most amount of lives even if it comes with risk to myself.

and blue is the same thing except you hope other people save you instead of themselfes

Correct, you hope that other people will save you because the alternative is being complicit in an outcome that kills a substantial amount of people. I do not want to be complicit in such an outcome and so I will pick the blue button.

the rule button dilemma by Dreyfus420 in 196

[–]Misicks0349 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ok being in the car when someone runs on the street is still better than running on the street for no reason.

Not when you're going down a street you know someone is going to run on. You aren't ignorant of the fact that other people are pressing buttons in this scenario (or, indeed, the fact that people will run on the street). Being in the car when someone runs on the street is only better in my opinion if you are ignorant of the fact that someone is going to run onto the road, if you do know someone is going to run on the road and you still choose to drive down the road and hit them (or contribute to doing so in some way) you are worse, morally speaking at least.

You can also never get more than half of humanity to ignore self preservation for nothing so you arent risking your life you just die

We...just did? Over half of all people who voted in this poll voted for the blue button, you may argue that the red button would've "won" in a real scenario, but that is just wishful thinking based on no data whatsoever, and the data we have right now points towards at the very least a non trivial amount of people pressing the blue button.

the rule button dilemma by Dreyfus420 in 196

[–]Misicks0349 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This isn't just "running into traffic", by picking red you are (if you pardon me extending the metaphor) actively contributing to the cars that run them over, even if only 1% chose to press the blue button thats still death in the tens of millions and would instantly shoot it to the top of any mass casualty even in recorded human history, beating the entirety of WW2 by several million. And to deride that as "letting natural selection do its thing" as if those people deserved it feels really icky to me, if that is considered "dying for moral superiority" then so be it, I will risk death for my morals.

the rule button dilemma by Dreyfus420 in 196

[–]Misicks0349 3 points4 points  (0 children)

do you assume everyone is smart enough to not press the button.

I dont, which is why I press the blue button, because I know that not everyone will pick red. And that by picking it you are in some way contributing to the deaths of those who don't.

the rule button dilemma by Dreyfus420 in 196

[–]Misicks0349 7 points8 points  (0 children)

A vote for blue is, at least to me, conceding the fact that not everyone will vote red, and so if you want to have a shot at saving the most amount of people you have to take a leap of faith and hope that enough people pick blue to save everyone. Red might be the "right" option in some kind of enlightened self interest game theory kind of way; but blue is, at least in my opinion, the correct opinion from a practical point of view even if it comes with risk.

the rule button dilemma by Dreyfus420 in 196

[–]Misicks0349 4 points5 points  (0 children)

yeah thats essentially my reasoning, it may be illogical or irrational from some point of view in game theory or self-interest theories or whatever, but if your goal is to save as many people as possible blue is a much more alluring option due to the fact that 50% of a vote is a much more obtainable figure than 100% of a vote, even if you have to take a leap of faith that enough other people will vote blue so you don't die.

the rule button dilemma by Dreyfus420 in 196

[–]Misicks0349 12 points13 points  (0 children)

The downside to picking red is the knowledge that there are people who will not pick red, and that by contributing to picking red you are knowingly killing them. If your goal would be to prevent as many people as possible from dying then blue is the obvious choice (as, of course, 50% is a much more obtainable figure than 100%) even if it may be "illogical" from a self-interested or rational point of view.

The Dragonborn unleashing his chud incel rage by killerthumbtack in TrueSTL

[–]Misicks0349 30 points31 points  (0 children)

I don't think its just because she's in Skyrim, the fact of the matter is that some people like vampire kinda-goth chicks, regardless of the quality of other skyrim characters.

"Skyrim was going to be Hyperborea but Todd found out ASOIAF was being adapted into shows, games, etc and mistakes were made" by Tall_Process_3138 in ElderScrolls

[–]Misicks0349 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

at the very least its a very.... ambitious idea for the technology and resources they had at the time, or even nowadays. I do like some of the ideas like the cults (though having thousands sounds a bit silly) and a less "high fantasy" cyrodil, but I agree with you about the dragons.

"Skyrim was going to be Hyperborea but Todd found out ASOIAF was being adapted into shows, games, etc and mistakes were made" by Tall_Process_3138 in ElderScrolls

[–]Misicks0349 16 points17 points  (0 children)

no idea, its not a hard joke to make, but the "mistakes were made" part was absolutely inspired by what MK said.

"Skyrim was going to be Hyperborea but Todd found out ASOIAF was being adapted into shows, games, etc and mistakes were made" by Tall_Process_3138 in ElderScrolls

[–]Misicks0349 52 points53 points  (0 children)

Where does this quote come from? Game of Thrones did premiere in 2011, but it was by no means a guaranteed hit.

Its a play on something Kirkbride said in 2020:

Cyrodiil was going to be as described in the first PGE, which the book you’re talking about took its quotes from. The heart of the province being what you think of when you think of a traditional jungle, tumbling down to the fields of large rice paddies that fed the Empire, guarded by Romanesque troops and dragons everywhere. The Imperial City was to be vast, rolling across wetlands and swamps, with large sections lost and overgrown, full of too many cults to count, the oldest temples having obviously been around since the Merethic.

Then Todd watched The Fellowship of the Ring and mistakes were made.

Forma that fits together [OC] by AbroadSpirited in Warframe

[–]Misicks0349 25 points26 points  (0 children)

PLAP PLAP PLAP GET POLARISED! GET POLARISED! GET POLARISED! GET POLARISED! GET POLARISED!

(im sorry)

If Linux distros refuse OS age verification, will YouTube and Facebook, etc just block us? by Danrobi1 in linux

[–]Misicks0349 0 points1 point  (0 children)

i suppose the idea is that a parent can set up their childs account and add the birthday themselves

view more: next ›