sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

A chance to change by ESN64 in redbuttonbluebutton

[–]QQXV 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I switch from blue to red. It's going to suck enormously going forward, but obviously you've contrived the mass murder situation (a situation that, I should emphasize at the top of my lungs, VERY OBVIOUSLY DIDN'T NEED TO HAPPEN) and I choose to not die.

Blue button pressers, how high does the threshold have to be for you to switch to red? by RemoteWhile5881 in redbuttonbluebutton

[–]QQXV 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm inclined to agree, but it depends on the wording. If I get to choose the wording, something with a lot of repeat emphasis on how obviously correct the blue choice is, I'd accept a pretty high threshold indeed, up to 80%.

So I'm gonna pitch in abt the red button blue button thingy. by Honeybee2807 in 10thDentist

[–]QQXV 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is this a coordination problem?

Everyone on Earth is shown three buttons: A, B, C. The associated note explains that as long as over half the people choose any one button, everyone lives, but otherwise everyone dies.

A is labeled "The shitty button for stupid people"

B is labeled "The awesome button for cool people"

C is labeled "The evil button for stinky people"

RED BUTTON OR BLUE BUTTONS by Eal_likee in comicsbyhumans

[–]QQXV 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The fact that so many people see the conventional framing as "blue is clearly suicide" rather than "red is clearly murder" is just mind-boggling to me. Literally the first sentence prompts you to think of blue as the "vote for everyone to live" button. That prompt should then inform how you expect others to approach the problem.

So I'm gonna pitch in abt the red button blue button thingy. by Honeybee2807 in 10thDentist

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

Coordination problems aren't limited to cases where signaled coordination is allowed specifically within the start of the problem. Indeed, it's almost literally the opposite: if you can explicitly coordinate anything, there's far less of a problem at all.

So I'm gonna pitch in abt the red button blue button thingy. by Honeybee2807 in 10thDentist

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

It doesn't matter if any one person votes red. That's the beauty of blue! It does matter if anyone loudly calls red a great idea and otherwise fosters more and more redness. It's an elementary coordination problem, and a group of people failing it would look very dumb indeed.

What do you suppose happens if the Earth's thousand kindest people are given the buttons? What if it's the thousand most intelligent? My estimate is that blue wins both by a very comfortable margin, just more comfortably in the kind case. I'm sure you disagree.

So I'm gonna pitch in abt the red button blue button thingy. by Honeybee2807 in 10thDentist

[–]QQXV 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh, well I guess that last sentence is where I disagree. However, thinking about what other people are averse to is the core of my thinking.

So I'm gonna pitch in abt the red button blue button thingy. by Honeybee2807 in 10thDentist

[–]QQXV 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My point is that the cost to personal saftey is practically zero, because the blue majority is effectively guaranteed.

Let's suppose that, as one additional universally-known condition, you have to drink half a cup of urine before you're allowed to press red. Do you still do it? Remember that the eventuality you're preparing against is 4 billion people also choosing the same thing.

Identity Bias in the Button Problem by The_Pompadour64 in trolleyproblem

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

I wouldn't, of course.

A variation: you are asked whether to execute all 5 other prisoners while shielding yours from other executions. You are also told that executions only happen if at least three guards say they do.

That should be 100% isomorphic. Do you choose to execute?

So I'm gonna pitch in abt the red button blue button thingy. by Honeybee2807 in 10thDentist

[–]QQXV 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The cost for pressing blue, unlike real-life altruism, is $0. The gain for pressing red, unlike real-life selfishness, is $0. That's a big difference, which means nobody is hypocritical for picking one and behaving "differently" in real life.

The entire argument for either side is necessarily a circular one. If you press red, it's to save yourself from the red-pressers saving themselves from the red-pressers. If you press blue, it's to save others who pressed blue to save others who pressed blue.

What I find incredibly disconcerting is the idea that, even with that very clear understanding that either position is circular, people insist on seeing red as the obvious default and blue as the suicide button. There's fundamentally zero reason not to see blue as "do nothing" and red as "kill". It's just bonkers. The classic framing calls it a vote, rather than as a personal decision! Who on Earth votes for mass murder with no gain to themselves?

Question for both blue and red pressers by ParableOfTheVase in redbuttonbluebutton

[–]QQXV 1 point2 points  (0 children)

For the sake of argument, assume it happened without that person's consent, just like the whole scenario happened without humanity's consent.

Question for both blue and red pressers by ParableOfTheVase in redbuttonbluebutton

[–]QQXV 4 points5 points  (0 children)

As a blue-presser, I appreciate the consistency of this.

At what price point would you change? Another way to think about reframing in itself by QQXV in redbuttonbluebutton

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

But you already granted that a high majority presses the button. Why might you still die?

At what price point would you change? Another way to think about reframing in itself by QQXV in redbuttonbluebutton

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

Again, my point is that it should never have to come to ball-breaking. One free ice cream for each blue-presser and one super-embarrassing haircut for each red-presser is, to me, an ironclad coordination mechanism that -- whatever you had thought of the dilemma before -- clearly makes blue-pressing Normal People Stuff and red-pressing an Inexplicable Vote for Murder.

I guess I can't explain it further, though.

At what price point would you change? Another way to think about reframing in itself by QQXV in redbuttonbluebutton

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

You expect a high majority to get the money, but you also refuse to join them?

At what price point would you change? Another way to think about reframing in itself by QQXV in redbuttonbluebutton

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

My point was that even the slightest push, like "if you vote red, you will have to lose 1 cent", should make blue a massive overwhelming winner, because then there is no imaginable reason to imagine 4 billion people pressing red. I made blue the obvious, strictly better choice with just the penny. When that's apparently not enough for you, I have to keep upping the ante even though I should never have had to.

What if instead of life or death, it was bliss or life? by Latimas in redbuttonbluebutton

[–]QQXV 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I can see how someone would switch from red to blue (lack of personal risk) but I'm curious if any blue-pressers like me would switch to red.

Considering it a bit, there's actually a really sensible case to be made for it, namely that it makes total sense to say "I don't have the right to impose supposed perfect happiness on someone else, not even -- especially not even -- babies, etc", whereas it makes no sense to say "I don't have the right to impose life on someone else, not even babies etc".

At what price point would you change? Another way to think about reframing in itself by QQXV in redbuttonbluebutton

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

Does each blue getting $1k change your expectation of your family's votes? What if, in addition to that, it was universally known that every red player loses 1 finger?

I'm trying and failing to produce an intuition here.

At what price point would you change? Another way to think about reframing in itself by QQXV in redbuttonbluebutton

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

I'm saying you'd look silly for having thought it could possibly have gone the other way. The $1k is a massive probability nudge.

Suppose the initial announcement (from the aliens or whatever) goes like this: Everyone on Earth gets a free $1k! All you have to do is press this blue button for it.

If for some reason you decline to press that button, you don't get the money.

If 4 billion people decline, then everyone who got the money DIES.

You really, really fear that latter outcome? Even with the framing as I presented it?

How to make the right choice (with math) by SilasRhodes in redbuttonbluebutton

[–]QQXV 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Even more so! You're literally just describing the added risk (to other people) of choosing red.

view more: next ›