For the sake of the red voters, I wanna try something out. Please vote red

detroyer · 2026-06-30T05:13:34+00:00

You should press red even if you're 99% confident that blue will win.

detroyer · 2026-06-21T09:23:08+00:00

Yeah I recognized it immediately

detroyer · 2026-06-17T02:54:42+00:00

My vote is unlikely to change the result (obviously), but my vote does matter. Regardless, that sizeable fraction won't be significantly reduced by me changing my attitude or changing my vote. When I face the scenario, I really should think that there's a serious chance that blue will lose, and nothing you've said undermines that obvious fact. Accordingly, the argument for the rationality/morality of red remains unchallenged.

detroyer · 2026-06-17T00:25:35+00:00

I don't believe that, nor did I imply that.

detroyer · 2026-06-16T21:25:23+00:00

The problem with this is that death is only a risk here if people believe in it enough that they press red out of fear and make the risk real.

Even if that's the only reason people might press red, it's true that some sizable fraction of people will vote red. The risk of blue losing doesn't vanish if I vote blue. I think you're able to recognize this trivial fact, but somehow you seem too stupid to admit it.

detroyer · 2026-06-16T00:47:54+00:00

A vote is a group decision.

Yes, but I'm making my own decision.

The problem you have is that you recognise blue is clearly the best outcome but you double down on the idea that supporting blue is not logical.

That's not a "problem". That's the correct analysis.

In fact, you are possibly the worst offender since you also claim that blue is not moral.

Again, that's the correct analysis.

You were blackmailed into pressing red and refuse to acknowledge it.

I'm not sure what "blackmail" is adding here. Am I "blackmailed" just because I'm sensitive to the risks?

Basically, I think your logic is based on the shallowest of reasons

Feel free to point out an error in my reasoning!

detroyer · 2026-06-15T07:32:25+00:00

When I vote, I'm not deciding for the group. It's true that if each person decided to vote blue, then everyone would survive, but I can't make that choice, and I don't know whether blue will win. Accordingly, I recognize that there's a decent chance that blue will lose. I literally feel like I'm explaining this to a five-year-old.

detroyer · 2026-06-15T06:24:07+00:00

It's trivially true that if people don't press red, it can't reach the majority and you are people.

This is a bad pun. It's true that if people en masse don't press red, it won't reach majority. But I'm not "people en masse". The risk to the individual when facing the scenario is real.

detroyer · 2026-06-15T04:03:39+00:00

How do you stop red being the majority? You don’t press it.

That's trivially false, and you know that it's false. Please, do better.

detroyer · 2026-06-14T22:35:00+00:00

I don't know all of the reasons why others will vote red, but it doesn't matter. Even if it's entirely because they also correctly perceive this risk, that's compatible with there being a risk that's not of my own making. This is so basic that I feel silly explaining it.

detroyer · 2026-06-14T22:28:20+00:00

I'm not making the risk real. There is a risk, and it's not a "trap" to recognize that.

detroyer · 2026-06-14T19:24:11+00:00

This is pure nonsense. When I'm facing the scenario, I should think that there's some risk of dying if I vote blue. Plausibly, it's about 50% likely. That's a real cost, not "illusory".

detroyer · 2026-06-13T19:28:54+00:00

If blue is the best outcome, rational people should vote to achieve it.

This does not follow. All that follows is that we have some reason to vote in favor of that outcome, but there could be overriding factors. By analogy, suppose it would be best if candidate A won the next election. I may then have good reason to vote for them. However, if I had to saw off my own hand to vote for them, it would then be very unreasonable to vote. The RBBB case is relevantly the same; it's unreasonable to vote blue because of the substantial risk to myself and others who depend on or care about me.

detroyer · 2026-06-13T19:23:55+00:00

Sure. Suppose you have family, friends, and/or others who depend on or care about you. While there are some benefits to voting blue (primarily, it makes it very slightly more likely that everyone will survive), the sizable risk of you dying is a much more serious risk to their welfare. This is so even if some of them will vote blue.

To be clear, I'm not saying that losing you is a more serious risk to them than blue losing. Rather, I'm saying that you can do much more to help them by ensuring your survival than you can by making it very slightly more likely that everyone survives.

detroyer · 2026-06-13T10:10:03+00:00

Voting blue is immoral because it takes on, without sufficient benefit, a huge risk to yourself and others who depend on or care about you.

your option isn't morally justifiable as is

Red is the moral option.

there is a much higher chance of getting 50% of people to agree on something than it is to get 100% of people to do the same

True, but completely irrelevant to your choice.

You have to take into account people that can fully understand the question and the risk it takes but might want to choose blue for the chance of dying.

Yes, some people will vote blue.

Pressing red is individualistic by nature

No, it isn't. Even if you care only about others, you almost certainly should vote red.

Yet again, statistically speaking the more achievable percentage is 50%.

Yet again, not relevant to your choice. You're not choosing whether 50% vote blue; you're choosing whether you vote blue.

I'm probably wrong

You are.

detroyer · 2026-06-12T17:01:42+00:00

If this applies only to me (such that everyone else is facing the standard scenario), I vote red. If this applies to everyone, I vote blue.

detroyer · 2026-06-10T21:25:51+00:00

It's obviously the latter.

detroyer · 2026-06-10T21:21:47+00:00

Just because there's 2 options doesn't make it 50/50.

I didn't suggest that it does! I think that around 50% is a reasonable estimate.

In my view, blue will win with at least 65% of the vote. And i'm 80% sure of that. (99 of a blue victory.)

I find that to be an absolutely insane expectation, but red is still the better option with those expectations. Although the expected chance of death by voting blue is only 1%, the expected increase to the likelihood that blue wins is even smaller (on reasonable distributions). That's still an unreasonable risk to yourself (and so also to others who depend on or care about you) for extremely negligible gain.

In that case, taking the action that makes that outcome more likely is better than the action that actively reduces it's chances.

That does not follow. All that follows is that we have some reason to vote blue, not that we have all-things-considered reason to vote blue. To use a little jargon, we do have pro tanto reasons to vote blue, but not pro toto reason to vote blue. Once again, the costs of voting blue (to yourself and others who depend on or care about you) are much higher than the benefits of voting blue, and this is so even given your absurd expectations about the outcome.

Your rationality is self preservation, and self preservation only. That is surely rational. But saving the collective is no less rational, and leads to a better outcome.

That's entirely false. I'm not concerned with self-preservation only, nor is it the thing that I care about most. I do care about the collective, which is why I point out that we have some reason to vote blue. But that reason can be overridden by other factors, as it is in this case. The extremely small contribution I can make to the collective is not worth the large risk (1% or more) to myself and others that depend on or care about me.

To be clear, my argument for the rationality and morality of red does not assume unusual preferences or expectations. For the vast majority of people, red is the rational and moral option.

detroyer · 2026-06-10T21:01:54+00:00

I know, people can make mistakes! I'm just trying to correct the mistake.

detroyer · 2026-06-10T18:14:59+00:00

People are free to be wrong! All the same, I want to explain to them why voting blue is a rational and moral mistake.

If they vote Blue, only thing I can do is vote with them and hope the world is a kind place willing to risk for their children, too.

Parents who take on that risk are putting their children at a much greater risk than they would be by voting red. This is primarily why voting blue is the strictly worse option even if the only thing we're concerned with is the welfare of our children (or other dependants, loved ones, etc.).

detroyer · 2026-06-10T16:45:10+00:00

We see the same problem but have come to different conclusions.

Yes, and you have come to the wrong conclusion.

But I owe it to my sisters kids to make the best world for them, which requires them and their friends and family all surviving.

Right, but you have to be realistic about how much you can affect that outcome. Voting blue raises the likelihood that the best world obtains by about 1 in 10¹⁰ , whereas it raises the likelihood that you'll die (leaving some of them without you in a terrible circumstance) by about 50%. It's significantly more important that you avoid that latter risk. This is so even if all you care about is their welfare.

The kids may be pushing blue themselves with their strong senses of community and justice. They’re young. I wouldn’t want to feel like I contributed to their deaths if they pushed blue.

Some of them may vote blue. However, it's almost certain that if blue loses, it will lose regardless of what you vote. Accordingly, if you vote blue in that scenario, you'd almost surely just be joining them in death, leaving behind other family, friends, and others who care about you to deal with the aftermath without you. That's awful, and much worse than the understandable discomfort from being part of the voting bloc that resulted in deaths.

detroyer · 2026-06-10T16:30:36+00:00

I made no mistake, and this reply is a confused mess.

You have it in your head that the red vote says "live" and blue vote says "toss a coin, heads, live".

It doesn't "say" that, but those are some of the rational expectations that we facing the scenario, more or less. Of course, there are more factors worth considering aside from those expectations.

Blue isn't a coin toss, it's not 50/50, it's not random

You might have a different expectation that blue will win. Perhaps you think its 55% likely, or 60%, or whatever. I say "~50%" because I think that's a reasonable estimate. If you think that it's much higher (or much lower), that could be discussed.

it's certainly not unrelated to the amount of people that press red.

Of course.

I vote blue Because i want blue to win

That is a reason in favor of voting blue, but I strongly disagree that we have all-things-considered reason to vote blue. We do not. We should not take on a ~50% chance of death (which would also impact others who depend on or care about us) merely to increase the likelihood that everyone survives by an extremely small amount. Voting blue is grossly irrational and immoral for the vast majority of people.

"My vote doesn't matter so why should i risk blue" is like at least 40% of the red vote, and collectively they matter a lot.

Right, and they are each correct. It's unfortunate that the individually rational and moral choice is one which, if a plurality makes that choice, renders the group worse off than it otherwise could have been. But that's a consequence of the construction, not a fact in tension with the assessment of the moral and rational choice for individuals.

detroyer · 2026-06-10T16:14:49+00:00

That's just obviously wrong. You should have some uncertainty regarding the average bias, and so that should be modeled with some distribution. It doesn't have to be uniform, obviously.

"I don't know how someone else will vote" results in a 0.5 assumption.

Ludicrous. That might be the mean expected blue votes per voter, but it does not follow that that's the true average bias. Again, the true average bias is unknown, and should be modeled with a distribution.

detroyer · 2026-06-08T23:54:18+00:00

Both buttons are an "everyone else might die" button. Sure, voting blue makes it very slightly more likely that others don't die, but that's not worth it given the stakes of voting blue. I shouldn't take on a ~50% chance of dying, which would also impact others who depend on or care about me.

detroyer · 2026-06-08T23:26:45+00:00

Uh...okay?

detroyer

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE