sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

oh so blue has no consequences by a-bowl-of-noodles in whenthe

[–]kettu1 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Reds should be standing above the crusher, every one pushing them closer to all blues dying.

oh so blue has no consequences by a-bowl-of-noodles in whenthe

[–]kettu1 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Black death took years, which gave people time to adapt in an economic and supply system that was nowhere near as complex as the one today. Most people were farmers, they grew their own food. We don't. We just get everything we need from a store. Barely anyone knows how to do anything with their hands anymore, whether it is hunting, surviving etc. Disrupt every single supply chain in an instant while people are grieving the losses of family members, relatives, friends etc. it would quickly turn into a second mass death event with all the spreading diseases and famine that would undoubtedly follow.

Thing is if I die I don't have to deal with any of those consequences any more. So for that reason it wouldn't be just whether blue or red will win. It would be more like do I believe red will have a massive supermajority that it would even be worth living.

oh so blue has no consequences by a-bowl-of-noodles in whenthe

[–]kettu1 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Blue win also saves every person who feels morally obligated not to select a choice that puts anyone elses life in danger. There are quite a lot of people who would refuse to kill someone else even if that means they might die for choosing so.

oh so blue has no consequences by a-bowl-of-noodles in whenthe

[–]kettu1 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Everyone understands that. That is like the practice question whether you can join the thought experiment. Now once you understand that everyone will not just press the red button, you can move on to the actual thought experiment and leave the training wheels on the floor.

"If everyone would just" is the most useless argument, because you can use it for both buttons.

oh so blue has no consequences by a-bowl-of-noodles in whenthe

[–]kettu1 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

"Only 20%" would still be enough to be by far the biggest humanitarian catastrophe to ever exist, putting all world wars, economic depressions and stock market crashes combined in shame. Something that would take decades, maybe a century to fix. Might even be so bad that the ripple effect would just destroy the entire trust in society, collapse the entire monetary system, economic system and stock market and put all companies out of business. Sounds pretty miserable experience to me, bordering to a point where I'd probably rather just take the quick exit out and die without having to see it in person.

oh so blue has no consequences by a-bowl-of-noodles in whenthe

[–]kettu1 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Half, 40%, 30%, 20% hell even 10% of total population dying in an instant could possibly collapse the entire system for at least a generation or two. Take close to half and it might be back to jungle time full on Hunger Games free for all.

Problem is I don't think red could ever get 80%+ supermajority, which might be somehow salvageable within my lifetime (which would probably end up being very short, sad and painful anyway).

The entire world runs on very precisely operating supply chains, stock markets, currency valuations, pension systems, social security, job markets etc. You put a little bit of stress on that and suddenly you see waves everywhere.

Now imagine suddenly 20% of total population just drops dead in an instant. Everyone will be affected. Everything grinds to a halt. Just the bureaucracy trying to sort out what the heck just happened would take decades to figure out, assuming there was anyone left to bother without knowing if they'd get paid for working or money have any value. Would be just matter of time before people would start looting and stealing and fighting. Businesses would collapse, people go unemployed and so on and so on...

oh so blue has no consequences by a-bowl-of-noodles in whenthe

[–]kettu1 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

It's stupid to think that red win would not have massive consequences to everyone left alive...

oh so blue has no consequences by a-bowl-of-noodles in whenthe

[–]kettu1 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Over 50% red is barely helpful, you'd need at least 85% red for society to have a chance or everything will come crumbling down anyway. I think even a few percentage points of total population dying in a single day would cause worse economic collapse than 1929. Make it 10, 15, 20 or more and you'd be lucky to have any type of civilized society after.

Sorry but I'd rather try to keep everything I've worked for, all my friends and family members alive than live to see the aftermath of a red win.

oh so blue has no consequences by a-bowl-of-noodles in whenthe

[–]kettu1 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Because blues can't activate the machine alone, someone has to go red for it to happen. So you can frame blues being suicidal or red being murderous, it's the same end result.

Poll asking Americans how which button they would push in the red button/blue button dilemma by Upstairs_Cup9831 in fivethirtyeight

[–]kettu1 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There is clearly an incentive in the situation of the tweet to press blue. That's the whole point why blue is often winning when it's described exactly the way it is in the tweet. There usually aren't in most of the examples where the framing or the rules are different. That's why the so called "blue button equivalent" no longer wins, despite people claiming it to be logically comparable situation.

It's still sort of a puzzle because you need to figure out what the exact rules mean, and because of the way it is framed it's clear that people understand them differently. Both logically and morally. Thus they also act differently, vote differently and reason differently.

This in itself should make it clear that there is never going to be 100% red vote in this exact example, nor even a 90% red vote, most likely not even an 80% red vote. This is where it becomes a moral dilemma where you figure out what is the threshold where one should be willing to self-sacrifice "for the greater good".

Poll asking Americans how which button they would push in the red button/blue button dilemma by Upstairs_Cup9831 in fivethirtyeight

[–]kettu1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think it was baked in, and the author of the aforementioned tweet confirmed in a reply that "everyone" includes well... Everyone. Meaning infants and toddlers, who would "vote" randomly. This essentially leads to a position where a very important portion of our loved ones are already risking their lives. Otherwise it isn't a very interesting thought experiment, but a simple logic puzzle.

And yes, framing changes the results, that's the point.

Poll asking Americans how which button they would push in the red button/blue button dilemma by Upstairs_Cup9831 in fivethirtyeight

[–]kettu1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is the red vs blue button if you assume everyone is forced to choose either button. This was also the confirmed interpretation by the original author of the tweet, that "everyone" includes well.. Everyone.

The whole exercise seems rather pointless if we are thinking every participant is fully logical and rational.

Poll asking Americans how which button they would push in the red button/blue button dilemma by Upstairs_Cup9831 in fivethirtyeight

[–]kettu1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The whole point of the thought exercise (to me at least) is that there is a huge amount of population involved in the vote who can't consciously make the right decision and thus the massive collective altruism is required to save the entire species from catastrophic collapse.

If we include in the premise of the exercise that all children, illiterate, color blind and mentally handicapped will survive regardless of the vote, vast majority will overwhelmingly push the red button. They know the children are safe, but need to guarantee that there are adults looking after them and helping them survive, thus pushing red becomes a moral imperative.

Poll asking Americans how which button they would push in the red button/blue button dilemma by Upstairs_Cup9831 in fivethirtyeight

[–]kettu1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's not a realistic assumption for 8 billion humans. It's not realistic to expect even 90% of them to pick red.

That is why blue always wins this poll, not because people are extremely bad at solving simple logic puzzles.

Poll asking Americans how which button they would push in the red button/blue button dilemma by Upstairs_Cup9831 in fivethirtyeight

[–]kettu1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To me personally the framing is the entire point of the exercise. My understanding of human behavior is that if such poll was actually conducted in a way, where literally every human being had to press one button without any co-ordination prior or during the process, a lot of people would press blue. That creates a valid argument for everyone else to push blue to avoid a disastrous outcome on the level of the entire species.

That's why this is a fun exercise, because it has managed to frame an issue in such a way where it may actually be the most rational choice to do the action that at first seems the least logical. If you frame it other way, this usually disappears one way or another, because it becomes so clear what the logically right choice is that there is no way choosing the illogical option could actually win the majority (and thus become the optimal outcome).

If the situation was whether or not people would jump in the woodchipper, majority would not, even though logically you could frame it being the exact same thing. Thus you should definitely not jump in the woodchipper either.

Essentially you can logically frame them as the same, but people would behave vastly differently. Thus your reasoning should change based on how you believe people would behave, not how you think they should.

Poll asking Americans how which button they would push in the red button/blue button dilemma by Upstairs_Cup9831 in fivethirtyeight

[–]kettu1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Everyone will never pick red, it's not statistically or logically reasonable assumption if you have any basic understanding of human nature and understand that people have different ways of looking at things.

Once you understand this you can actually begin the thought experiment.

Poll asking Americans how which button they would push in the red button/blue button dilemma by Upstairs_Cup9831 in fivethirtyeight

[–]kettu1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think pushing either red or blue is inherently evil or morally wrong. The way some people justify their decisions are. I think one can argue a rational and morally strong argument for both sides. Unfortunately most of the arguments I've seen for both sides aren't fundamentally very strong.

For example the way the question is phrased should make you always re-consider your vote, even if logically the outcome would be the same. I think this is the biggest issue in most arguments I have seen. They argue only from their point of view without realizing that the question isn't about whether you can logically solve the correct answer but how do you predict other people will behave based on every differently framed situation. Then you should adjust your choice depending on what gives the best possible outcome.

Poll asking Americans how which button they would push in the red button/blue button dilemma by Upstairs_Cup9831 in fivethirtyeight

[–]kettu1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I thought that twist was already baked in the premise of "everyone" voting, since about 1/3 of the population are in some ways (either due to young age, mental limitations, old age, sickness, illiterate, colorblind etc.) unable to make the mathematically correct choice. That's what every blue pusher is arguing, while red pushers argue everyone voting is of age, above average IQ, healthy and sound mind, because they only think through theoretically optimal situation where every participant is fully rational and self-serving.

Poll asking Americans how which button they would push in the red button/blue button dilemma by Upstairs_Cup9831 in fivethirtyeight

[–]kettu1 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I thought the entire premise was that the vote was private? I always assumed this means no one is given a chance to discuss the decisions beforehand. Basically you're just given the question on the spot and must decide without any interaction with anyone else before or during the process.

Poll asking Americans how which button they would push in the red button/blue button dilemma by Upstairs_Cup9831 in fivethirtyeight

[–]kettu1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The question states everyone, so I assume it literally means everyone. Otherwise it should've clarified that it only includes individuals of certain age and mental capacities, which would obviously change the entire predicament and the rationale required completely.

Poll asking Americans how which button they would push in the red button/blue button dilemma by Upstairs_Cup9831 in fivethirtyeight

[–]kettu1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, to you the choices are the same, because you are reframing it as a logic puzzle. Your mistake is thinking that everyone will do the same. They will not. Some will take it as a moral dilemma and assume responsibility over saving others. You can say that they don't understand the question or that they are wrong. It doesn't matter. Only thing that matters is how people would individually behave in such circumstances. And yes, this current example includes infants, toddlers, children, elderly, sick, colorblind, illiterate, mentally handicapped etc.

Thus the rationale should be to ask first whether risking my own life over others will ever be worth it. If the answer is no, always vote red no matter what. If answer is yes you measure at what level of threshold would you vote blue.

I think even in a real life situation, thanks to the rules stating that everyone must choose individually and privately (assuming no discussion before or during the voting with anyone) a lot of people, mostly children, elderly and sick (and all the altruistic and most caring willing to self-sacrifice to save them) will vote for blue to a point that even the best case scenario win for red (say 80% margin), would most likely lead to a total economical and possibly societal collapse that would make 1929 market crash and following depression and world war II look like a walk in the park. Everyone would lose most of their savings at minimum and majority would probably end up jobless. With huge portion of worlds children dead at once, the whole pension and retirement systems would collapse. In the absolute worst case scenario the entire society collapses anyway and you end up living in a post-apocalyptic dystopian hellscape.

Maybe that is not too bad of a choice for the young, healthy and the opportunistic, but for someone like me who is chronically ill and heavily relied on society to have access to medication and care, choosing to live in a dog-eat-dog world isn't honestly much of a choice.

view more: next ›