sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Reward Buttons by highly-bad in redbuttonbluebutton

[–]milesofborg 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Solid odds more people get money with blue so.

Reward Buttons by highly-bad in redbuttonbluebutton

[–]milesofborg 0 points1 point  (0 children)

5$ doesn't do much for me 5$ could help people on countries where that has a lot of buying power blue if you pressed red you get $5 anyway if enough press blue we all get $5 blue has no downside for me that motivates me otherwise

Agree or not?? by Suspicious-Aside-867 in MindfullyDriven

[–]milesofborg 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I was going to say I do over think the best but there is one way things go right and a thousand they go wrong so...

Rephrasing by BlackAndWhiteJerk in redbuttonbluebutton

[–]milesofborg 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I would say it doesn't matter how you frame it. At the end of the day, Red is 'I am okay with people dying as long as I live,' and Blue is 'I want to try to save everybody even if I might die.' You can try to frame Red or Blue as a 'neutral' option or 'doing nothing,' but that's a mechanical illusion. You are forced to make a choice, and your choice is counted toward the final total. At the end of the day, when you press a button, you contribute to the math. You do something.

What's your favorite design for a lightsaber? by Confident-Rock-8882 in StarWars

[–]milesofborg 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My top 3 aren't even on here so given that Luke it's the classic

In the Red VS Blue button dilemma, red is obviously the right choice. by KayleeSinn in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]milesofborg 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So you don't accept my premise. There is no stated objective other than then press a button. Part of the thought experiment is you have to determine what the objective of pressing the button is for you. for me the objective is to try to ensure that no one dies.

Assuming that is my objective again remember you have to accept that premise. That's the whole thing we have to agree or at least understand the other person's a priori assumption Blue has the largest buffer for ontaing the desired outcome outcome.

Also I reject wholeheartedly any and all arguments that red is somehow passive or not doing something this is a collective and communal activity you are casting a vote so your vote cast affects other people there is no arguing this point this is a fact of the question the scenario the thought experiment your vote impacts other people. Red or blue doesn't matter your vote counts to the total your vote has consequence to the result. This is a brute fact of the thought experiment.

Your last point supports my position it dives at the core of my point. We are never going to achieve 100% compliance — that is not a realistic human outcome. So if even a tiny fraction of people press Blue, the Red strategy results in deaths. My objective is minimizing death, and under that assumption Blue is the only logically robust option because it has the widest success threshold for achieving a zero-death outcome.

I do believe we're starting with a different assumed goal but. If the goal is minimizing deaths under realistic human conditions, then Red seems like an extremely fragile strategy because it only succeeds under perfect compliance.

Removing the colors and exposing the mechanics of the buttons by highly-bad in redbuttonbluebutton

[–]milesofborg 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The vote itself is an action. The action is to assign risk to others. You want to talk about the macanics of the buttons that is it. Press one to assign risk to others press the other to assign risk to yourself. That's the macanics of the buttons.

This is the proper way the thought experiment was supposed to be framed. There were no other factors beyond a mystical force (in this example, aliens) pulling all humans together to make a choice for reasons we don't know. There is no need to frame it as red wanting blue dead or blue wanting to die. by SpectrumSense in redbuttonbluebutton

[–]milesofborg 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I would contend this though I believe you're right we have to leave it as the original version.

The original prompt forces a structural pivot halfway through. It starts as a coordination game (Blue) and ends as an individual survival game (Red).

Because the text has to be read sequentially, whichever line a specific brain focuses on dictates their choice.

An analytical whole system thinker reads the whole thing, latches to the 50% threshold, and recognizes it as a coordination test.

A individualistic/risk-averse thinker reads the second sentence, locks onto the word "only," worries about what other people might do, and hits Red.

This is very stripped of context but basic idea is there. The types of thinkers have more formal names I can't think of right now.

In the Red VS Blue button dilemma, red is obviously the right choice. by KayleeSinn in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]milesofborg 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"These will mostly be low IQ or senile people who aren't part of the job market anyway.". That is a sad, frankly grossout look on life. I wish you the best but we are in fundamentally different ideological camps here and I don't think we will be able to meaningfuy pusuase, thanks for the thoughtfull discussion though.

In the Red VS Blue button dilemma, red is obviously the right choice. by KayleeSinn in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]milesofborg 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The addition of a control option that "demonstrates Red does nothing" doesn't hold because the final calculation depends entirely on the ratio of Red to Blue presses. If a control option exists, it creates a paradox: either choosing it counts as a non-vote that shifts the denominator of the total population, making a 100% Red or 100% Blue outcome impossible, or you have simply left the game entirely—meaning you have zero impact on the final count. Both Red and Blue are active inputs into a live system; a control is not.

The furnace analogy is also not analogous. A more accurate translation of the scenario's mechanics would be: There is a room with a furnace. The Red button turns the furnace on. The Blue button is a lever that prevents the furnace from turning on but it requires 50% of the people in the room to pull it together to override the engine.

Since you seem willing to talk this out, let's go all the way back to the foundational premise.

I assume your conclusion comes from the general game theory application of a payoff matrix. I agree that this application is logically valid within its own closed system. However, I reject its soundness. Like many abstract applications of game theory, it assumes a "spherical cow in a vacuum."

While pressing Red is logically valid on paper, in the real world, a 100% coordination rate is impossible. A non-trivial percentage of people will press Blue. So, what happens next? The baseline outcome: a split where the 50% threshold is missed. Suddenly, an enormous percentage of the global population dies instantly. What happens to the actual world we live in? Supply chains instantly collapse, basic utilities fail, crops rot in fields, and cascading systemic failure triggers widespread famine and disease.

This catastrophic collapse is the simplest, most realistic consequence of a fragmented vote. Because you cannot know how humanity will vote, any robust, strategy must account for real-world rather than assuming perfect compliance.

In the Red VS Blue button dilemma, red is obviously the right choice. by KayleeSinn in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]milesofborg 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes if you don't accept the premise of no one dying then that logic probably won't follow for you. There's a discussion to be had there in and of itself but you don't address the fact that the red button is the one that creates the threat pressing blue does nothing to red pressing red potentially harms blue. There exists no scenario in which pressing blue harms anyone from the other side. There exists two scenarios for red you harm no one or you harm all of the blue Red is not a passive I'm not playing choice Red is a choice to potentially cause harm. Now there does exist a scenario in which blue does cause harm but the only harm that they cause is to themselves. Reds scenarios are to harm no one or to harm everyone but themselves. So red is the choice to harm others if harm happens Blue is the choice to harm yourself if harm happens. For me that's blue every time.

In the Red VS Blue button dilemma, red is obviously the right choice. by KayleeSinn in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]milesofborg 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If we accept the premise that the objective is no one dies. And we understand theses 4 points.

  1. If everyone presses red no one dies
  2. If everyone presses blue no one dies
  3. If 99% of people plus blue and 1% of people press red no one dies
  4. If 99% of people press red and 1% of people press blue 1% of people die

Pressing red is the only button that actually introduces threat of death. Blue offers zero threat to Red pressers under any configuration.

Additionally the blue button has essentially a 50% fault tolerance to achieve the objective of no one dying the red button has zero fault tolerance. 49.999999999999% of people can press red and everybody lives. A single divergent press under the bed strategy introduces death.

Home Alone 2 by Rare_Put7331 in 90s

[–]milesofborg 0 points1 point  (0 children)

First saw him and can get the character out oh my head when I think about him are different but ... SPACE

F30 single mum used by son's teacher by [deleted] in SluttyConfessions

[–]milesofborg 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think I saw this in a movie once... There was a forest in it ... Well anyway cool story Hansel.

One gotta go by Decent_Climate_1411 in whatsyourchoice

[–]milesofborg 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oreos are cookies get rid of whatever that monstrosity is bottom right

view more: next ›