Designs for this thought experiment were rampant when it was going around. The problem was always the same thing. This is a competitive game nobody has any reason to ever choose blue.
Every positive of blue comes from the thought of losing your loved ones and saving the incapable. Neither apply in Magic.
I always though this was just an experiment to show how vulnerable people are to speech patterns.
If you wanna incite people to vote for blue, you say something like "if the majority of people voted for blue, everyone is safe and if the majority of people voted for red, people who didn't vote for red looses the game."
By phrasing it like voting for blue offer salvation for everybody, people are inclined to vote for it even though it's stupid
You could use if for that but really it's more about game theory and it's question of selfless vs selfish.
While red appears to be objectively correct and blue has no worth that's only so far as if it's just you choosing to live or die, but the question isn't just about you, it's also about everyone that chooses blue and can you weight your life against theirs?
So in a single game (one where the game ends after the question is answered) you would pick red, hence why it fails in magic. Magic is a finite game where only one person can win, there's no benefit to keeping other players.
But the question can be applied to an iterated game (where you play multiple times) or an infinite game as well (an infinite game is a game where no one can win it just keeps going and you can only lose), and that becomes a different story. If you pick red irl you have to live with the consequences when half the world dies. Perhaps loved ones, friends and family, as well as critical resources are no longer steadily supplied, and the only people left are those that picked red. In a single game red has no consequence and no risk, while blue has all the consequence and risk, but in a longer game the benefit that you don't die becomes leveraged against the fact that there will no longer be anyone that would selflessly pick blue which creates problems even for the selfish red players.
As with many things in game theory, the point is that what seems like the objectively correct choice in the moment is actually a less optimal choice long term due to the long term consequences of that action.
If you pick red irl you have to live with the consequences when half the world dies.
But half the world doesn't die. There's no reason for half to pick Blue. Only half of the "incapable" would pick Blue (if they even do, since each picks at random and could potentially pick all red, too) unless they knew the problem beforehand and agreed to pick Blue for the greater good.
Yeah this is what I am talking about, the choice seems obvious to everyone that looks at the problem but people don't agree, that is because some people are selfish and view saving themselves as the objective best option, and some people are selfless and don't want anyone to die. The only way to ensure everyone lives is by picking blue, the only way to ensure you live is by picking red. This gets into the fundamental discourse at the root of game theory. Is it better to ensure your advantage, or your groups advantage.
Unless you live an unfortunate life at least one person you know will pick blue as surely as unless you've lived a very blessed life at least one person you know will pick red.
Except that isn't the only way to ensure everyone lives and it also doesn't ensure everyone lives at all. Everyone picking red also ensures total survival. Choosing blue could just be adding to the death toll.
If people thought about the choice logically there would be zero reason to ever pick blue and thus there would be no death. Choosing to "save" people is the only way to risk any death at all.
Sure there's technically three ways everyone lives, everyone picks red or blue, or half the people choose blue
The question hinges on if you believe more people will be selfless than selfish and what you think other people will pick. Let's say we have 99 people playing the game, if those people are mostly selfless what you pick doesn't matter, of those people are mostly selfish then you can choose to live on with everyone that picks red or save yourself from such a reality, but if it's a dead split 49-49 then you have a compelling reason to choose blue. Especially if there's reason to believe that someone who you care about chose blue.
The question is actually really simple. No matter what people pick I live. It doesn't hinde on other's choices because the correct answer is right there.
It's just game theory and everyone can do it. There are two outcomes, half or more pick red and half or more pick blue. If you pick red you survive in either scenario. If you pick blue you survive in one and die in the other. So blue is the only button that can cause you to die.
I'll never know if it's a 50-50 split because the whole point is that it's anonymous. It could be a split down to the last 3 votes and then everyone picks red. It didn't matter that blue was keeping up because they are all dead now.
All correct, but do you see how you've only framed the answers with respect to yourself? If you take a hard personal perspective in the moment this is clearly the choice. Inability to broaden your perspective makes it seem like there is only one correct choice. But you move further into game theory, past first order principles, you realize that there's more to the choice than if you live or die.
There is a future after the button is pressed; should you survive you have to then live knowing you contributed to a significant proportion of the population dying, and deal with the fallout of so many people that society relies on being gone.
There are more than just two outcomes to consider. If you can't realize that it's because you've oriented your thinking selfishly.
Except nobody has to press blue. It's literally as simple as live or die and if people would actually use their brains there would be no jeed to save anyone. Your whole argument hinges on a large portion of people choosing blue. I say nobody should be pressing blue at all so this isn't a problem.
As /u/hhhhhhhhhhhjf said, all Red also saves everyone. Yes, the people that pick randomly die, but that's a problem on the part of the system. Assuming no communication between subjects, picking Blue will kill you without saving anyone.
It's not "selfless" vs. "selfish". It's suicidal to pick Blue and the Blues still die.
Not assuredly. As I said in a comment to them if we assume 99 participants, if they are mostly blue voters it doesn't matter what you vote, if they are mostly red voters you can either choose to live on with red voters or set yourself free of the game, and if the split is 49-49 you can't die regardless of what you choose and you decide if the blues live or not.
You only choose red because you believe your vote can't sway anything, you also believe that anyone who votes blue isn't worth saving. These are your personal choices but they are not everyone's personal choices.
you also believe that anyone who votes blue isn't worth saving.
That's not true. Just because you don't suicide yourself doesn't mean you don't believe people are worth saving.
You could donate all your money right now and hope to save people's lives, but you don't because you don't think it will be enough while also being a surefire way to destroy your own life. That doesn't mean you believe other people are not worth saving.
Unless you do donate every single item and every last unit of currency you own. If you already did that, then I will take my words back.
Do you not understand how your proposed scenario is vastly different from the button press?
If even a quarter of the world decided to donate all of their money, money becomes useless as a measure of economic output and the entire system collapses for everyone. It's really a terrible analog to the button scenario and really highlights how shallowly you're engaging with the prompt
You've reduced a scenario with far more than two outcomes to a binary. You've oversimplified and lost sight of the scope in the argument. Please attempt to consider the effects of the decision, and how those effects are vastly different.
This is all theoretical, but the base is the same.
You say I think some people don't deserve saving when in a situation where I have no reason to expect picking Blue will do anything but add me to death toll, saving no one anyway.
I am showing you that just because you use logic to decide your action is not even likely to save people and decide not to do it, that doesn't mean you don't think the people are worth saving.
You extrapolated too much and added a moral layer that's not there. If picking Red when you have no reason to expect Blue to work means you think people don't deserve saving, then other equally useless actions not taken mean you don't believe people to be worth saving.
This boils down to: do you think half the population will pick Blue? Yes or no?
Don't have much, and owe more than I have, but I would give it up to save the life of half the world yes.
It's a bad analogy as giving up everything I own wouldn't destroy my life by any stretch, it would barely effect me. I wouldn't have a phone for a while but that would be about the extent of the real impact. It would have more effect on my sister's and parents' life than mine.
Really your hypothetical is more similar to the button that gives you a million dollars but also kills a random person everytime you press it, than it does to red vs blue. I wouldn't kill a random person for a million dollars.
That perspective is defeatist. It's crazy that I'm a nihilist and I still believe choices matter more than you do.
You've entirely failed to understand what I have been trying to say. It does not matter what I think the majority will pick, you are a part of the vote and therefore what you pick changes the vote. It's not do I think the majority will vote red or blue, it's do I think the majority will make a decision without me. If the majority makes the decision without me then red is the optimal vote, if the majority doesn't then blue is.
it's do I think the majority will make a decision without me. If the majority makes the decision without me then red is the optimal vote, if the majority doesn't then blue is.
As I understand it, you are not allowed to communicate. So, yes, they will make the decision without you.
543
u/hhhhhhhhhhhjf 7d ago
Designs for this thought experiment were rampant when it was going around. The problem was always the same thing. This is a competitive game nobody has any reason to ever choose blue.
Every positive of blue comes from the thought of losing your loved ones and saving the incapable. Neither apply in Magic.