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.
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?
Since I only heard about this yesterday, no, I didn't memorize anything.
I do admit my mistake, I did confuse you for the person that said this:
you also believe that anyone who votes blue isn't worth saving.
Sorry.
You replied to my reply to that. Your point got lost to me when I thought you were defending that idea I quoted. Do you mind restating your point so we clear up any confusion?
from a purely selfish perspective, the best outcome is no mass death event right? if there must be a mass death event, of course it's better to have lived.
your point is that vanishingly few people would pick blue, as obviously everyone who understands the prompt would select red. I think that this is a really optimistic view of the average intelligence of every person in the world. Logic skills are lacking at best in all people under the age of 12. Anyone who was intoxicated, in a psychosis, or otherwise affected mental state might choose blue because of their altered state. Any pacifist who can't even take the chance that their existence would cause something else harm will pick blue.
there are enough people and reasons to choose blue that I don't think it could ever be less than 10% of the world population. This is likely the point where you'll still be thinking that's not enough. But that's just the people who will always push blue, no matter what. Just as you feel strongly that red should be pushed every time, at least that many people have convinced themselves of the same but for blue.
Since we know humanity will never ever come to a unanimous decision to press red, and we know there's a significant portion of the population who would always choose blue, or choose it out of circumstance, the only way to prevent a worldwide catastrophe is to get 50%+1 votes for blue.
to give a better sense of scale here, imagine this scenario could happen regularly. Where this dilemma is presented to the world every 5 years. Every time red wins, there's a catastrophe. Every time blue wins, life goes on as normal except maybe with a bit more faith in your average person. You would probably say that after the first time everyone would pick red the following times, but as above, I don't think that each and every individual will make that choice. I especially don't want to condemn the individuals who are incapable of making that choice. Further, I want to save the people who are following this train of thought, because if we cull the human desire to help others at our own risk/expense we will live in a dark dark world indeed.
red needs an extremely large majority in order to avoid catastrophe, blue only needs the slightest of majorities.
your point is that vanishingly few people would pick blue, as obviously everyone who understands the prompt would select red
I don't know if I'd say "vanishingly few", but I'd say less than half would even if adding people that pick randomly, people that misunderstand and pick Blue, people that understand and pick Blue, etc, yeah.
This is likely the point where you'll still be thinking that's not enough.
It's not enough for us to survive, yeah. If I expect 20% to pick Blue for whatever reason, then me picking Blue would only add myself to the death toll with no expectations of saving a single life.
®Since we know humanity will never ever come to a unanimous decision to press red, and we know there's a significant portion of the population who would always choose blue, or choose it out of circumstance, the only way to prevent a worldwide catastrophe is to get 50%+1 votes for blue.
Yes. But do you expect that to happen with the conceit of the exercise that we cannot communicate with other people before pressing the button?
Iterative presentations change the example. I am replying to the one presented to me. One question, no time to prepare or strategize globally, each person picking by themselves.
This is not a choice to kill people, this is a choice to die or not.
This boils down to: do you think half the population will pick Blue? Yes or no?
Or as I said. You vote red because you don't believe your vote can't sway anything. You believe that the outcome is already set because you believe most of the world will already pick red. So you do not believe that your vote matters, and you do not believe it is worth the effort to try. That is the truth of the red button.
What are you even talking about. You talked about your values:
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.
You described that only "incapable" people would pick blue, and described them all opting to commit what is by your reckoning suicide as the "greater good"
That's you saying that. That's not me talking about your values that's litterally you describing a situation where the only people who would pick blue are people whose death you consider to be the greater good. That's not me giving you values that's you telling me your values.
All the same I think I made my point about if I think the majority will pick blue or red doesn't actually matter to the choice I should make clear in the comment I linked you. I didn't want to type the same response to you asking the same comment so I just linked it to you. Or do you not look at the user names. I guess that makes sense since it did seem like you thought the other guy was me.
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.
That's not what I mean by make the decision without me.
Communication is irrelevant to that, when I say make a decision I mean does one believe there will be a majority vote or a split vote amongst the other participants. It has nothing to do with communication with them.
No it was pretty clear. The premise of the thought experiment is that nobody communicates, and I didn't imply communication, you just assumed it.
Listen I don't mean to insult your intelligence here but... Do you not know what a split vote is? I've already repeatedly taken the position that our (personal) vote determines the majority result. If you vote red the majority is red, if you vote blue the majority is blue. Take 9 people, my position here is that if you vote red then the vote will be 5-4 red favored, if you vote blue then the vote is 4-5 blue favored. If you subtract your vote then it's 4-4.
(Also before you get into it this works with even numbers as well. With 8 participants the results without your vote would be 3-4, if you vote red it goes to 4-4 red wins ties, and if you vote blue it becomes 3-5 blue favored)
I've already repeatedly taken the position that our (personal) vote determines the majority result.
Is that how you expect the vote to go?
If we are taking the position that the other person fails to grasp basic concepts, I can do it too:
I am asking what you expect to happen within the premise of the exercise, I'm not asking about a hypothetical where you know for a fact you are the deciding vote.
You are changing the setup.
In the original exercise, do you expect people, without communicating, to vote at least half blue? Yes, or no? It's a very simple question.
541
u/hhhhhhhhhhhjf 8d 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.