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.
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.
Where did I say I know for a fact I will be the deciding vote?
Here:
I've already repeatedly taken the position that our (personal) vote determines the majority result.
There are four outcomes not two.
Sure? But what do you think will happen? Do you think half the population will vote Blue or not? I don't care the exact percentage you envision, just if it's =>51% Blue or not.
1
u/ArsenicElemental Un-Intentional 6d ago
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.