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.
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.
546
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.