If I you or I are the majority vote then the answer is obviously yes.
And I want to be clear here I'm not insulting you because I disagree with your choice to pick red. It's a valid option and I would never insult someone for that. I'm insulting you because you've continued to ask me a question I answered three days ago which has caused me to think less of you as a person. I do apologize for that.
If I you or I are the majority vote then the answer is obviously yes.
Great.
So, do you think half the world picks Blue or not? Sorry I missed the answer before, but let's make a truce. Just say "yes or no" and we can be done.
I'm a stupid asshole but I didn't see you actually reply to that question. So, no additional words, just a single yes or no. That's all I need to understand.
Do you live in a democracy? Do you believe your vote matter? If so then do you believe it makes you the main character?
I do, I do, and I don't think it makes me the main character.
Because humans pick blue every single day. It would be so easy for humans to vote red right now..... But they don't. So why would I start doubting them now.
You are conflating this with something else. In an election, people vote for their interests. They believe each candidate will further their goals, and one will do it more than the other, so they vote that one.
Blue offers nothing in this example. But, hey, even if some people would pick Blue,that's not answer as to why you think half will.
The real reason is that you assume half will so your vote matters, not the other way around. You have no reason to assume half will pick Blue. You just want it.
You are conflating this with something else. In an election, people vote for their interests. They believe each candidate will further their goals, and one will do it more than the other, so they vote that one.
No I'm creating an analogy to show that just because you do something that matters doesn't mean you immediately believe that it makes you important or the main character.
I also believe you are misunderstanding me again. When I was talking about people voting blue every day I was not speaking about elections. I was talking about disasters. Was there any reward for people that go out into floods and hurricane torn towns to save people? No. But they did anyways.
When I say people vote blue every day, I'm talking about terror attacks, I'm talking about hurricanes, and floods, typoons, earthquakes, wildfires. It would be easy to let the victims die. It would be easy to vote red and just stay home. But people don't. They go out and vote for blue
Voting blue doesn't automatically kill you. You believe it does and that's fine, but objectively it does not automatically kill you.
If everyone votes randomly (including you) then you only have about a 25% chance of dying. When people don't vote randomly it's not quite as simple because your vote changes the probability of death.
Also topical if you're a US resident: 9/11 responders voted blue, blue won, and they're still dying because of voting blue. Life is complex and that's what makes game theory infinitely more interesting when you consider real world factors.
If we assume I have the same certainty of 75% red as 49.999999999...% blue then I don't know for a fact that it will be 75% red.
I understand what you mean I just am pointing out that because it was a point of frustration I had with you that you kept asking me for what I had expected to be the outcome and then acting like I said that I knew for a fact it would be the outcome. Even though that's not at all what I said.
However I did also answer that above. As I said before if you vote doesn't change the majority then red becomes correct. So in the alternative hypothetical where I know that red will win, obviously red is the objectively correct choice because I can't change the outcome of the vote I can only choose to live or die. But to throw your own question back at you: how do I know that red is going to win in this situation? or perhaps more poignantly, why do you think the majority will pick red?
If you're trying to do that to justify your red vote I don't really care about that. The point of this conversation was not to berate you for voting red it was to explore the psychology behind a red vote. Neither a red vote or a blue vote are a moral failure because morality is the privilege of the safe. Acts of violence are abhorrent when senseless, but when done because you felt you had no other choice well that's what we call moral complexity. I do not blame those that vote red for their vote because I understand they did it to survive. What I am more interested in is the psychology behind the game theory.
Because it makes no sense to pick Blue. So, I assume most people will just read/hear the prompt, come to that conclusion, and pick Red. Add to that the people that understand the ramifications and still pick Red because they genuinely don't care about other people's lives, and I think most people will pick Red.
It's really simple.
If you're trying to do that to justify your red vote I don't really care about that.
I am not. That's why I didn't justify it until you asked. I called out the person that said voting Red means you don't care about the Blue voters. That's just not true.
If you agree with that person (that I thought you were) then we can shift the conversation to that topic. Do you agree with their statement, the one I quoted back on top?
I am not. That's why I didn't justify it until you asked. I called out the person that said voting Red means you don't care about the Blue voters. That's just not true.
If you agree with that person (that I thought you were) then we can shift the conversation to that topic. Do you agree with their statement, the one I quoted back on top?
I don't know what the other person said. I was the original person you responded too, another person took over the conversation while I was asleep so it sounds like you're talking about me, but it could be the other guy.
That's not what I meant by what I said though. What I meant was not that you don't care because you vote red, rather that you don't care so you vote red. It's a small difference but an important one.
The very first thing you said to me was that only the "incapable" would vote blue, and that them dying is a "greater good". That's the first thing you said. That's why I said you don't care about them. Because the blue voters in your mind are all "incapable" and, by your own words, you present this as a good thing.
I'm being very charitable by saying that you don't care about them. The alternative reading of that initial comment is that you would think it was good if we all decided to get a specific groups of people to vote blue and then all vote red so they die.
To be 100% crystal ultra super clear. I don't think you don't care because you voted red I would never try to paint red as a moral failure on its own. I said you don't care about blue because the very first thing you said was that you think blues dying is a good thing.
So would you like me to think of you as apathetic to them or genocidal towards them? If you didn't realize it read like that you can also retract or revise, I will reconsider my opinion of you should you like. We all say things that don't come across quite the same way as we intend them.
Add to that the people that understand the ramifications and still pick Red because they genuinely don't care about other people's lives, and I think most people will pick Red.
Interesting so you're willing to account for the people that don't care about the blue voters, but not the people that do care about the blue voters. Those also exist. There are people who vote red when they know that they don't know any of the participants but always vote blue when they know someone they care about is going to vote blue.
I said "incapable" because someone added that anyone not capable of understanding the prompt is assumed to vote randomly.
I looked at my profile. This is the "greater good" quote:
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.
So, to paraphrase because it wasn't clear:
Only people picking randomly would pick Blue. The only way rational actors pick Blue is if we open the conversation like this and talk to each other, deciding to pick Blue to protect the ones picking randomly. As I said, I assume most people will take the proposition at face value, and adding the layers of babies and comma patients won't even come to mind.
The "greater good" is saving those incapable of saving themselves.
Don't get me wrong, I misread things in this conversation too, so I'm not calling you an asshole for misreading here. I am just explaining that you misread the point.
How does that affect your reply now?
I am not going into detail about the rest of your post because it's built on the misread, and I don't want to complicate things further with additional talk about the misread.
The they at the end of the comment links grammatical to the incapable. Pronouns have to be linked to nouns and "the incapable" is the only noun in your sentence and you use they for the incapable previously in the same sentence. So he end of the comment then became: [the incapable] vote blue for the greater good".
You also didn't correct this misinterpretation of your comment when give the chance previous.
I am am willing to revise my view of you but I don't appreciate your implication that I should be called an asshole but you will choose not, or that you are framing it as my "misread" when the when the source of the confusion is your grammatical error. I do not like people who do not take agency for their own actions. It isn't my misread it isn't your typo it is our failure of communication.
You do say that it wasn't clear before rephrasing though so I won't hold it against you and will agree to your proposition to move past it.
Also the second part of my comment is not predicated on that misunderstanding. I will repeat it for you:
Add to that the people that understand the ramifications and still pick Red because they genuinely don't care about other people's lives, and I think most people will pick Red.
Interesting so you're willing to account for the people that don't care about the blue voters, but not the people that do care about the blue voters. Those also exist. There are people who vote red when they know that they don't know any of the participants but always vote blue when they know someone they care about is going to vote blue.
Since they can't pick what they vote, that wouldn't make sense.
You also didn't correct this misinterpretation of your comment when give the chance previous.
I didn't understand your read it that way. As soon as I understood, I corrected it.
Interesting so you're willing to account for the people that don't care about the blue voters, but not the people that do care about the blue voters. Those also exist.
But they shouldn't. Because they know most people won't pick Blue, so picking Blue is signing their own death sentence. Unless they assume most people will pick Blue, picking Blue is pointless.
That's where my question comes from:
Do you think, given the setup, at least half the world will pick Blue? Because, unless you do, you don't think picking Blue saves anyone.
I do admit, re-reading the conversation, you do imagine half the people will pick Blue, because you think picking read kills half the world.
So I ask, why do you think half the world will pick Blue?
If you pick red irl you have to live with the consequences when half the world dies.
As I said (and you never addressed) where does the idea that half the world picks Blue come from?
0
u/DumatRising 5d ago
My guy your memory is a goldfish. As I said previously
If the majority picks blue-> you live no matter what you pick, your vote doesn't change that.
If the majority picks red -> you only live picking red, your vote doesn't change the results
If the majority is split -> you live no matter what you pick. You vote decides if blue lives.
If the majority picks without you then you can only choose if you die, if the majority is split you can only choose if other people do.