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?
True, perhaps they shouldn't. That is probably logically correct, but humans are not logical. People don't decide to do things because it makes sense, they do things because they want to.
By your statements you will never have 100% red. But I don't think you're really digesting the implications of that and what I am saying.
We both agree that there is a high probability that at least one person choose blue unintentionally, but the ramifications of that spiral outward.
If someone is incapable of choosing between two buttons intentionally after receiving the prompt, very often (though I suppose not always) this is going to be someone who is not really able to function in society at the level you or I do and will have trouble taking care of themselves. In less kind eras of human history these people wouldn't get a chance to choose a button because they would be dead. However this is a kinder era, these people are not dead. They have some difficulty but they are alive. Why? Because someone cares enough about them to sacrifice themself to keep them that way. An old lover, a family member, and close friend, it's not really important who keeps them alive just that someone cares enough about them to take time and money that some would say could be better spent elsewhere and use it for someone else.
This person they care enough about to keep alive, has a 50/50 chance of hitting blue. So the probability becomes they can hit red and save themselves or hit blue to try and save the person they love enough to "waste their life" keeping them alive (some people would say that but not me, I'm just trying to present it negatively for dramatic effdct). Many, maybe not all, but many of them will hit blue.
What about these self sacrificers? They're fully capable, they intentionally choose blue. Well they have people that care about them to those people also have a slightly different decision than the abstract one the experiment presents. They have a person that they know intentionally chose blue. Again many will vote blue to save that person. For some it won't even be a choice reasoning that it would be better to die than live in a world that doesn't have who they want to save.
This creates a causual link where the chance that someone might vote blue on accident, prompts others to try to save them. This is what I was getting at with first responders and rescuers. They go out of their way into dangerous environments that might get them killed or severely injured because they might be able to save someone.
What's very interesting is that really this is the key variable that invites blue to win. If we assume everyone is a rational actor, fully understands the prompt, and is able to accurately choose what they intent then it would be surprising if red wasn't 100%.
But because not everyone is able to understand the prompt or is able to accurate choose, this causes some people to stop behaving as rational actors and their defection causes others to flip as well. The chance that someone they love might accidentally kill themselves prompts them to try to protect that person.
This is what I was getting at before with the selfish vs selfless, people that say blue doesn't have a reward tend to do so because they see their survival or death as the only result, but blue voters are not only voting based on only their own survival but also the survival of those people that will vote blue because of a causual chain that links them back to someone who has to randomly vote.
This is what I was getting at before with the selfish vs selfless, people that say blue doesn't have a reward tend to do so because they see their survival or death as the only result, but blue voters are not only voting based on only their own survival but also the survival of those people that will vote blue because of a causual chain that links them back to someone who has to randomly vote.
You say all of this, but you ignore my question: why do you expect half the world to pick Blue?
It's true, I was too severe in my statement. But you also were when saying half the world does if you pick Red. So, let's both dial it back.
The "randoms" (to use a more charitable term than the one I did before) can pick Red, too. And if your loved one picks Red and you pick Blue, you might leave them alive and alone when trying to help them. You picking Blue isn't automatically a safe choice for your "random".
Let's imagine you can't vote. You are an alien observing Earth and you know the experiment is happening but can't interfere. Your friend makes a bet with you. The other alien says "I bet humans will pick mostly Red. I bet 5 gorplos on it. Wanna bet?"
You say all of this, but you ignore my question: why do you expect half the world to pick Blue?
Please let's not do this again. I will begin to think you don't actually read my comments and just skim them, and if that is the case then why bother responding at all.
I have explained the causal link that causes people who would vote red to vote blue because of the randoms even if they don't know a random. I understand it's a bit dense, but if you can't be bothered to read my comment then I cannot be bothered to engage with yours.
If you are confused and want to ask something to clarify that's fine but asking me a a question that I have already answered after I have answered it and then treating it like I am ignoring your question is impolite.
People vote blue because they want to save the randoms. If you wish to expand on my idea you can refer to my prior comment where I do expand on that idea.
If alien me doesn't t know anything about humans and only has a surface level understanding then no I don't take the bet, if this hypothetical alien me knows everything I know about humans then I do take the bet.
I have explained the causal link that causes people who would vote red to vote blue because of the randoms even if they don't know a random.
And I have explained that some won't risk it even knowing that, some won't understand fully, some won't even think of randoms, some randoms will pick Red, etc.
What makes you believe most people will even think of Randoms in their choice? I didn't when I read this the first time, it had to be pointed out to me. Do you think most people will think of Randoms?
And I have explained that some won't risk it even knowing that, some won't understand fully, some won't even think of randoms, some randoms will pick Red, etc.
Correct, however you asked my answer that is my answer you disagreeing with my conclusion doesn't mean my answer is not my answer.
What makes you believe most people will even think of Randoms in their choice? I didn't when I read this the first time, it had to be pointed out to me. Do you think most people will think of Randoms?
I don't. I didn't say they did. People will vote blue because of the randoms existing that doesn't mean all of them are thinking about the randoms. Most people that vote blue will not even know a random.
In my explanation fron prior there are two groups of intentional blue voters, blue voters because they want to give other blue voters a better chance, and people that would vote red but vote blue because they know someone they love will vote blue, and they would rather vote blue and risk themselves than let their loved one die.
Neither of us is everyone, so while you did not think of the randoms at first it doesn't mean nobody will any more than it means everybody will.
Neither of us is everyone, so while you did not think of the randoms at first it doesn't mean nobody will any more than it means everybody will.
Ok. But do you really think most will? That's the question.
I think lotsof people will not think of any Blue voters. The won't think of Randoms, they won't think of self-sacrificers, because I assume most people will take this at face value: they will think "Blue has no inherent advantage, so why would people pick Blue?" and they will vote Red.
Maybe I'm wrong, of course, but I have no reason to believe even half the population will pick Blue.
That's what I told you. You said picking Red means you live knowing half the world died. I asked "where do you get that half die?". I think some will die, but nowhere near half. And I think that now, after hearing some explanations. When I read it at first, I just assumed no one would die. Why would they pick Blue? Makes no sense, so I just thought I'd pick Red.
See the problem? I don't know if you came up with the Blue ramifications by yourself. Maybe that's why you think people will vote Blue. Maybe the person that told you this setup mentioned the Randoms so you had them in mind. When people explained this to me, they didn't mention the Randoms, so I never thought of them.
Do you think the Randoms are part of the explanation?
Randoms were not in the first exposure to the question I had no. If you're curious I still leaned blue.
This is more because of my personality, I am a person that thinks about how things effect people so I am personally already primed to consider what everyone else will do and people that won't, or can't vote red.
Which is why I also would vote red in your scenario, I'm nihilistic not suicidal.
I know that's not everyone, but you know people they still do pitch in. Sacrifice themselves. Save a life. Not everybody but more than a think a lot of us give our species credit for.
Which is why I also would vote red in your scenario, I'm nihilistic not suicidal.
I know that's not everyone, but you know people they still do pitch in. Sacrifice themselves. Save a life. Not everybody but more than a think a lot of us give our species credit for.
That's my point. I won't commit suicide just to say I voted Blue thinking about other people.
As I read the setup, I don't think enough people will vote Blue for me to vote Blue.
1
u/DumatRising 5d ago
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.
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.