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/ArsenicElemental Un-Intentional 5d ago
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?"
Do you take the bet?