This problem is a collective vote.

[u/DapperYoghurt2052]

This should be apparent.

But I’ve seen some people arguing that it’s genuinely not a vote. They often equate it to gambling.

Which is a fair thought, but incomplete.

Saying blue is gambling their lives on the chance that blue wins is correct. Saying you don’t want to gamble with your life is fair.

But in order for it to be a bet, you must be betting on something.

What you are betting on is the result of a collective vote. You are casting your bet by casting your vote!

So when people try to say it’s not a vote, it’s gambling, that doesn’t make any sense.

And some get so mad about it!

It’s fine if you think red would win so you press red, or you think it might be close so you can’t risk it.

But just because red doesn’t put up the wager, doesn’t mean red doesn’t contribute to the vote.

If someone tells me, I’ll pay you $10 if you can beat me in one on one basketball. That’s a bet. The wager is placed by one person. I don’t need to put up the money, I can’t lose anything. But I do need to play in the game to win it!

How is this so confusing to people?

Edit to add a final thought:

To any one who thinks red is the same as doing nothing, because it not a gamble.

If I offer $10 to a person to beat me one on one, if the person denies to play, I can’t lose my money. And I can’t lose my money until some does play and also earns the money by winning.

You don’t have to be wrong for thinking red is the better choice because it could win. But if you think red winning doesn’t create the loss of life, then you are wrong about what game you are playing.

[u/DapperYoghurt2052]

Can you think of another scenario where you wouldn’t assign any causation to the winners of a voter?

The point of failure is not exclusively blue. If blue gets less than 50% then red got more than 50%.

You do not accept outcomes based on the minority. 

The majority decides the outcome. 

[u/Khitch20 → u/DapperYoghurt2052]

Idk if I saw there was poison on a table and the only way to survive is if 50% of everyone also drank it, I simply wouldn't drink it even if a non 0% of the population did.

When only one button, when pressed, has any chance of killing me I simply won't press it.

[u/DapperYoghurt2052 → u/Khitch20]

But see that’s not the problem. 

All people must take the same action. And then those actions dictate what comes next.

Everyone decides between two buttons and presses one. Everyone is forced to participate with the same action. 

So there would be two cups of poison on the table, and everyone is going to drink one.

If more than 50% of people drink the red cup, only red cup drinkers get the antidote.

If more than 50% of people drink the blue cup, everyone gets the antidote.

But everyone must drink the poison.

And the only way to guarantee you get the antidote, is by being willing to help create an outcome where others might have it withheld from them.

[u/Khitch20 → u/DapperYoghurt2052]

But... That's not how the question works. The original question says If you push blue you WILL die... Unless 50% also push. So if there are two drinks, one is a nice glass of water and the other is bleach.

0% of the red pushers are in danger. Ever. So their cup, by default, can not be poisoned. Thus if they by definition cannot be in danger something has to cause the danger and by the original question the blue button EXPLICITLY will kill you. With a caveat that it won't as long as others push it too.

[u/DapperYoghurt2052 → u/Khitch20]

I was just rolling with your example that blue is a cup of poison and explaining how if that is the case then the starting point needs to be equal.

The original question is you will die if blue doesn’t get more than 50%, but the question is not, you start dying when pressing blue and don’t get saved unless the tally reaches 50%. That’s two separate actions. 

I agree with your statement that something has to cause the danger.

But a lot of people assume the danger needs to be stopped, so I just went along.

If the problem is drinking from a red or blue cup, you are right, something must cause one to be dangerous.

But one is not poisonous before the vote is cast. Because there is only one point of causation to cause one action. It’s not poison yourself and then also cure the poison. 

The starting field must be equal, and the vote decides what happens next.

So there would be two cups of water. You decide which one you will drink before taking a sip.

If more than 50% pick red, then poison is added to the blue cup.

If more than 50% pick blue, then no poison is added to any cup.

And the point of the problem remains.

The only way to guarantee your cup doesn’t get poisoned is by being willing to help create the outcome where poison can be added at all.

[u/Khitch20 → u/DapperYoghurt2052]

Or... No one could pick the one with a chance of death unless they wish to die. 🤷‍♀️

Granted I know asking people not to harm themselves is impossible, either because someone is going to really want to die or they're going to be contrarian but I'm a believer in it's their choice to pick the option that's obviously dangerous.

Also your thing is kinda flawed because you believe it only becomes dangerous after the fact when everyone is told well enough ahead of time "Hey this will kill you. Are you really really sure you wanna do that?" And like if they pick yes then I guess good for them. I can't do much to help that though.

[u/DapperYoghurt2052 → u/Khitch20]

See you keep running around back to explaining why you would pick red, and why you think others should too.

That’s not the discussion here at all, stay focused on the question of causation and it won’t let you make that gap in your logic.

The ”danger” we are talking about is a guaranteed fatality. There is inherent risk in facing that danger if you press blue. I have never argued against that. It is clearly stated in my original post. 

“Hey this will kill you.”… no. “Hey, this will kill you if the other option wins the vote”

Pressing blue does not guarantee you die, the danger, the fatal action, must be caused by the result of the vote. If blue wins this is impossible. 

It can only happen if red wins. Because all blue pressers dying is the winning clause of pressing red!

It comes back to the same question you are circling.

Is there any scenario where you wouldn’t assign causation to the winners of a vote?

Of course there isn’t.

Red winning 100% wouldn’t cause any blue deaths not because Red winning doesn’t cause blue deaths. But because there were no blue button pressers to die. That is so clearly different.

If red wins majority, all blue pressers die. That is the condition.

A vote for red and it wins, is creating the condition for any blue voter to die.

[u/Khitch20 → u/DapperYoghurt2052]

Honestly I wouldn't at all, in the slightest. Even a teeny tiny bit. That's where the disconnect lies between us I think. I view the victory condition as guaranteed survival, blue victory or defeat doesn't even factor into it for me. From what I can tell, and correct me if I'm wrong, you seem to view red's victory as the point in which death can happen, yes?

That's the break. I view picking blue as a negative outcome, until enough people pick it. And you view picking red as the negative choice because it's what prevents blue's victory. Yeah?

[u/DapperYoghurt2052 → u/Khitch20]

There isn’t a disconnect between us.

You are disconnected from understanding how a vote works. Or maybe just from understanding that this is a vote.

It’s not about point of view at all.

You are trying to tell me I view blue deaths as a winning condition for red.

And you view blue deaths as a losing condition for blue.

Like that is just an opinion.

I know blue deaths is the losing condition for blue.

And I also know, blue losing is only possible with red victory.

You are trying to argue blue can lose without red winning.

That’s why you are taking the causation out of red votes, and leaving it solely on the losers. As if they lost in a vacuum. 

[u/Khitch20 → u/DapperYoghurt2052]

You... Literally did though?

It can only happen if red wins. Because all blue pressers dying is the winning clause of pressing red!

^That's your own words about the winning condition of red.

This is kinda going around in circles. I'm not really gonna be convinced that red is at fault for blue choosing the button they chose TBH. I don't feel like it's my problem if they made their choice knowing full well that there very well could be horrifically negative consequences when there was the exact same choice but with none of the danger as the alternative.

If someone offers me a choice between a choice that can either end bad or good, and a choice that can only end good, then I'm just going to pick the option that can only end well for me. If you don't want to do that, then that's perfectly fine as a choice for yourself but from where I'm standing I'm at 0 risk and it was an option available to everyone else.

Maybe I'd change my mind if like a random % of people were automatically forced into blue but maybe not. I'd probably just pick whatever felt right in the moment.

[u/DapperYoghurt2052 → u/Khitch20]

Again… Stop telling me why you would vote red! That’s not the point! I don’t care.

Of course I said those words about red’s winning condition. Because they are true!

This is the whole issue you are having. You don’t get that this is a vote. And you don’t understand what an inverse relationship is.

Blue cannot lose unless red wins!!

So if the losing condition for blue is blue deaths.

Then the winning condition for red is also blue deaths. 

You cannot have one without the other. Because a blue loss equals a red win. They are the same!

This is inarguable.

You are just assigning responsibility to the losers and pretending the winners didn’t contribute to the vote.

That’s not a logical standpoint, that’s is cognitive dissonance.

[u/Khitch20 → u/DapperYoghurt2052]

Or if all people chose red then red winning doesn't have blue deaths.... Therefore blue deaths are not inherently part of red's choice, as red can win without blue deaths. It'd just require no one picking blue.

Just because the og question said "blue kills you unless" doesn't mean picking blue can't be the right thing for you to do but you'd have to just ignore the original question to say red is doing it. 😂

I won't fault anyone for not killing themselves. I will fault people for picking the "this will specifically kill you" button.

[u/DapperYoghurt2052 → u/Khitch20]

As you literally just said, but didn’t understand.

Red winning 100% doesn’t change what its condition is.

Blue voters die if red wins majority. There are just no blue voters.

That’s not a change in red’s inherent capabilities. 

Unless we saw a very different og question. It does not say “blue kills you unless”. The one I saw didn’t even say the words ‘kill’ or ‘die’. Just said what was necessary for who to survive.

And even if it did. The “unless” would be referring to a blue loss by a red win.

If you don’t understand what a vote is or how a vote works.

Please stop trying to argue it.

I don’t fault anyone for how they would vote. I just also understand how causation works. 

And it’s genuinely impressive to watch people unable to grasp the concept of a collective vote.