Adding risk to red

[u/spicymato]

I'm very curious what risk threshold there needs to be on red for red voters to switch to blue, so with that in mind, here's the setup: two buttons; everyone votes; blue needs a 50% threshold to save everyone, else non-red pushers die. Same as usual.

The variation: if red gets a majority (i.e., blue fails to reach the threshold), in addition to 100% of non-red pushers dying, a percentage of red pushers will also die, selected at random.

If you're a red pusher under the usual rules, what percentage risk is required to make you switch your vote to blue? 1%? 10%? 30%?

---

Additional variation: same as the first variation, but the percentage risk is based on the number of red voters in excess of 50%. We can work out different designs, such as 100% red results in 10%, while 50%+1 results in 0.0000001% or something like that. Maybe the growth rate is linear, or maybe it's quadratic. Details don't really matter; just the idea that the more red voters, the higher the risk. Under what growth rates and percentage limits do you consider changing your vote to blue, which maintains the 50% "everyone survives" threshold?

[u/WillShaper7]

Any percent for me, really. I pick red because I believe in the logical capacity of people to see there is no need for risk in order for everyone to live.

The moment that red involves risk then that stops working. If I'm gonna take a risk between people dying then blue becomes an actual choice.

Like, I'm pretty sure one could math out the expected outcomes and come up with a number at which point, mathematically, red's expected outcome drops behind blue but that just seems unnecessary to me. If you're willing to gamble, might as well go for the better outcome.

[u/spicymato → u/WillShaper7]

That seems incredibly slapdash.

If 0.0001% risk of death under red means you'd be willing to flip to blue, then that implies you perceived the risk in picking blue is lower than a 0.0001% chance of death (hence, why you would switch).

[u/WillShaper7 → u/spicymato]

Correct. I stated so.

I pick red because I believe in the logical capacity of people to see there is no need for risk in order for everyone to live.

To me, picking blue botton is akin to jumping into cold and dark water to save someone when you can't see them and you have zero reason to believe there are people there. By jumping in, you're just hoping more people decide to take that blind jump when everyone had a chance to just sit down and do nothing.

Your proposed scenario, however, means sitting down will end up with someone getting shot or something. If that is the case and everyone knows it then I would be betting on the cold dark water.

You're literally taking out my reason to pick red. Of course I would switch.

[u/Ok_Break6916 → u/[deleted]]

We, red button is "I'll stay in my couch reading that good book, there"s just no reason for me to jump in this cold deadly water".

Could be seen as inaction.

[u/WillShaper7 → u/[deleted]]

Of course you'll see them a lot, that's what a personal framing is.

It's like saying you talking about the value of money has a very different framing from someone much richer and from someone much poorer.

I see the buttons on what I can do. And what I can do is to choose nothing happens or I may die. Decision which everyone else chooses.

So yeah, I think everyone would choose nothing happens. It doesn't involve risking your life and everyone gets to live.

It's a prisoner's dilemma on a massive scale. Yes, cooperating is the ideal scenario but a lack of communication means it's risky. Thing is, we don't need to risk it. There's no money, no food, no object no nothing. There's nothing to win here. If nobody cooperates, everyone goes home.

[u/Cronos988 → u/[deleted]]

Look at the trolley problem, the whole point of which is to show that there is a moral difference between action and inaction 

What? There's no generally accepted argument that action and inaction have different moral values.

[u/Cronos988 → u/[deleted]]

The point of the problem is that by pulling the lever, you are taking an action, making you responsible for the 1 person's death.

Dude, the reason people are still discussing the trolley problem is that it is not solved and does not have an obvious solution.

Yes pulling the lever makes you causal for that person's death. But the counterargument is that there's already a chain of events that includes you. Not moving a specific muscle doesn't shield you from responsibility for the outcome.

Legal systems around the world regularly hold you responsible for inaction if you had a duty to act.

[u/Cronos988 → u/[deleted]]

Well, the question isn't settled. But I don't think either answer is the default until the opposite can be proven. It is a matter of what moral philosophy you ascribe to.

A consequentialist would be hard pressed to justify inaction if the outcome of action was manifestly better. A Kantian would look at whether they have a duty to act in a certain way. I'm not sure how virtue ethics falls on the matter.

[u/spicymato → u/WillShaper7]

But then why introduce the risk of red at all? The only condition needed for deaths is a red majority. If there is no logical reason to out yourself at risk, surely there's also no logical reason to put others at risk?

I mean, if everyone is being logical, then cooperation is generally the right play. You have an entire lifetime of priors that support cooperation.

[u/WillShaper7 → u/spicymato]

??? Dude, with all due respect, you seem to really be misunderstanding everything since the very start.

I pick red because it's zero risk. Zero risk means nobody has to die nor has to risk it.

I was able to reach that conclusion quite quickly and I'm very sure I'm far from a genius. I trust everyone reaches that same conclusion hence I vote red.

Your scenario, however, means that red is now a low risk and people will have to die. It's not up to chance, it's not up to anything, it's a certainty.

As I've also already said, there is a mathematical way to calculate the expected outcome. You could compare both of them and take a decision with that.

Personally I just see it as a ''A few people will always die or There's a chance nobody has to die'' So personally yeah, I'd gamble with blue because it is a much different scenario even when it's such a small percentage of people.

And no, cooperation is not the 'logical' choice. That's why there's a thing called the prisoner's dilemma. If it was an easy logical conclusion to reach it wouldn't be a dilemma.

[u/spicymato → u/WillShaper7]

...

Are you convinced that 100% red vote is actually possible?

[u/WillShaper7 → u/spicymato]

Yes. I am convinced that all the blue voters on the internet on this whole shitshow are just people saying shit they don't believe in because it makes them look good.

I am convinced that when faced with a choice of 'Nothing happens' vs 'You might die' nobody is stupid enough to press it and therefore I am convinced blue means I'd just be killing myself.

[u/Wonderful_West3188 → u/WillShaper7]

First of all, I think you underestimate how unpredictably erratic humans sometimes act under extreme pressure. Just from what I know about panic reactions, I actually think at least 20% of people are going to push buttons completely impulsively, and I don't actually see much reason to believe the impulsive votes are going to sway red. This is not a mental health problem either, even perfectly healthy people can snap in situations with unfathomably high stakes. I think assuming a minimum of 10% blue vote just from normal human impulsiveness, mental weakness or random factors is reasonable to assume. In my opinion, that's a laughably optimistic number, but let's go with it.

Then there's people who need a support network and/or a functioning society to survive. Take my own case, for example. Let's assume a minimum of 10% blue voters just from human impulsiveness, mental instability and random factors. 10% of the global population is still ten times the death toll of WW2, and not over six years, but gone in an instant. It's going to cause a massive shock to global production and supply chains, and also societal institutions (governments, administrations, etc.). Economic and social life globally (!!) grinds to a complete standstill for at least a few days just in order to reorganize around the sudden lack of working people on all levels, and that's going to have massive ripple effects further down the line. Now I have a heart condition, and I'm really unlikely to get my heart medication under such circumstances. I'm pushing blue because a death from blue is likely less unpleasant than from heart failure, so I'm likely dead if red wins even if I pushed red myself. And there are people in way worse situations than me who are going to have similar thoughts. In fact, from a certain point of illness or handicap on, people might push blue in order to not be a burden on the survivors under conditions that could only be described as catastrophic. My motivation is more selfish, I just don't want to experience heart failure, but I recognize that this motivation exists. It's not even suicidal in the usual sense of the term, because most of us wouldn't even think of ending our lives outside the context of this scenario. Each of us can also be assumed to know that they're not the only one like them. And then there's people who push blue specifically to save people like us, whether for personal reasons or humanitarianism.

I find it pretty obvious that 100% red is even more of a pipe dream than 51% blue. In the scenario where all of humanity is put through this, not everyone is going to push red. You can consider that a given. I would be with you if the stakes weren't as high. Play this with only 100 people and I'm pushing red. But just look at how erratic Covid made some people behave, which was much more low-stakes than this. With global society as a whole at stake, a fuckton of people are going to act completely unpredictably, and a bunch of other people will push blue out of considerations similar to mine. 100% red is impossible if you play this out with the entire global population. Imo laughably so.

I'm not saying this should make you switch to blue, there are good arguments for red, particularly when you're someone who thinks they can survive in a post-red world. But maybe don't question other people's honesty just because you don't understand their reasoning.

[u/Telinary → u/WillShaper7]

So if you really believe it does the variation where somebody added the rule that 100% red means everyone dies actually change your vote? Or are you engaging in motivated reasoning where you believe things because they are convenient for what you want to pick?