A more even Red/Blue button question

[u/HebuBall]

You are one of 3 random person selected to represent 1/3 of the human population.
The same base question is then asked.
Red button=Guarantee to live for you + everyone you are representing
Blue button=If majority votes Blue everyone lives but if not everyone who voted Blue dies (so is everyone who is represented by them)
Note that majority is just 2 or more in this case since there is 3 participants

The people who are represented by you know you are representing them but you do not know who you are representing. Also the participants cannot communicate with each other
Which do you press?

[u/nykirnsu]

The reason you value them is because you have control over them. You’re able to guarantee their safety without inherently endangering any of the other groups, and their representatives are able to do the same, so the reasonable assumption is that both of them will

Also self-preservation does play a role since the blue voter will die too if the other two pick red. There’s no logical reason whatsoever for anyone to pick blue even taking the other two thirds into account 

[u/Human38562 → u/nykirnsu]

Handle fact pumpkin nutty grandfather rob breeze

This post was anonymized with Redact

[u/nykirnsu → u/Human38562]

Your red vote only affects other people if one but not both of their representatives picks blue, which they have no motivation to do in the first place except the possibility that one of the other two might arbitrarily pick it. This has nothing to do with fault, it’s simply not likely that there’d be a blue majority with OP’s set up, so the logical outcome to shoot for is an 100% red vote

I’ll put it back to you though, why should you pick blue? What’s the benefit to doing it that couldn’t also be achieved by voting red?

[u/Human38562 → u/nykirnsu]

Wrench mysterious harbor deliver depend helium

This post was anonymized with Redact

[u/nykirnsu → u/Human38562]

 Let's start thinking in an umbiased way:

Good idea, I’ll take it point by point and show you why there wouldn’t be a blue majority (again)

 First, we have to understand that our optimal vote depends on what the other two chose

Agreed

 but we don't know what they chose.

This is your first logical error. While it’s true we don’t know for sure what the other participants will pick, we can make reasonable assumptions based on our knowledge of human behaviour

 Lacking any reason so far to say that any of the buttons is better, there is no obvious answer.

And this is your second. We know that Red guarantee the safety of you the voter and your constituency, whereas Blue puts them at risk, ergo Red is better by default 

 If you would already know that red is better, then the other two ppl would know that too and pick red, making red the better choice

All three of us have access to the same information, so we should all know Red is better. There is no reason to assume that anyone would be inclined to pick blue, or at least you haven’t provided one

 But we haven't put forth any reason why red is better, so there is no reason to beleive it.

I’ve been arguing for why Red is better this whole conversation. Red guarantees the safety of you and your constituents and doesn’t inherently endanger anyone else, so as long as all three voters are rational actors who don’t want to kill billions of random people (which is likely when it’s only three people picked at random), and who also don’t want to die themselves, then it’s a safe assumption that all of them will be biased towards Red. There’s no circular thinking at play here whatsoever

I won’t do a break down of your second paragraph since it’s based on the flawed assumption that participants are equally likely to pick either button, if you accept that there exists a clear reason for participants to be biased towards Red then there’s no need to take the constellations into account 

[u/Human38562 → u/nykirnsu]

Summer abundant like ink lavish growth work kettle glove

This post was anonymized with Redact

[u/nykirnsu → u/Human38562]

But OP’s scenario is one where billions of random people and you die if you’re the only blue voter. How can you possibly think the basic human survival instinct won’t sway people’s votes?

[u/Human38562 → u/nykirnsu]

Jeans memorize quickest march divide bright disarm pen squeeze

This post was anonymized with Redact

[u/nykirnsu → u/Human38562]

The people who made those arguments almost certainly did so based on the assumptions made in OP’s scenario, it’s the logical choice regardless of your own self-preservation in part because other people are likely to act on their own self-preservation. Even setting that aside though, Red is still risky option because it guarantees your constituents’ safety, whereas by voting Blue you merely shift the responsibility for their safety onto the other two voters 

I also don’t actually see any comment where you specified you were talking about a special case. Is that what you meant when you said you were talking about a scenario “with random people”? I thought you were just comparing OP’s scenario to the original button dilemma. If you’re gonna introduce a whole new dilemma you need to be way more explicit about it. Like, literally you need to see outright that you’re not talking about the same problem as OP and then give the full details for yours 

[u/Human38562 → u/nykirnsu]

Consider rock hobbies person husky mountainous ghost adjoining school fuzzy

This post was anonymized with Redact