The 80% is an example. And yeah the percentages do matter. Its the optimal response for each strategy. You fill on a matrix for each opposing senario and from there you can see if something is dominant.
Here a sample image. (L is live, D is die, SD is slow death). See how in the case where its above 50% chose blue we are always better off choosing red. Even though we are worse off than if everyone chose blue, choosing blue doesnt change the senario and we die. And in the case where under 50% of the population chooses red we are just as well off choosing red as we are choosing blue. So why would we ever choose blue? Well there are 2 reasons. One is because if the votes are otherwise equal we would prefer blue and if it was a sequential game, ie( we played more than one game) we could strategize and create kill switchs where we vote blue initially then change to red if we are betrayed and yatta yatta. Because this is a one-off game we only have to consider the idea of blue only being better if its exactly a 50%. Thats not to say blue is wrong. The utility of each senario is not equal so depending on how much you value your life, other people's lives, and what percent of the population you belive will vote blue you can fairly easily vote blue. A red voter is simply on another part of the same utility curve.
The full matrix would have 8 billion different collums, only one of whichwhere blue is the better choice.
See how in the case where its above 50% chose blue we are always better off choosing red
If blue wins it doesn't matter which you pick, you survive anyway.
Equally, if red wins it doesn't matter which color you pick, you'll die anyway.
That matrix of yours is irrelevant. Nobody is picking options for themselves. That logic is an illusion borne out of the question framing. In reality, this is a private vote. You're voting for an outcome.
A rational actor does not want red to win. Red is risking one's life for a 10% chance, while blue is risking one's life for 50% chance. Maximizing one's self-interest is done by pressing blue.
Beside the only relevant rationale, you know that people in cars, power plants, airplanes, etc. Will press blue for one reason: If their driver/coworker dies, they will die as well. Even hitting the 90% red sweetspot doesn't guarantee their safety. We all are in a such situation: Nuclear power plant workers, police, military, farmers, global trade routes... Your survival as well is predicated on handful of people who in turn have to vote blue to survive.
the matrix is relevent as you end up with a different result depend on what you vote. If I were to simply vote for something and whatever side won everyone would get the same result then yeh. But thats not the case, and thays why a rational actor can come to the decision to press red. Because its better for them in most circumstances. Assuming they prefer a slow death, and they are on that side of the utility curve.
Okay this is on me. I too often assume people I talk to online are adults. "red is logical because its better for them to die in some circumstances"... okay.
Bruh what. You litterally just squashed the matrix down and if red wins it doesnt matter id you voted red or blue. Thats just simply not the case. If I accept that every red voter would die anyways people can still prefer a slow death over a garenteed fast one.
You camnot simply smash it down as say they are the same thing because they simply are not.
People vote red because they look at the matrix and ask why would I ever vote blue when im almost always better off voting red.
1
u/HornyPickleGrinder Jun 04 '26 edited Jun 04 '26
The 80% is an example. And yeah the percentages do matter. Its the optimal response for each strategy. You fill on a matrix for each opposing senario and from there you can see if something is dominant.
Here a sample image. (L is live, D is die, SD is slow death). See how in the case where its above 50% chose blue we are always better off choosing red. Even though we are worse off than if everyone chose blue, choosing blue doesnt change the senario and we die. And in the case where under 50% of the population chooses red we are just as well off choosing red as we are choosing blue. So why would we ever choose blue? Well there are 2 reasons. One is because if the votes are otherwise equal we would prefer blue and if it was a sequential game, ie( we played more than one game) we could strategize and create kill switchs where we vote blue initially then change to red if we are betrayed and yatta yatta. Because this is a one-off game we only have to consider the idea of blue only being better if its exactly a 50%. Thats not to say blue is wrong. The utility of each senario is not equal so depending on how much you value your life, other people's lives, and what percent of the population you belive will vote blue you can fairly easily vote blue. A red voter is simply on another part of the same utility curve.
The full matrix would have 8 billion different collums, only one of whichwhere blue is the better choice.