And thus, there would be no moral dilemma in selecting Red, since not only does everyone live, but they need not even suffer the anguish of worrying that they might NOT.
My first (confused) thought was exactly that suicidal altruism. C'mon, everybody! Blue voters just have to win, and then nobody dies! How could I be so selfish as to vote for a side that causes everyone else to die if they win?
Experience shows that those who shout loudest to coerce, sorry: convert others to their righteous, virtuous thinking are those who secretly do what they think others should not and never mind the hypocrisy: should 'Blue' and press 'Red' in secret is an excellent example.
(What about those like me who simply couldn't give a toss and press Red because they love that colour?)
Sounds more like Darwin than logic or ethics. The herd gets stronger as the ones smart enough to choose Red will always survive. If the majority select Blue, then the dumb are not culled from the herd, which means the worst case scenario is remaining in the status quo.
Given the behavior of the blue button fanatics, I wholeheartedly encourage everyone I know to press red. Of course we'll need to ensure the blues actually follow through with their moral convictions, which these types almost never do, but we can probably trick them into doing it on camera.
Exactly. The "Never Voters" are the most logical. In every election the choice is always between a dick and another dick. Picking the least worst is a false choice. None of the above is better. If no one voted, everyone would realize that voting is a fraud, a worthless activity that does not reflect the collective will of the populace. But then again there always will be slavish do-gooder purple haired "altruists" who screw things up for everybody by voting.
“Voting in particular is an embarrassment, being a public display of weak character and low intelligence. Let us face the truth: Democracy, like spitting in public or the Roman games, is the proper activity of the lower intellectual and moral classes. It amounts to collusion in one’s own suckering.”
Fascinating problem. I'm assuming short decision time (< 10 minutes), no discussion with others, an odd number of voters (to avoid a 50%-50% split, which is undefined in the problem), secret ballot, and everyone on earth votes one way or the other.
There is only one case in which it makes sense for me, a kindly altruist, to press the blue button. That is if I believe I am casting the tie-breaking vote.
If I *know* that there are 8 billion and one voters, that exactly 4 billion of them have voted red and 4 billion have voted blue, and I am the last to vote, then I will vote blue to save 4 billion misguided people. Otherwise, voting red either saves my life or makes no difference.
What are the odds that I am casting the tie-breaking vote?
Let’s say you don’t get to precoordinate or discuss with anyone, and the button is being presented to *literally everyone* - how confident are you that your 2 year old would push red?
You asked “why would anyone press blue”. Some people will press blue by accident or for dumb reasons because they are incapable of understanding the implications of the prompt.
Blue is your toddler’s favorite color, so he presses that. You’re saying you’d feel zero inclination to try blue, knowing “blue wins” is the only chance your son will live?
Anyway that’s the one argument that’s compelling to me to even consider blue - lots of innocent people choosing blue. It’s substantially reduced if only mentally competent adults are presented the choice.
The more interesting question is just how few blue pressers do there need to be to change the dynamics. If we assume rationality Von Neumann game-theory wise -- the vote will be 100% Red. But if instead of needing 50% blue, you only need one single person to press blue, then the vote will ironically be indifferent between blue and red. Where is the shift at which you would press blue to save the idiots who didn't understand the question, the suicidal, or your blue haired self-destructive liberal/socialist they/them niece?
I'd probably press blue comfortably up until about a 2-3% threshold. After that it'd take some nerve, and no way am I pressing blue at 50%
On the flip side, if the required blue percentage were say 90%, even the most avowed altruists would probably give up. Only the literally suicidal would intentionally press blue.
In other words I think you’re right that “what percentage would make you flip between red and blue” is a more interesting question.
Ok. I admit that I chose blue my excuse being I am a woman. It took me a while to realize there's no stated penalty for red. But comparing this to voting in an election makes no sense to me.
However, if you were to compare this to voting in an election, it probably doesn't matter which button you press because when do political parties do what they promise to do.....
I'd like to think I'd push blue. (Who can say what I'd really do under such arbitrary and unimaginable circumstances?) But that's got nothing to do with cold logic and entirely to do with my religious beliefs about the afterlife and what we're doing here and so on and so on.
If I completely understand why other people would choose Red, and don't really expect more from them--just sadly shake my head and wish it weren't so--am I still a sheep?
A time for choosing... thank you so much for the run-down. Not surprising that this version of A/B testing would appear at this moment in time, given the conversation around 1. immigration, and 2. Israel. Somebody is collecting data.
Do we not all agree that if decapitation strikes shorten war, we must decapitate? If killing noncombatants shortens war, we must kill? And so on, following the logic, not the logos.
It took less than a minute to decide to proselytize Hard to everyone that if everyone pressed red, everyone lives and blue is totally superfluous.
There should be only a red button at all!
And thus, there would be no moral dilemma in selecting Red, since not only does everyone live, but they need not even suffer the anguish of worrying that they might NOT.
If you don't take your vax, mine won't work....
Good job. You figured it out a few minutes faster than I did. :)
My assumption though is that you can't proselytize.
I agree with you.
My moral quandary is that I would worry that someone else might in their suicidal quasi-empathy choose blue.
My first (confused) thought was exactly that suicidal altruism. C'mon, everybody! Blue voters just have to win, and then nobody dies! How could I be so selfish as to vote for a side that causes everyone else to die if they win?
Too much electoral politics on the brain.
Experience shows that those who shout loudest to coerce, sorry: convert others to their righteous, virtuous thinking are those who secretly do what they think others should not and never mind the hypocrisy: should 'Blue' and press 'Red' in secret is an excellent example.
(What about those like me who simply couldn't give a toss and press Red because they love that colour?)
There are people alive today only because of luck.
I like red too! :D
Are the button presses counted on Smartmatic or Dominion machines, does the data go through Venezuela or Croatia? All bets are off!
How about adding another premise to the voting?
When you press your choice of button (blue or red), a 2 inch circle of your color choice (blue or red) is tattooed on your forehead.
Not only testing your skills at logic, but also testing your courage of your convictions.
Asking the REAL questions.
Sounds more like Darwin than logic or ethics. The herd gets stronger as the ones smart enough to choose Red will always survive. If the majority select Blue, then the dumb are not culled from the herd, which means the worst case scenario is remaining in the status quo.
Given the behavior of the blue button fanatics, I wholeheartedly encourage everyone I know to press red. Of course we'll need to ensure the blues actually follow through with their moral convictions, which these types almost never do, but we can probably trick them into doing it on camera.
For those who have never voted, there is a third option.
Exactly. The "Never Voters" are the most logical. In every election the choice is always between a dick and another dick. Picking the least worst is a false choice. None of the above is better. If no one voted, everyone would realize that voting is a fraud, a worthless activity that does not reflect the collective will of the populace. But then again there always will be slavish do-gooder purple haired "altruists" who screw things up for everybody by voting.
I rather like Fred Reed's opinion on voting.
“Voting in particular is an embarrassment, being a public display of weak character and low intelligence. Let us face the truth: Democracy, like spitting in public or the Roman games, is the proper activity of the lower intellectual and moral classes. It amounts to collusion in one’s own suckering.”
How would the vote change (if at all) if instead of red and blue buttons it was red and green buttons?
Fascinating problem. I'm assuming short decision time (< 10 minutes), no discussion with others, an odd number of voters (to avoid a 50%-50% split, which is undefined in the problem), secret ballot, and everyone on earth votes one way or the other.
There is only one case in which it makes sense for me, a kindly altruist, to press the blue button. That is if I believe I am casting the tie-breaking vote.
If I *know* that there are 8 billion and one voters, that exactly 4 billion of them have voted red and 4 billion have voted blue, and I am the last to vote, then I will vote blue to save 4 billion misguided people. Otherwise, voting red either saves my life or makes no difference.
What are the odds that I am casting the tie-breaking vote?
Nice development.
Why would anyone press blue in those circumstances? There's no possible advantage to blue over red, and a possible great disadvantage.
Unless you really like blue and hate red for some reason, to the level of not wanting to touch anything that's red, or even close to something red.
Let’s say you don’t get to precoordinate or discuss with anyone, and the button is being presented to *literally everyone* - how confident are you that your 2 year old would push red?
So I'm going to chance killing lots of people because my 2 year old might choose wrong?
You asked “why would anyone press blue”. Some people will press blue by accident or for dumb reasons because they are incapable of understanding the implications of the prompt.
Blue is your toddler’s favorite color, so he presses that. You’re saying you’d feel zero inclination to try blue, knowing “blue wins” is the only chance your son will live?
Anyway that’s the one argument that’s compelling to me to even consider blue - lots of innocent people choosing blue. It’s substantially reduced if only mentally competent adults are presented the choice.
Maybe blue button people are secretly mischief makers.
The more interesting question is just how few blue pressers do there need to be to change the dynamics. If we assume rationality Von Neumann game-theory wise -- the vote will be 100% Red. But if instead of needing 50% blue, you only need one single person to press blue, then the vote will ironically be indifferent between blue and red. Where is the shift at which you would press blue to save the idiots who didn't understand the question, the suicidal, or your blue haired self-destructive liberal/socialist they/them niece?
I'd probably press blue comfortably up until about a 2-3% threshold. After that it'd take some nerve, and no way am I pressing blue at 50%
On the flip side, if the required blue percentage were say 90%, even the most avowed altruists would probably give up. Only the literally suicidal would intentionally press blue.
In other words I think you’re right that “what percentage would make you flip between red and blue” is a more interesting question.
Ok. I admit that I chose blue my excuse being I am a woman. It took me a while to realize there's no stated penalty for red. But comparing this to voting in an election makes no sense to me.
However, if you were to compare this to voting in an election, it probably doesn't matter which button you press because when do political parties do what they promise to do.....
I'd like to think I'd push blue. (Who can say what I'd really do under such arbitrary and unimaginable circumstances?) But that's got nothing to do with cold logic and entirely to do with my religious beliefs about the afterlife and what we're doing here and so on and so on.
If I completely understand why other people would choose Red, and don't really expect more from them--just sadly shake my head and wish it weren't so--am I still a sheep?
Nice clear analysis, thanks
I need your help:
What’s your read?
Press red or blue 👇
https://redorblueapp.lovable.app/
https://substack.com/@saraeson/note/c-251641285?r=1t83gn&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
A time for choosing... thank you so much for the run-down. Not surprising that this version of A/B testing would appear at this moment in time, given the conversation around 1. immigration, and 2. Israel. Somebody is collecting data.
Do we not all agree that if decapitation strikes shorten war, we must decapitate? If killing noncombatants shortens war, we must kill? And so on, following the logic, not the logos.
Following the logic, pressing red, is extremely popular with the base.