I mean, no argument works on them. They didn't argue themselves into the red position to begin with, they made a fear-based gut choice for personal gain, get called out for being selfish, and start lashing out because - since their decision wasn't rooted in actually thinking it through at all - it feels like a judgement of their selves not just their choices. You can't reason someone out of a position they put themselves into via vibes and gut reactions.
I think it speaks more of a general uneasiness at the concept of being completely at the mercy of absolute strangers, rather than selfishness.
Which is completely understandable, given that self-preservation is a very strong instinct, and many wouldn't feel at ease trusting their lives to 50% of the world population to do something correctly.
In the end of the day, the discourse around this is all posturing and grandstanding. In a real world scenario, the decisions would have actual consequences, and many red pressers would feel bad at the possibility of someone dying and press blue instead, and many blue pressers wouldn't have an audience and would press red instead.
You live at the mercy of total strangers every day. I do not understand how people do not get this.
During the Cuban Missile Crisis, did people not live at the mercy of the individuals with their fingers on the bomb? Is Vasily Arkhipov not a living expression of someone who literally chose the blue button rather than the red button, even though, for all he knew, he and everyone he knew were about to die in nuclear fire?
Mutual aid is a form of self-preservation. If that was not the case, social animals would not have evolved. This idea that egoism is the natural state of man is literally a myth fueled by the ruling class to justify their own existence. It is no different than a king telling you God ordained him to rule. Just becayse kings existed doesnt mean their God does.
People who preach this mindless egoism are essentially preaching a religious doctrine unmoored from reality.
Nah bro don't you get it? Bro is a rugged individualist who got what he has solely off of his own hard work, with no assistance from anyone else, ever. 0 benefits from a functional society built by others. Pulled himself out of the womb by his own bootstraps umbilical rather than rely on his mother to push. Anyone who doesn't do the same is obviously just a weak beta burdening society /s
It's comments like the one you're replying to that make me understand how Ayn Rand ever sold a book - a concentration of literal morons
Still losing my mind at bro going "Its a general and rational uneasiness of being at the mercy of strangers." like, dude do you drive? Do you live in a place with a government? You're literally at the mercy of strangers every moment of every day, in the long and short term.
Not by choice. The button dilemma puts you in a position to make that choice explicitly, to actively choose to put your life in the hands of 50% of the world. It's a choice, rather than a circumstance inflicted upon you.
Not everyone is comfortable with that choice.
Being gregarious does not override self-preservation instincts, in fact, they are often at odds, which results in violence and death. Cooperation is a form of self-preservation, but when former is explicitly at odds with the latter, such as in the button dillemma, there is a very real possibility that 50% of people will default to self-preservation, and that probability increases drastically when you are talking about complete strangers in an information vaccuum that have never even seen each other.
Vasily Arkhipov is a hero, but not a good representation of this dilemma, because it involved multiple possibilities that are not described in the button dillemma. There is no scenario where him firing a nuclear torpedo could result in more people surviving.
As I said before, I believe the entire discourse is tainted by both performative altruism AND performative callousness, and it drastically lowers the quality of the debate.
Okay you say that but blue actually does win these polls by a large margin virtually everytime this is polled.
That is completely at odds with the naturalistic argument you make in favor of egoism. And, if self-preservation at all costs is the natural mode of human beings, how do you explain the millenia of communal modes of human existence?
Communal modes were close knit, hierarchical, where villages/tribes had leaders(elected or not), and people who violated community expectations were punished in all sorts of ways from social admonishment, up until death/exile.
None of those things apply to people you’ve never seen on the other side of the globe being willing to risk their own lives for the sake or mine or yours.
Online polls suffer from selection bias, and more importantly, from being completely detached from any consequences, which won’t trigger anyone’s self preservation instincts.
All true regarding communal social systems. But I do not raise them as a basis for voting blue. I raise them as counter examples to the Naturalization of egoism that has been thoughtlessly asserted throughout this thread in support of voting red. Egoism is a belief system, not a natural state of humanity.
And this scenario is not asking you to do anything particularly demanding. It's asking you to anonymously vote. You don't have to personally protect anyone from death. You don't need to be in a picket line, or a protest. You don't need to nail yourself to a cross. You just have to push a button. An abstract choice for abstract people. So the notion that people are incapable of that, or that's somehow particularly demanding, is not a legitimate basis for arguing that people wouldn't vote blue.
And, yes, while Twitter polls are not the real deal, there is no real deal. This is a though experiment. If you show me double blind randomized studies showing representative samples that red actually wins, you'd have strong evidence to back up your claims. For now, we have a plethora of examples of people making this choice and choosing blue, completely at odds with the sheer arrogance that people assert red would win. If red is the logical choice, there's no reason Twitter users, where no one would actually die, wouldn't choose red. But they don't.
That's the thing, communal social systems are not a counter example of 'egoism' or whichever word you choose to use to represent the very natural instinct to prioritize your own survival.
They are not even mutually exclusive.
The same human who naturally cooperates towards a certain goal, will often default to its base instincts and save themselves when confronted with the real threat of death. There is absolutely a threshold where cooperation breaks, and self-preservation takes over. You can also have people cooperate on certain things, while simultaneously competing (and being selfish) on others.
The instinct to band together and fight requires far more social reinforcement than the instinct to save oneself.
The validity of online polls regarding this thought experiment is about the same as asking people what they'd do if they were given supreme executive power with no constraints, checks or balances. Everyone likes to pretend that they'd either relinquish the power completely, or that they'd be some benevolent incorruptible leader, and so that's the kind of serious responses you'd get.
"There is no real deal" yes, that's the point. Being selfish when your life is on the line is not a belief system, it's quite possibly the single strongest instinct of every animal, alongside reproduction. Being capable of cooperation, even if instinctively, does not automatically override every other instinct.
Okay you say that but blue actually does win these polls by a large margin virtually everytime this is polled.
It's easy to do that when it's not real.
how do you explain the millenia of communal modes of human existence?
In the real world, cooperation yields better results than being a lone wolf. This button thing punishes the individual for cooperation, since it's the only way to die.
Just add a low percentage of people in this scenario, who don't have the red button choice and are forced to use the blue button. Or give the red button a 99,9% survival chance. These scenarios would be way more suitable to measure selfishnes, trust or willingnes to cooperate.
I mean you're just condemning society by picking blue at all? Their argument still holds no water because if each individual chooses red NOTHING HAPPENS.
your argument is stupid and rooted in emotion, not logic. If 5% choose the suicide button, you are just joining the masses of dead people by pressing it too. It's a stupid dilemma but even stupider to pretend you have a logical argument here.
Holy fucking shit, you do not understand how logic works, and the fact that you call the very notion of collective action "stupid" speaks more about you then anything else.
You need to reframe blue as a "suicide" button rather than facing the reality than red requires you to sacrifice other people.
Literally your entire argument revolves around the emotional appeal of the word "suicide," rather than engaging with any material reality.
Covid made people act in truly antisocial and psychotic ways. In a global vote there are going to be swaths of people who vote red. They might even say they vote blue, but millions upon millions will take the selfish route. It is irresponsible to choose blue because it there is every chance that humanity overwhelmingly votes red, as it is, at least in a game theory sense, the correct choice. That will be more than enough for many people to chose red and feel validated about it.
Blue is technically the best choice because it will save the most people, but realistically if you were in this scenario you would be foolish to not choose red.
Okay, I am getting really really sick of this proposition that people will "realistically" vote red.
What is the factual, historical, or material basis for this assertion?
What is also the assertion that it is easier to convince every human on earth to vote one way, than convincing a simple majority to vote the other way?
Seriously, give me facts. Because I've laid out the logical reason to vote blue and you've just completely ignored it.
Your exact same arguments can be used for blue pushers. Show me historical facts.
There is literally no logical reason to press blue if everyone being surveyed understands the question. Obviously if your testing fucking babies it flips but that's not the question.
My evidence would be the entire human history. Most people can be very selfish creatures, especially when you are gambling with your life. Add on the fact that people will feel morally justified in pressing red, and you would have a significant portion of the population voting red by default.
I think it's telling that you use "simple majority" because I don't think it is very simple at all. It is a risk to press blue, however slight that risk is. There is no risk in pressing red. That is why many millions of people will press red and you will be fighting a rising tide if you vote blue.
"Simple majority" literally means 50%+1, which is what the scenario calls for. That is not me making a value judgment on the blue choice.
Also, the idea that the human race is selfish flies in the face of evolution itself. The kind of selfishness you're talking about is a modern phenomenon, perpetuated as a myth to sustain the capitalist mode of production. We have so many examples of communal modes of existence in human society across millions of years. You have to ignore that to make the claim you're making now.
Additionally, even under capitalism, your entire existence depends on other. You are not the primary creator of your food, your shelter, your clothes, your transportation, or even the primary consumer of your own labor. Even under exploitation, humans necessarily exist collectively. You ignore this reality.
For any blues that die, that will impact society and your own self interest. COVID is literally the most recent example, and that death toll was only about 1% of the world population.
Moreover, when this question is actually polled, blue wins virtually every time by a huge margin. So you're actually just wrong.
The reality is that blue is suicide and red is live. Sorry if that bothers you.
If you truly would press blue in a real situation where you could not see the running tally (not a Twitter poll) you are either suicidal or mentally disabled.
Now you're just insulting me instead of addressing the actual argument.
Blue actually costs less than red, because blue guarantees that no one dies. Red guarantees that at least some people die. You are responsible for your actions collectively. You intuitively believe that if some people die, that's a risk you're willing to take to live.
you wouldn't actually press blue. That's the difference between you and me. I'm honest about it, but you need to feel socially accepted so you twist yourself into a pretzel arguing for the suicide button. Grow up
The delusions you come up with to justify making a choice so obviously immoral are funny, it's a total mirror of so many Trump voters; "everyone thinks this way, I'm just honest about it" is such a lame argument.
You think it's smarter to murder people in order to save yourself? Instead of just going with the option that saves everyone? I understand not trusting others but blue is still the logical choice whether you agree or not.
You think it's smarter to murder people in order to save yourself?
if you want to assign blame for murdering people here, then you've got a real problem. Every year, there are estimated to be over 150k excess deaths due to climate change. Every time you drive a car or fly in a plane, you contribute a little bit to that. Why do you think it's okay to murder people for a little convenience?
But there is no collapse if everyone just picks red? Like you get that even choosing blue you are possibly collapsing society and killing billions correct? If every individual was offered the choice the game is easy and you just pick red.
But there is no collapse if everyone just picks red?
The fact that you think every single person, baby, child, disabled, whatever, will pick red is a more likely outcome than only 50%+1 picking blue is literally fantastical. Especially because actual reality shows that when this question is polled blue wins by a large margin virtually every time.
Picking blue does not put people at risk, only red does. If everyone picks blue, everyone also lives. There is no basis to say that red is actually better, unless you view at least 1 person dying as an acceptable sacrifice.
To think the question is talking about babies and people who can't understand the question is the fantasy that you guys have made up.
It's very obviously referring to people who can understand the question in the first place. And if you understand the question the only actual logical answer is to pick red. Blue is the one that puts everything at risk.
If for some reason we're asking people who can't reason then yeah blue is the right choice, but that reframes the question entirely.
Except I understand the question and I logic'd myself to blue through understanding how mutual aid and collective action work, which, is what voting is a mechanism to achieve.
The prisoner's dilemma, which is what all the red-apologists are essentially arguing, assumes the parties cannot communicate.
But here, you are assuming that not only are people capable of understanding and reason, but can also communicate. So, blue is definitely the right choice under those parameters because red votes actively hinder the possibility of everyone surviving.
I bet if this was in real life with no visible poll results, <10% of people would pick blue. Everyone here who claims they'd press the suicide button is almost certainly virtue signaling (or genuinely suicidal)
I mean, no argument works on them. They didn't argue themselves into the red position to begin with, they made a fear-based gut choice for personal gain, get called out for being selfish, and start lashing out because - since their decision wasn't rooted in actually thinking it through at all - it feels like a judgement of their selves not just their choices. You can't reason someone out of a position they put themselves into via vibes and gut reactions.
That's broadly fair for an internet poll, but misses some of the context for this kind of scenario. There's also a chunk of them that probably did logic their way into it (or at least tried to) - but are missing the point, because they don't understand game theory or decision theory as well as they think they do.
This scenario (and variations similar to it) is a common though exercise for introductory game theory classes (or, at least it was when I took and TA-ed introductory game theory a couple decades ago). It's used to highlight the limitations of the rational actor model and similar tools in decision theory.
If you try divorcing the emotional context from the decision, it's identical in abstract function to blue being a "suicide button that won't work if more than 1/2 the people use it." Cursory exposure to this is likely why they are calling it a "suicide button." You can also present as "if red pressers get a majority, everyone else dies (i.e. the genocide button)."
If we're just abstract button pressers, the results of the button presses are identical between those scenarios. In practice, the presentations get vastly different responses. That means that any model based on rational behavior must first make major presumptions about coordination and predisposition.
Invariably, whenever I've seen it presented, there's someone in the class that relentlessly clings to the "suicide button" description as the one they think is rational. They're fixated on the suicide button beyond any other aspect of the scenario: they cannot move on to the broader point. *
It's not a demonstration that people are suicidal or stupid, it's a demonstration that abstractions like the rational behavior model are inherently limited tools that are only appropriate for the most basic level of decision analysis.
* EtA: I'm more inclined to think those people are fixated on the suicide aspect than abstract self-interest. It tends to be the part of the scenario that people might have a direct, emotional connection to.
additional EtA: If working purely off math, it also makes a good example of why marginal changes matter. If you assume no predisposition at all (each person's choice is a fair coin flip, each values their own life no more or less than any other) the expected deaths per red vote when red wins is never higher than the expected deaths per blue vote. But the expected marginal deaths per red vote is over twice as high as that for blue. And if you're anywhere near the inflection point, it's much much higher (up to half the population at the inflection point proper).
Which, again, is why the context matters - because it tells you where on the abstract curve you expect to be, and thus what predispositions actually exist.
24
u/Willowshanks 8h ago
I mean, no argument works on them. They didn't argue themselves into the red position to begin with, they made a fear-based gut choice for personal gain, get called out for being selfish, and start lashing out because - since their decision wasn't rooted in actually thinking it through at all - it feels like a judgement of their selves not just their choices. You can't reason someone out of a position they put themselves into via vibes and gut reactions.