Which Button Are You Pressing?

[Carl-Richard]

52 minutes ago, vinc3nc said:

"If more than 50% of people press the blue button, everyone survives."

Just reading this sentence makes you realize that a lot of ppl would press the blue button because of this, not realizing what it actually means. they would be too quick to judge and just press the blue button (along with children etc). and the rest (maybe only 20-30% of the remaining people) just to need to realize what I just said here to make the right choice (pressing blue) in order for nobody to die (to make it 50%+).

That's what I'm saying. They are retarded. They are not able to think. So you would maybe take that into consideration.

 

57 minutes ago, vinc3nc said:

so the way something is written or said is very, very important in these kinds of experiments. imagine it if was said like this: "If every1 presses the red button, nobody dies, if less than 50% press the blue button, every1 who pressed the blue button dies" or something like that. then you're fucked if you try to push the blue button just to help those who made a mistake survive, because you wouldn't have enough support from others.

Yep, again, people have poor reading comprehension, we know that.

 

58 minutes ago, vinc3nc said:

 

Notice again that I never said you should pick any button. I said this is a scenario that would happen if everybody is rational and not retarded. They are not, which is what I continued to explain afterwards.

You had an emotional reaction to me merely entertaining as a hypothetical that pushing the red button could be the most rational thing given a certain scenario, and now you assume I want to push the red button. That's again not true, I said I don't know what I would push given the real situation.

[vinc3nc]

People who don't want to pick, or don't know what they would pick = red button

[Osaid]

Eeny, meeny, miny, moe

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, vinc3nc said:

People who don't want to pick, or don't know what they would pick = red button

You know, it's one thing to have a discussion about something with an open mind and coming from a place of curiosity and trying to approach a difficult question and it's another to be emotional and trigger-happy and shaming people for opinions they don't even hold.

If you think you can accurately assess what you would do in a situation where there is a literal gun pointed to your head just by thinking about it, then sure, believe that all you want, but I don't think that is usually how psychology works.

Edited 52 minutes ago by Carl-Richard

[Osaid]

Strange loop morality: The "right" decision only exists because of the "wrong" decision.

Look at how conscious and superior the imaginary hypothetical plebeians make me. 🤯

[vinc3nc]

22 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

You know, it's one thing to have a discussion about something with an open mind and coming from a place of curiosity and trying to approach a difficult question and it's another to be emotional and trigger-happy and shaming people for opinions they don't even hold.

If you think you can accurately assess what you would do in a situation where there is a literal gun pointed to your head just by thinking about it, then sure, believe that all you want, but I don't think that is how psychology works.

Yeah, we should all have a third option to choose: “I don’t know, because it’s unrealistic to think about it without having a real stake in it.” That way, we can avoid making decisions when we’re not certain enough to do so, and then accomplish.... what exactly?

maybe you mentioning the gun is the problem here? maybe if you were put to sleep w/o pain, in bliss, then you could decide easily.

[Carl-Richard]

Here is an alternative version (it makes it simpler by removing the percentages and making the consequences more absolute and less reliant on chance): 

"Everyone in the world has to take a private vote by pressing a red or blue button. If everybody presses the blue button, everybody lives. If somebody presses the red button, those who press the red button live, everybody else dies. Which button would you press?"

In this alternative version, it becomes increasingly clear that clicking the blue button is not just a horrible gamble but a completely stupid move and that clicking the red button is the only reasonably safe option. In the original version, you're just making the gamble into a coinflip, which is not exactly good either. Like, why would you gamble your life on a coinflip just to contribute a fraction of a percentage to potentially saving other people who do the same? Is the gamble worth it just to contribute a fraction of a percentage to potentially saving some mentally challenged people (and presumably millions of young children)?

And this version makes it clear that it's not so much the fault of the person taking the egoic and safe option, but it's the fault of the question. It's an evil question to be presented with. So maybe if you refuse to answer the question with a definite answer, maybe it's not you who are evil, maybe it's those who do who are evil.

Edited 44 minutes ago by Carl-Richard

[IslandWild]

I'm not sure if I'm just dain bramaged and there is something I'm missing. Isn't pressing the blue button the ONLY tenable answer because you are guaranteeing everyone lives? From the framing of the scenario logically you are essentially throwing it all away by voting to kill people pressing red, when nobody has to die at all by pressing blue.

This seems like low IQ rage bait poll that pretends to be deeper than it actually is.

It's like asking people to pick up a loaded gun to play Russian Roulette, except they don't have to pick up the gun at all in the first place.......................

Edited 19 minutes ago by IslandWild

[vinc3nc]

@Carl-Richard I dont see that version as anything special. if its too obvious, it loses its magic.

What makes the original so interesting to me is that many people call it an IQ test or say that people who choose blue are stupid, w/o realizing that it’s really more of an awareness (consciousness) test. It’s about how quickly you recognize that it isn’t just about your own survival. There will always be people pressing blue without fully understanding the situation (toddlers, children, or individuals with disabilities) and once you realize that, there shouldnt be any hesitation. It becomes a question of saving lives vs allowing people to die.

How could you go on with your life knowing that so many people died because of decisions like yours? What would the world even look like if only people who chose red survived? Almos half the population would be gone.
 

Now imagine a different scenario that changes things completely: you and your 2 best friends go into a room, without prior discussion, to vote. What do you choose? Blue requires only 2 votes, while red requires all 3. otherwise, one of you dies.

The game turns into recursive thinking: “what do they think I’ll do? what do I think they think I’ll do?”

@IslandWild Yeah if you assume other people think the same way you do and that they wont defect. A lot of people only care about their own survival, literally not giving a fuck about anyone else, even going as far as saying that if you press blue, you deserve to die. But good luck trying to tell them they’re wrong and that you’re right.

Some people will literally say, “If everyone presses red, nobody will die,” as if that were realistically possible. Out of 8 billion people, that is literally impossible.

[Carl-Richard]

25 minutes ago, IslandWild said:

I'm not sure if I'm just dain bramaged and there is something I'm missing. Isn't pressing the blue button the ONLY tenable answer because you are guaranteeing everyone lives? From the framing of the scenario logically you are essentially throwing it all away by voting to kill people pressing red, when nobody has to die at all by pressing blue.

If you push Blue and 50% of people don't, you die, along with everybody else who happened to also push Blue. If over 50% of people push Blue, everybody lives.