this is kinda old news and probably a pretty obvious answer but which button would you press leftypol?
Flood detected; Post discarded.
Flood detected; Post discarded.
Flood detected; Post discarded.
Whatever button causes a prostate orgasm in your ass.
I press this button 8===D
Blue because theres no point living in a world where 30 to 49% of the global population, esp. the most empathic and/or ethical portion, die. I'd like to see so-called experts in game theory coping with their mamas dying. Voting Red is lose-lose.
>>779265I think a significant chunk of them wouldn't mind their mother dying.
>>779265Empathy and ethicality isn't exclusive nor innate just to women you know.
As for sentiment which it is trying to gauge I am team blue, however if we take it literally there is nothing preventing everyone to click red, so blue is just meaningless risk.
>>779265agree honestly. if all thats left is the red buttoners, maybe its better to not be there
>>779276well the thing is that some people are inevitably going to hit blue. the creator said that toddlers are just put in a room until they hit a button at random. plus obviously people who are ethical etc. you are guaranteed that if we press red, millions or billions of people will die (mostly children or people who are more charitable), whereas if we all just organise to press blue nobody will die
>RED or BLUE
>1. if more than half press BLUE, everyone survives
>2. if less than half press BLUE, only those who pressed RED survive
the impetus to press BLUE is
<we want everyone to survive
and so the most logical course of action is for everyone to press BLUE. however, RED is effectively a wager against the statement
<everyone wants everyone to survive
and well, RED could be a compelling choice, but only if you can examine the group of people who are making the choice. what impetus do you have to believe that some percentage of people within the group want only a certain subset of the group to survive? how can we be certain that those who chose RED would inhabit certain qualities that would be exclusive to a specific subset?
blindly, it's the choice between collectivism and isolationism, but on its own it's difficult to quantify without further information. in america, you could make a compelling argument for why a significant number of people would choose RED, but I'd still like to think that BLUE would prevail, as it's the most good faith and humanitarian option available.
>>779285on twitter blue won by only a narrow margin, it's not unreasonable to think red would win in real life because people presumably wouldn't be able to see the results in real time - if you didn't know that the vote was nearly 50:50 you would surely feel a lot more impetus to vote red, because what if 80% of people have already voted red? you'd just be throwing your life away… also obviously the twitter poll isn't actually voting on your life, there's probably a lot more pressure to vote red if you think you might actually die.
overall, i would predict red to win. especially if there were some period of campaigning first, the disgusting 'ethics experts' would be spreading their filth about how the red button is the most correct choice and that would soothe people's consciences more.
>>779276no one dies if enough press blue
an unknown sample of people WILL die if enough press red
red is legitimately the only risky option here, if it wins you are guaranteed to lose a huge chunk of people, you could have complete societal collapse just because youre too much of a fucking pussy
>>779289people who think like this are those who are already willing to play games with other people's lives, and for the sake of possibly preserving their own. I'd pick blue on principle, even if the reds prevail, because I don't want to live in a world where red-pressers are allowed to make ethical and moral decisions that may impact me.
only the morally bankrupt gamify moral systems.
>>779298>I don't want to live in a world where red-pressers are allowed to make ethical and moral decisions that may impact me.Unfortunately they already do, but I get your point, things would be even worse surely.
The worst part would be that society would convince themselves they did the right thing while handwringing about how sad it was the irrational blues couldn't be saved, etc etc
god "moral dilemmas" are the gayest most midwit shit ever
>>779307i think they can be quite illuminating
>>779307they're fine as long as they get you thinking about your own decision making process. it's more midwit to think that such things aren't worth examination.
I have a question of my own. How would the people die? Would it be sudden or would death squads be created to start hunting down the bluers? Don't you think enough of the blue ones would organize to not get killed? Would the redders have enough guts to carry out mass murder?
>>779311Nta but how?
Most thought experiments revolve around impractical scenarios
>>779265selfless enough to press blue, selfish enough not to consider a world beyond yourself
>>779313I think it's opposite. Idk why people prioritize thought experiments as the height of intellect.
>>779314death with be instantaneous. they'd evaporate as though they were at ground zero in a nuclear explosion. fucking glassed sans the explosion. at least that'd be the most humane way to do things, failing some infrared laser that purees their brain into mush or something. but maybe the red-pressers would be more barbaric about it and deem it necessary to execute the blues themselves, like some mad max type shit.
>>779319>the height of intellectnobody's saying that, it's just that they get you to consider things you may otherwise not have considered. if you're unwilling to engage in a hypothetical, then to me it suggests that you're such a midwid that you can't even conceptualize ideas without fully incorporating them into your belief system, and you're generally unwilling to examine what you believe in the first place.
>>779321>nobody's saying that, it's just that they get you to consider things you may otherwise not have considered. if you're unwilling to engage in a hypothetical, then to me it suggests that you're such a midwid that you can't even conceptualize ideas without fully incorporating them into your belief system, and you're generally unwilling to examine what you believe in the first place.Most thought experiments are just cliche moral dilemmas though.
>>779323I guess, but usually you can do some mental gymnastics to see things from a different perspective. for example, as it's presented, the case of RED or BLUE seems pretty straightforward. do you want to be a moralfag humanitarian type who presses the BLUE button because you're just so good-natured and empathetic, or do you want to be a selfish shitbag who probably scares babies and commits tax fraud? seems like an easy choice, but the stipulation that all vote-casters are unaware of the choices of their compatriots is a limitation of the question, sort of inserted by design; what if everyone knew how the other would vote? what if all the BLUEs could somehow identify one another and opt to instead all choose RED, such that they survive alongside the selfish cretins who would've eliminated them for their own benefit? how would that play out? perhaps it could be considered a waste of time to sit and consider such things, but the whole point of any hypothetical is to get you to think about the implications, the effects, of the choices that you've made. if you're not doing that, of if you think you've got it all figured out you stupid arrogant child, then of course it's a waste of time to even ask the question, but not because the question doesn't deserve consideration.
philosophy is a meditation on human psychology, tradition, and culture, but you have to sort of sacrifice time that would've been spent on anything else to engage with it. if you're here on an imageboard, or on the internet in general, then you've got the time to be philosophical, otherwise you might as well be just another soulless social media consumer.
>>779258>prostate orgasm Not real btw
If we kill all red voters, there is no danger of millions of innocents dying.
you goyim press the blue button to save everyone
I press it for the opportunity to die
we are not the same
>>779328> perhaps it could be considered a waste of time to sit and consider such things, but the whole point of any hypothetical is to get you to think about the implications, the effects, of the choices that you've made. if you're not doing that, of if you think you've got it all figured out you stupid arrogant child, then of course it's a waste of time to even ask the question, but not because the question doesn't deserve consideration.You speak like a typical armchair adult who thinks anyone who disagrees with him is a child.
Do you not realize that most out pop culture franchises are based on using thought experiments as the plot device?
Most fandoms base their moralfaggotry on thought experiments.
>philosophy is a meditation on human psychology, tradition, and culture, but you have to sort of sacrifice time that would've been spent on anything else to engage with it. if you're here on an imageboard, or on the internet in general, then you've got the time to be philosophical, otherwise you might as well be just another soulless social media consumer.Social media is rife with thought experiment posts.
Also philosophy just seems content with pondering not enough in doing.
A lot of people love to watch motivational or religious sermon videos all the time.
The problem is people spend more time idealizing/radicalizing rather than doing anything productive.
Also your justification for OP is ironic because how can one person manage to create a mass weapons system capable of killing a specific type and amount of people in the first place?
That’s the thing with thought experiments. They always rely on theoretical theatrical scripts of reality
>>779335>You speak like a typical armchair adult never heard this term before in my life so I don't know what you mean. are you calling me a child?
>who thinks anyone who disagrees with him is a childno, I was saying that it's more midwit and childlike to assume that you're the type of person who thinks he's got it all figured out. that sort of person would say what you're accusing me of, which is something like
<because I've got it all figured out, you can't disagree with me, otherwise you're dumb and/or a childbasically, we're saying the same thing, and I was not calling you a stupid arrogant child directly, so you can stop clutching your pearls now. yes, I know I typed
<you stupid arrogant childso maybe you thought I was addressing you directly, but that was more directed at the hypothetical person who thinks that way. the "royal" you perhaps.
>Do you not realize that most out pop culture franchises are based on using thought experiments as the plot device? Most fandoms base their moralfaggotry on thought experiments.yes, I do realize this.
>social media is rife with thought experimentswell I never use the shit so I'll have to take your word for it, and I don't particularly have a hard time in believing that.
>A lot of people love to watch motivational or religious sermon videos all the time.>The problem is people spend more time idealizing/radicalizing rather than doing anything productive.yeah, fair enough, I agree with that, but action without adequate pondering is just pissing in the wind don't you think?
>how can one person manage to create a mass weapons system capable of killing a specific type and amount of people in the first place?I never suggested that you could, but for the sake of the hypothetical, it doesn't necessarily matter how the blues end up dead, really. it doesn't effect anything and I was mostly doing a bit of humorous "worldbuilding"
>That’s the thing with thought experiments, they always rely on theoretical theatrical scripts of realityas long as the concepts being examined could be applied to our reality, they're worth consideration.
>>779339nooooo you won't get to live the rest of your days with a bunch of fags who pressed red!!
>>779271Really? I didn't know that! Kill yourself.
>>779317It's precisely because I've considered it that I'd rather not partake in such event.
>>779257IMO this Twitter clickbait scenario is fucking stupid because they crafted a situation where it's theoretically possible for everyone to live by picking red. That's not how the selfish option should work because it's not true to life. Like in the prisoner's dilemma if both prisoners betray each other they both get more prison time than if they stayed quiet. In order for selfishness to be beneficial one has to successfully exploit the selflessness of the other. This clickbait strips away that nuance.
This comes off as Ayn Randian propaganda where selfishness is the natural/neutral/logical option where everything works out perfectly for you, and selflessness is suicidal and only necessary because some people are stupid/ignorant. I hate it.
>>779335>That’s the thing with thought experiments. They always rely on theoretical theatrical scripts of realityWow nobody realised this was unrealistic until now. Jesus wept.
>>779359The problem is a lot of retards read into what you pick for these dumb scenarios and make moral judgements.
It's so tiresome to see people jerk themselves off for picking blue and talk about how they'd rather die than be responsible for anyone else's deaths and yet they live in first-world comfort backed up by exploitation and genocide. They are not pressing the blue button in real life.
>>779358That's why this has blown up though, the fact that there might be a mathematically perfect answer but on human terms it's awful. It demonstrates the lack of nuance in the thought of this kind of person. "Everything would be fine if only everyone agreed with me and did what I think they should", yes sure that's true, but also meaningless and asinine. Red button pressers have either never lived in the real world or have no interest in doing so.
>>779361Of course in real life it's harder to oppose injustice than just pressing a button but I think it's useful/interesting to point out that there's many people who wouldn't even do that. They would rather wrap themselves in theoretical knots to explain why they don't have to act like a human being.
Nobody is saying this dilemma has somehow solved politics but honestly I don't think I could really trust someone who says they would pick red. That is a person who will turn on you the second they think it is advantageous for them.
>>779367You are one of those retards.
Real-life moral judgements are the only ones that matter.
>>779369Sure but thought experiments like this strip away all of the stuff that people use to hide behind in real life.
>>779369Anyways… While I could do more of course I do think I put a lot of energy into making the world a better place through my job. So I resent being compared to clicktivist
>>779289Maybe I was wrong about thinking the majority would press red. Of course this is just another poll but probably more representative than Reddit.
I'm sort of tempted to go find somewhere to argue with red-pressers but what would be the point? They're ultimately just hyper-reactionaries anyway who only can fall back on "well everyone who pressed blue was dumb and deserves to die".
>>779461red is the only option that involves people dying
if people press blue no one has to die
if people press red, a significant chunk of the population dies
thats the difference
where's the button that would kill all xitter game theorists? i would slam that shit soooo hard
>>779461yes, you are correct. however, if even one person pressed blue, then that person must die to sate the blood of hypothomos, the deity of moral dilemmas, thereby putting that blood directly on the hands of the red-pressers. however, if only a majority of blue-pressers prevail, then everyone, even the would-be murderous red-pressers, get to live as well.
blue is collective humanitarian absolutism, red is conditional individualistic opportunism that, given a particular circumstance, can produce the same end outcome as a world of majority blue-pressers, but not without some degree of precarious risk. since you DON'T KNOW WHAT OTHERS WILL PICK, you have to assume that the best course of action is to be a blue-presser, because the end outcome in that scenario is advantageous for everyone. however, if you're a selfish prick who is only concerned with his own well being, you may opt for red, but in that scenario you are condemning a not-insignificant portion of the population to death for the sake of the security that red-pressers might get to enjoy.
when you press red, you're saying
<well, good luck, everyone else! I'm only out for mine, and I don't give a shit about the outcome either wayand basically, red-pressers are the type of people who think griffith did nothing wrong.
>>779358>IMO this Twitter clickbait scenario is fucking stupid because they crafted a situation where it's theoretically possible for everyone to live by picking red.they concocted a scenario specifically tailored to conform to their moral priors and still lost, two times, in a website that is currently overwhelmingly filled with AI rationalist neoliberal types. that merits… something? like a recognition of how hackish they are? some people got extremely angry at the results.
>>779477>to assume that the best course of action is to be a blue-presserOnly if you're confident it will end up over 50%, which I think is the real crux of the issue: a hedgehog dilemma of social trust. I think a lot of blue voters are overestimating someone's ingrained survival instincts when their life is is on the line, it's less that I'd be voting with apathy for those who picked blue but rather voting on the pragmatic probability it could hit 49% and die for no reason. The vast majority of people seeing this hypothetical have already seen polls that most would vote blue so are going in with a Baysian-bias, if you were actually given this scenario completely blind you'd be operating under the assumption that random people of all walks of life, philosophies, and ethics education (or lack thereof) would be willing to risk their life for yours when given a completely safe alternative. If the question was "would you take a bullet for a stranger" the outcome would be different.
>>779524Sorry last sentence should have been "would you take a bullet for a stranger but you'd only survive if someone also tried to take your bullet".
>>779526I don't know why people keep trying to rephrase the question to make it be different and use that as evidence of red being correct.
>>779484>>779529Oops didn't mean to post yet, who are the people that are extremely mad over the results? Link to the funniest ones?
>>779474you would only vote red if you think other people are sadists who want to kill others, theres no other reason to choose red, as naturally most people would choose blue
but even if 51% chose red, youd still be risking your life for no reason as society would collapse
>>779461this is immediately what i thought and anybody who attempts to moralize this instead of just looking at it from a probability standpoint is a retarded idealist. all you have to do is press red to live. if you press blue you are risking your life just to make a moral performance to nobody but yourself.
>>779358IMO this Twitter clickbait scenario is fucking stupid because they crafted a situation where it's theoretically possible for everyone to live by picking red.
^This. I'm sure many have heard a non-borked version of that sort of question before and just misread a working conundrum into this. Vibes-based analysis.
Slightly rephrasing the OP (keeping it borked, as it is):
People are asked to press one of two buttons in private. There is a button NORMAL and button EMO.
If you press button NORMAL, then you, individually, survive. What about the others: If everybody presses button NORMAL, everybody survives. If a majority presses button NORMAL, that majority survives. In fact, whatever the size of the group pressing button NORMAL is, that same group survives.
People who press the EMO button only survive if they are in the majority.
nOw whiCh bUtTON dO yuo pUSh?!????
>>779580Once again a red button freak has to try rephrase the question to make them seem right
>>779580youre so stubborn
blue pressers face no risk unless they get less than 51% of the votes
red pressers face no risk
only if they get 100% of the votes. its a much larger gamble, if you dont get every last human on your side, youre fucked, and lets be honest here, at least 45% of people are picking blue because its clearly the safe choice with no downside
red's best case scenario is ironically if blue wins (at which point, why vote red?)
heres a better way to rephrase that question
>theres a button
>if 50.1% press it, nothing happens, life goes on
>if 50.1% choose not to press it, everyone who pressed it will die
there is no reason not to press the button, unless you think we live in a society of sociopaths
>>779592>at least 45% of people are picking blue because its clearly the safe choice with no downsideExcept the dying part because they didn't reach the threshold.
>if you dont get every last human on your side, youre fuckedExcept I'm not fucked at all because I chose red, which is kinda the whole point of choosing red; if blue wins I'm at no loss, if blue loses and I chose blue then I lose everything. It's incredibly disingenuous to assume one's individual will to live and natural paranoia of others' lack of caring is somehow not part of this equation.
>>779593>unless you think we live in a society of sociopathsGiven that Donald Trump was elected one of the most powerful men on the planet twice I would say so. If I have to bet on human psychology with my life I'm going to err on the side of caution.
>[1.] if(blue > red){everyone survives}
if blue wins the majority with at least 51%, then both red and blues will survive (win-win)
>[2.] else if(blue < red){blue-pressers die and only reds survive}
if red wins the majority with at least 51%, then ONLY the reds survive and blues are exterminated (lose-win)
>[3.] else if(blue == all the votes){everyone survives}
if blues win with 100% of the votes, everyone survives; the nature of everyone in this society is humanitarian (win-win)
>[4.] else if(red == all the votes){everyone survives}
if reds win with 100% of the votes, everyone survives; the nature of everyone in this society is self-serving (lose-win)
[3.] is the best possible scenario, because if 100% of people voted blue, then that is a high trust society filled with empathetic people who value the lives of those around them. [1.] is the next best case, as everyone in society survives, but there are some who exist in that society who harbor a questionable morality. [2.] is the worst possible case, because up to half of the population will be deleted for the sake of giving the other half the peace of mind that is guaranteed survival, and [4.] is the second worst case because, despite the fact that nobody died, every denizen of that society will now be aware of the moral bankruptcy of his neighbor.
ideally, you want to live in a high trust society. it's not about the survival rate necessarily, it's about how empathetic you are. selfish people make a choice by calculating the odds in their favor without consideration for anyone else, and that's how you may arrive at red as an option. you do not think of the outcome of others, only your own, so even though there is a case in which everyone would choose red and thus there would be no casualties, such a result would be indicative of incredible moral decay.
>>779602>Except I'm not fucked at all because I chose redexcept the people who actually make your food, and the people shipping it, and the fucking ubereats your lazy ass orders every night, theyre all fucking dead. you cant live in a society without other people you dumbass
>>779604Thanks for the actual attempt at discussion blue-anon.
>every denizen of that society will now be aware of the moral bankruptcy of his neighborIsn't that already the case? The fact of the matter is no side is getting 100% so those are not ever real possibilities, it's about whether you think blue can reach 50% or not. If polling shows blue would probably when then I'd push blue, but without any prior knowledge being shoved into a booth I'd wager a lot more people would choose red.
>ideally, you want to live in a high trust societyI agree anon, but we're talking about choices within the confines of current society not an idealized one. If people are already so moral why aren't we living in a socialist society already?
>>779605I love how this blue poster can't argue without resorting to ad hominems over a twitter meme. Society can certainly function with less people (as it has at any point prior in human history), also I don't think I'd be the only one choosing red given the poll data up in the thread. What a ridiculous non-argument.
>>779605(samefagging)
I also find it weird how it's assumed I'd want to push red simply for my life. Plenty of people have children or disabled relatives that would not survive if blue lost.
>>779612>>779613nta but if 50% of the population dies, civilization immediately collapses and billions of reduyghurs would die either way. it really is that simple. outside of twitter which is a cesspool of reactionaries, even less people choose red so human civilization would just collapse that much harder
>>779461why would you assume everyone is operating based upon the same decision theory, risk assessment, and moral principles as you are?
>>779614I would rather be alive and have civilization collapse than be dead. NTA.
>>779615why?
not even memeing, it's genuinely bewildering to me to be okay with the possibility of living in a failing shithole full of assholes with infrastructure problems akin to mass organ failure on the proverbial civilizational body
I asked the same question on twitter but only got /pol/ hurled in my direction, apparently cuckold porn and third world uighas are somehow related to my inquire
I trust my /leftypol/ack to be more articulate here, if only to be odious in the way only leftists can
I choose the red button because postmodern society has failed me and I have become embittered
The first time I saw this hypothetical I didn't even understand what the dilemma was, it was just
>press the button that increases the chance of mass death for seemingly no benefit
or
>don't do that
Blue seemed obvious until I stumbled on other people discussing it. After that I thought I had reconciled the contradiction between the best choice for an individual and the collective with a strategy where you publicly advocate for blue but privately press red. But I guess at that point if you fail to sway enough people then you've just convinced a bunch of people to die, so.
I have a feeling my initial reaction would be fairly common, and depending on how much time there is between the vote being announced and held, the ideal strategy would involve suppressing as much as possible the people spreading pro-red cognitohazards. As far as "everyone lives" thresholds go I prefer 50% to 100%.
>>779257I press blue. The game theory angle seems reasonable until you remember that the people society needs to function are more likely to press blue, such as medical workers and engineers while retarded business majors, instagram influencers, politicians and peasants in shitholes like syria that have loyalty only to their clan would press red.
I fully expect the vote to come out as red. A place like Syria would come out as 95% red because they have loyalty only to their family clan, not to the higher idea of the nation, nevermind humanity. A lot of the world still operates like this. Strong families = no societal cohesion and trust = red. So Arab countries, Africa, India would all be very red. There is also the cultural factor. You know every single American patriot will press red because their whole thing is that they are special snowflakes and statistics don't apply to them. I don't really know enough about East Asia to say it would be red or blue - they supposedly have a strong conformist bias, but also they are very mercantile societies.
But every society will still lose a lot of the most educated and critical people.
>would you press the button where nothing happens or the button that has a 0.1% chance of forcing you to eat dogshit
<W-WELL GAME THEORY SAYS U HAVE TO PRESS THE DOGSHIT BUTTON B-BECAUSE..
Unique IPs: 33