I think there is an element of that in this mind game, down to which colors blue and red correspond to. Might be coincidence, but I think it’s intentional. I’m on the progressive side of the political spectrum overall, I believe, but I’d push red, as I stated above. I also am quite selfish in matters of self-preservation, and I don’t think a majority of people in a real situation would push blue, and if they did, hey, I’m pleasantly surprised!
You can save people in the real world right now. You can sell all of your worldly possessions and devote yourself to a life of altruism. Why don’t you do this?
People are starving in Africa right now and dying of preventable diseases. By your inaction you are choosing to kill them. How does it feel to condemn those people to death?
The button dilemma really doesn’t overlap with those things at all. It isn’t about altruism, or the limits of our altruism.
If you do only understand it in that framing then consider it as a decision made out of scale. If you believe that the vote could even possibly be squeaker close then you are potentially deciding between nearly half of humanity living or dying based on your vote. And of the remaining half living in what would be apocalyptic. Food distribution networks, healthcare systems, so on, collapsed. Bigger stakes than my giving up all my savings to charity and volunteering in a war zone. Much bigger.
I disagree. The button dilemma is absolutely about altruism. You and other blue-button pushers are altruistically putting your lives on the line because you don’t want to be responsible for the deaths of others.
Which, in my opinion, is a silly way to look at the situation. You aren’t killing these people, any more than any of us are directly killing starving children in Africa. You are taking far too much upon yourselves by blaming yourselves for the death of anyone who pushes the blue button. You didn’t create this situation, did you?
I don’t think the vote will be a squeaker. I think if people understand their life is on the line then the number of people will pick the blue button will be relatively small, far smaller than half the population. And so all your talk about an apocalyptic future is a non-issue.
Much of it depends on how the question is framed. What if I frame the question this way: “You have to push one of these two buttons. If you push red, you live; if you push blue you may die. Now, if enough other people push blue, you won’t be killed, but no guarantees.”
Framed this way, I don’t think the majority of people will read past the second sentence. “Red means I live; blue means I might die. Done! Easy decision!”
I think you and other professed blue-button pushers are deluding yourselves on how many people will actually push the blue button.
I don’t put much stock in the results of public poll here in this thread where everyone can see your vote, either. For one thing, people are hard-wired to appear to others as altruistic, even if they’re not. For another, the membership of this board consists of people who think things out far more than the average person.
(That’s partly why I haven’t voted in this poll. Not the mention the fact that actually voting, even in a pretend vote like this, creeps me right out.)
No one sees anyone else’s votes in this poll. And relative to the vote count more posts are by red button pushers than blue ones concerned that they appear “altruistic”
That assessment is what it is about.
It is a variant of a “public goods” and “trust” game.
Even your assessment accepts that if a majority of the population picks red some fraction will have pressed blue. Blue being the majority is the only outcome that has everyone survive. That is “the public good” as most would agree that everyone living is the least poor outcome. But it only makes sense to act that way as an individual if you have enough trust that enough others will also choose the option that is the greatest public good, even though it takes on risk. You don’t trust that then you are unlikely to make that choice. Enough feel that way and the best option for the public good does not occur.
Complete agreement!
Even the context in which it is presented. Present it to group after they’ve been shown a video about prepping for disaster or featuring betrayal, or alternatively after a show in which a team works together leaving no one behind and all come out okay because everyone pulled together. Or just after seeing reporting on people standing by as someone was murdered, vs the actions of people working together to help each in that London Underground stabbing article. Pretty sure different response rates.
I so disagree. The puzzle is set up to make you think that when you read the first line. You get through that and think “Blue = savior.” But if you continue to think as you read the second line (which I hope most people would if it’s really life or death) then it becomes clear that there is no punishment to anybody if we all pick red. So the clear option is to pick red.
I completely agree. To be more clear, maybe I should have described [my opinion of] the thought process of the blue button-pushers as “misguided altruism.”
Weid choice of colors then.
I’ll take an entirely non-game-theoretical view:
- Game theory is not how people think, unless and until they are taught the concepts.
- As per the hypothetical, there is no private or public debate before the participants are sequestered, so the debate in this or other threads does not happen.
- The majority of humans are (a) decent people and (b) are confident that the majority of mankind are decent people - both conditions actually go hand in hand.
- Therefore a majority of people will confidently push blue.
- I will too, because my self-image is of a decent person.
NB I do not deny that a majority of a (local, national, and potentially global) population can act evilly. Only, this requires a social process where the group of people collectively thinks itself into a place where the majority of its members would not go individually. As per the OP there is no debate.
The problem with this analysis (in my opinion) is that not only does game theory lead to the conclusion that you should press the red button, but so does a superficial look at the situation like I described above (i.e. push red and live; push blue and maybe die).
It takes another level of thinking to first understand the idea that if enough people (in fact, a majority) pick blue, then nobody dies. And to then get past the natural response of “Well, that’s their problem!” and get all the way to where you and other professed blue-button pushers are to where you altruistically are willing to put your own lives on the line in order to save everyone.
I don’t think the majority of people are likely to get to that point.
But again, it also greatly depends on how the question is framed. I think if the question is framed in the reverse*, then many more people might pick blue.
*i.e. “You have to push a button. If you along with a majority of people pick blue, then everyone lives. But if a majority don’t pick blue, then you die.”
Again, I think when it is framed this way this predisposes people to pick blue. But I think enough people will hit the third sentence and say to themselves, “Wait, what? How am I guaranteed to not die?”
Complete agreement that most humans are decent people. The second part is where is gets iffy. There is at least a solid fraction of decent people who assume that others will not choose in the interest of the greatest public good option. These decent people think you and I are minimally foolish for trusting that others will look beyond “red means I don’t die no matter what” …
Let’s vary the game.
After half the population has voted they release the current tally. It’s 48% blue 52% red.
Does that impact your choice?
Blue is losing. More are choosing red.
- I am more likely to chose blue because it is close and my vote matters most
- I am more likely to choose red because more others are choosing it
- No change
0
voters
How so?
For those of you who say you still intend to choose blue even though it is losing after half of the votes are in, let’s make it even more explicit. How would you vote if everyone has voted but you, and blue is losing by the same percentages (48% blue and 52% red).
In other words, your vote cannot change the outcome.
Do you still choose blue even though it means your death?
I think I have stated pretty clearly that if I believed there was no realistic chance of blue winning I’d vote red.
With the one caveat that I’d think a second on whether or not that is world I want to live in. That’s a lot of rotting bodies to deal with … maybe I press blue after all! Or soon wish I had.
And there’s no way I want to live as a red pusher.
Then I assume you indicated above that you would [or were more likely to] vote red in your poll after half the population has already voted?
Because assuming the votes from “half the population” are evenly spread geographically and demographically, there is essentially no way the outcome is going to change between half the votes being cast and all of the votes being cast.
A typical U.S. election poll might only involve 1,000 people. Per this cite, there might be 2,500 polls in an election year. Assuming there is no overlap, about 1 in 100 adults will be polled beforehand (1%).
This “poll” in your hypothetical is 50% of the population, and is looking at actual results, not predicted ones. So in your hypothetical situation, blue is certain to lose. Believing otherwise is wishful thinking.
I make no such assumptions and in the hypothetical did not specify.
I don’t want to bring politics into this too much, but arguably every ruler ever is choosing the red pill. They are doing what’s right for them and their cronies, not the world as a whole. I could elaborate with examples but that’s hijacking and threadshitting. OF course, their great grandchildren may not be in a position to take the red pill; they’ll have to take blue while NEW dictators choose red.