4 ms·

Silly. Everyone will press the red button and everyone will survive.

zahlman 6mo ago
Yes, that's (overly reductively stated) the point of TFA. Except for the part where it was highlighting a survey result to the contrary, and explaining why this is irrational and doesn't likely reflect what people would actually do. The idea behind claiming you'd choose the blue button is to appear noble and altruistic, I suppose; but I struggle to even understand that instinct. Risking one's own life to possibly save the lives of others who are demonstrably completely capable of saving themselves doesn't strike me as particularly noble.
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
- empthought 6mo ago
  > this is irrational and doesn’t likely reflect what people would actually do People are irrational. I guarantee it’s likely that a lot of people would actually do it. > The idea behind claiming you’d choose the blue button is to appear noble and altruistic. Not at all. If the majority of people can’t be bothered to press the button that says “nobody dies as long as half of the other people say nobody dies” rather than “you don’t die,” I’m happier not being around. It’s purely selfish and blue is a win-win.
  - zahlman 6mo ago
    > If the majority of people can’t be bothered to press the button It is not a matter of "can't be bothered". This is blatantly dishonest framing. > It’s purely selfish It costs nobody else anything. Literally all they have to do is also push red. I said the idea is to appear noble and altruistic. Writing off alternative options as "selfish" is, inherently, doing exactly that.
    - empthought 6mo ago
      You didn’t even bother reading what I wrote. For me, blue is the purely selfish choice. Because I have no interest in living in a world where red wins a majority on this one. It’s not even a tough call.
      - zahlman 6mo ago
        You aren't interested in living in a world where people are generally unwilling to risk their lives for no benefit beyond the possibility of contributing to saving the lives of people who don't need saving (as they can trivially save themselves)?
        empthought 6mo ago
        Of course not.
        zahlman 6mo ago
        What would you do if you found out that this world were such a world? Because I sincerely think it is such a world, no matter what a Twitter poll says.
        empthought 6mo ago
        The only way to find out would be for this thought experiment to actually occur, in which case I would do nothing, because I would be dead.
- dodu_ 6mo ago
  Either I live with a restored faith in humanity, or I die and it's none of my concern.
deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
Jordan-117 6mo ago
>Everyone will not just. If your solution to some problem relies on "If everyone would just..." then you do not have a solution. Everyone is not going to just. At not time in the history of the universe has everyone just, and they're not going to start now.
adverbly 6mo ago
Good luck getting your 5 month old daughter to pick red when her favorite color is blue.

Yes, that's (overly reductively stated) the point of TFA. Except for the part where it was highlighting a survey result to the contrary, and explaining why this is irrational and doesn't likely reflect what people would actually do. The idea behind claiming you'd choose the blue button is to appear noble and altruistic, I suppose; but I struggle to even understand that instinct. Risking one's own life to possibly save the lives of others who are demonstrably completely capable of saving themselves doesn't strike me as particularly noble.

deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
empthought 6mo ago
> this is irrational and doesn’t likely reflect what people would actually do People are irrational. I guarantee it’s likely that a lot of people would actually do it. > The idea behind claiming you’d choose the blue button is to appear noble and altruistic. Not at all. If the majority of people can’t be bothered to press the button that says “nobody dies as long as half of the other people say nobody dies” rather than “you don’t die,” I’m happier not being around. It’s purely selfish and blue is a win-win.
- zahlman 6mo ago
  > If the majority of people can’t be bothered to press the button It is not a matter of "can't be bothered". This is blatantly dishonest framing. > It’s purely selfish It costs nobody else anything. Literally all they have to do is also push red. I said the idea is to appear noble and altruistic. Writing off alternative options as "selfish" is, inherently, doing exactly that.
  - empthought 6mo ago
    You didn’t even bother reading what I wrote. For me, blue is the purely selfish choice. Because I have no interest in living in a world where red wins a majority on this one. It’s not even a tough call.
    - zahlman 6mo ago
      You aren't interested in living in a world where people are generally unwilling to risk their lives for no benefit beyond the possibility of contributing to saving the lives of people who don't need saving (as they can trivially save themselves)?
      - empthought 6mo ago
        Of course not.
        zahlman 6mo ago
        What would you do if you found out that this world were such a world? Because I sincerely think it is such a world, no matter what a Twitter poll says.
        empthought 6mo ago
        The only way to find out would be for this thought experiment to actually occur, in which case I would do nothing, because I would be dead.
dodu_ 6mo ago
Either I live with a restored faith in humanity, or I die and it's none of my concern.

deleted 6mo ago

[deleted]

Jordan-117 6mo ago

>Everyone will not just. If your solution to some problem relies on "If everyone would just..." then you do not have a solution. Everyone is not going to just. At not time in the history of the universe has everyone just, and they're not going to start now.

adverbly 6mo ago

Good luck getting your 5 month old daughter to pick red when her favorite color is blue.