3 ms·
> 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 actuall
by empthought 5mo 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 5mo 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 5mo agoYou 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 5mo agoYou 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 5mo agoOf course not.
- zahlman 5mo agoWhat 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 5mo agoThe 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.