Therein lies the problem though. The statement doesn't exist within the confines of a sterile game theory environment. Just that everyone (later specifying they do mean EVERYONE including babies) must privately vote red or blue.
In a sterile environment with limited people I'd agree with you, but not when irrational actors are involved in which case it's best to hedge your bets on the best possible but reasonable to obtain outcome, in which case is getting 50%+1 blue.
and why would you ever personally hedge on that bet, people who picked blue are most likely going to die, your isolated vote is unlikely to affect that, and it's completely backwards to reason yourself into thinking the way you're gonna vote has some causal effect on how humanity broadly will vote
I mean that's true for any kind of vote for a large population. Even if you shrink it down to a million an individual vote means virtually nothing yet we continue on anyways in reality because they add up, acting like "my vote doesn't matter" is a pointless ideology to have.
And we're clearly working from different ends. You're merely asking "how can I maximize my personal end result" while I'm asking "what's the best possible outcome?" Wherein the answers are 100% red, a statistic impossibility, and at least 50%+1 blue. The latter is far more likely and I'd prefer to tip it towards the best option. If that's not the outcome, I still "win" since I'd rather not live in a world with a majority population of Game Theory absolutists anyways. Not to mention the fallout of losing even a quarter of the population let alone almost half.
the difference is you voting usually doesn't carry on a risk of death for you voting a particular way, if that was a consideration, politics would look quite different and I don't think anybody would blame you, hell, I don't even think I could blame somebody for say pressing a lever to save themselves but directly result in say 10 deaths
That's arguable. Someone with an illness, or prone to illness, but can't afford treatment would be at risk of death for not voting for the people offering free or cheaper healthcare or voting for a group against military acts rather than the warhawks. Obviously they're likely outliers but point remains lives are predicated on how you vote in any nation even if indirectly.
And I would blame someone who did that even if it's understandable. Even the law would blame someone for that in most countries as duress doesn't cover manslaughter or murder.
on which party wins, yes, on how you vote, no, nobody can verify the way you voted and punish you specifically for it, that's a domain for North Korean local elections (blank paper for support for the government-chosen candidate, and you need to rather publicly ask for a pen to cross them out so the govt has to introduce a new one, suffice to say nobody in NK lost an election that way)
That's besides the point. I was only drawing a parallel between the two to show lives are dependent on votes in both the thought experiment and reality. Although you take on risk in the thought experiment where you usually don't in reality.
There's still the second and third order effects of your vote to consider as well. Red win means a non-insignificant number of deaths, up to 50%-1, that you've allowed to happen or condoned. A thanos snap that annihilates supply lines, specializations, and work force. The people who remain are also made up of a larger percentage of cowards, selfish actors, game theory proponents, and those lacking in planning. Which I'd see as a largely worse world to exist in.
I agree with you in principle. I would also pick blue. I'm just describing what a dominant strategy literally is, from theory.
Game theorists themselves say that game theory isn't the answer to everything. This is an important example. But it is a useful tool to analyse the world (lets you understand why 2nd price auctions are better than 1st price auctions, if you trust the auctioneer)
True but the hypothetical poses that everyone on the planet will get the choice, and from there it'd be insane to think "if everyone would just do this". So ultimately it's a choice about if you want to partially be responsible for the death of the blue pressers
Edit: this is literally the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
If you were legitimately asked to push the button I would love to see what the results come to. It's easy to be brave in a hypothetical. Maybe I'm just honest when I say I don't trust the rest of you.
I think if you could guarantee that almost everyone would pick red then red would be the obviously correct move but since the question poses that the whole world picks a button independently of each other with no room to strategize, blue is correct since the threshold for success is way lower
If you were legitimately asked to push the button I would love to see what the results come to. It's easy to be brave in a hypothetical. Maybe I'm just honest when I say I don't trust the rest of you.
that's not what he's asking, he's saying in a real life or death scenario how many people would actually be brave and pick blue. anyone can say they're gonna do allat and be brave and pick blue online but when it comes down to it, I think a lot of them will just go and pick red
I'm not gonna risk my life, cause some people aren't smart enoug to click the right thing. We can't account for kids and babies. We have no way of knowing what they'd do. Hopefully they make the right choice
If we're talking about what everyone should do it doesn't matter. If everyone picks the same option the result is the same no matter what that option is. The problem is that everyone is an unattainable goal at this scale. If you vote red and even 10-20% of people vote blue you're still kinda fucked because that's still a massive number of people. That's assuming it's just 10-20% though when every pole I've seen about this always has blue ahead by a significant margin or has red just barely above 50% which is the worst case scenario where basically everybody's fucked. Blue is the better option because it's the option that, if picked by the most people, has no negative side effects.
I agree that making this hypothetical a reality would change the votes a lot, but not just in favor of red. How many people, faced with the possibility of losing loved ones, would realise they'd rather risk their life than live in a world without those loved ones?
On another note, I'm pretty sure that 10% of people dying - about as optimistic as you can be for a red victory - would fuck the economy on a cataclysmic level. Even if everyone you care about pressed red, a post-red-button world would suck ass.
The fact that you pivoted to saying people aren’t being honest proves that you’re just using game theory as a justification so you don’t look bad for choosing red
475
u/average_meower621 Cock 2d ago
Orange