Agreed! And I really like your connection to Newcomb's Problem.
One other argument for Blue, without assuming Evidential Decision Theory, which you also allude to, is to assume you care about saving as many lives as possible, and then reframe the problem as a collective action problem. I arrive at roughly the same conclusion that you do here:
“I choose Blue because if only the Reds survive, I don’t wanna share a planet with them.”
I don't read this person as talking about signaling. I read it as saying that our world modified such that no people with blue-pressing psychology are around to play a role in structuring societies, would be a vastly worse place.
Yeah, that's an interesting thought. Of course, if everyone reliably defects in collective action problems, that too can be an assumption in a bunch of institutional design decisions...
It seems pretty clear to me that the poll is testing how much you value your own life vs. others'. If you value only your own life, your only incentive is of course to press red. If you only value others' lives, your only incentive is of course to press blue. So, the issue is where on that spectrum your values are (and, of course, where one's _should_ be).
I also advocate for blue, but not based on evidential decision theory but based on Kantianism: What choice respects humanity if universalised? Clearly it's blue if we keep the fact that *some* people are going to press blue as background knowledge, which we should
Agreed! And I really like your connection to Newcomb's Problem.
One other argument for Blue, without assuming Evidential Decision Theory, which you also allude to, is to assume you care about saving as many lives as possible, and then reframe the problem as a collective action problem. I arrive at roughly the same conclusion that you do here:
https://firdausgupte.substack.com/p/why-you-should-push-the-blue-button
Yeah, it's striking that the dominance argument just ignores the value of other lives. One is allowed a little self-partiality but geez...
This was one of your very best, I thought. Super well-explained, well-paced, and funny.
“I choose Blue because if only the Reds survive, I don’t wanna share a planet with them.”
I don't read this person as talking about signaling. I read it as saying that our world modified such that no people with blue-pressing psychology are around to play a role in structuring societies, would be a vastly worse place.
Yeah, that's an interesting thought. Of course, if everyone reliably defects in collective action problems, that too can be an assumption in a bunch of institutional design decisions...
For whom is it worse?
It seems pretty clear to me that the poll is testing how much you value your own life vs. others'. If you value only your own life, your only incentive is of course to press red. If you only value others' lives, your only incentive is of course to press blue. So, the issue is where on that spectrum your values are (and, of course, where one's _should_ be).
I also advocate for blue, but not based on evidential decision theory but based on Kantianism: What choice respects humanity if universalised? Clearly it's blue if we keep the fact that *some* people are going to press blue as background knowledge, which we should