I mean, this is standard ordinary wisdom, it doesn’t need VNM-type mathematics or exotic decision theory to arrive at. “Keep your eye on the ball.” “Follow the money.” “Ignore the hype.” “Cui bono?”
I disagree, and conversely it’s also standard ordinary wisdom that you can’t just boil down real life decisions to a table of a handful of numbers.
“Keep your eye on the ball.” “Follow the money.” “Ignore the hype.” “Cui bono?”
If you keep your eye on the ball, you’ll realize that the way everyone else responds also massively differs depending on the mechanism, and so if you want to coordinate to e.g. save as many people as possible, you ought to respond differently depending on the mechanism too.
In the problem as given, I don’t much care what happens to people bent on committing suicide out of being too dull-witted to realise what they’re doing. Dissuading them from doing it is as far as I’ll go, then I’ll leave them to it if they persevere.
Think of it as respecting their autonomy if you like.
My understanding is that 70% of Twitter respondents chose “blue”, and I’d expect the Twitter poll was both seen by, and responded to, at higher rates by people with an interest in game theory and related topics, i.e. the people more likely to understand the principles necessary to arrive at “red” as an answer.
Obviously a Twitter poll isn’t the real life situation, but a) it is far from clear that “blue”s are committing suicide and b) if you find yourself arguing that a supermajority of humanity is below your intellectual threshold of concern, I think that’s a good sign in general to reflect on how much you really mean that.
To claim that a supermajority of humanity is stupider than me is only to claim to be above the median. Half of all people are, and I expect that half includes most of the readers here. In fact, I am sure we are mostly well into the upper percentiles. It is not arrogant to say so.
But what is to be done about people who buy into Ponzi schemes, invest in perpetual motion, or walk into a blender and must be bailed out by others at the risk of their lives? These are choices, bad choices, unforced errors. No-one ever had to choose to do those things, although many have done.
Personally, I’ll pay my taxes, respond as I may feel moved to by individual cases that I come in contact with…and that’s all. This world is full of bottomless pits of suffering. My fortune is to not be in them, and my choice is to stay away from them. That’s just my choice, I’m not pushing it on anyone else, only saying that the choice is available.
The instant case, of the red-pill-blue-pill puzzle, is egregiously futile, because there is no pit but the one created by people trying to save people from the pit which was only created by the people trying to save people from the pit which was only…
And those in the crowd who see the scam are derided as psychopathic.
Tangential, but my response to the dilemma differs massively depending on the mechanism I imagine.
It shouldn’t.
I mean, this is standard ordinary wisdom, it doesn’t need VNM-type mathematics or exotic decision theory to arrive at. “Keep your eye on the ball.” “Follow the money.” “Ignore the hype.” “Cui bono?”
I disagree, and conversely it’s also standard ordinary wisdom that you can’t just boil down real life decisions to a table of a handful of numbers.
If you keep your eye on the ball, you’ll realize that the way everyone else responds also massively differs depending on the mechanism, and so if you want to coordinate to e.g. save as many people as possible, you ought to respond differently depending on the mechanism too.
In the problem as given, I don’t much care what happens to people bent on committing suicide out of being too dull-witted to realise what they’re doing. Dissuading them from doing it is as far as I’ll go, then I’ll leave them to it if they persevere.
Think of it as respecting their autonomy if you like.
My understanding is that 70% of Twitter respondents chose “blue”, and I’d expect the Twitter poll was both seen by, and responded to, at higher rates by people with an interest in game theory and related topics, i.e. the people more likely to understand the principles necessary to arrive at “red” as an answer.
Obviously a Twitter poll isn’t the real life situation, but a) it is far from clear that “blue”s are committing suicide and b) if you find yourself arguing that a supermajority of humanity is below your intellectual threshold of concern, I think that’s a good sign in general to reflect on how much you really mean that.
To claim that a supermajority of humanity is stupider than me is only to claim to be above the median. Half of all people are, and I expect that half includes most of the readers here. In fact, I am sure we are mostly well into the upper percentiles. It is not arrogant to say so.
But what is to be done about people who buy into Ponzi schemes, invest in perpetual motion, or walk into a blender and must be bailed out by others at the risk of their lives? These are choices, bad choices, unforced errors. No-one ever had to choose to do those things, although many have done.
Personally, I’ll pay my taxes, respond as I may feel moved to by individual cases that I come in contact with…and that’s all. This world is full of bottomless pits of suffering. My fortune is to not be in them, and my choice is to stay away from them. That’s just my choice, I’m not pushing it on anyone else, only saying that the choice is available.
The instant case, of the red-pill-blue-pill puzzle, is egregiously futile, because there is no pit but the one created by people trying to save people from the pit which was only created by the people trying to save people from the pit which was only…
And those in the crowd who see the scam are derided as psychopathic.
Seems kind of psychopathic to me, but you do you I guess.