Board 8 > Do you press the heart button or the skull button?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Xiahou_Shake posted...

I just want to say I adore how easy it is to spot Zero Escape players in these conversations.

This topic is...complex.

MacArrowny posted...

you should make another poll

red button, everyone who uses the term "virtue signalling" seriously lives

blue button, everyone who uses the term "virtue signalling" seriously dies

Only one correct answer to that one

foolm0r0n posted...

I don't think I have talked to you this whole time so go ahead? Are you often able to win arguments with social pressure like this? (I've seen you post before, the answer is a resounding no)

Like you seriously don't get what's going on yet?

They're the EXACT SAME BUTTONS. In this topic, all he did was slap a skull sticker on the blue button, and a heart sticker on the red button. That's it. If you don't accept this basic premise how can you even hope to discuss further subtleties like statistics or virtue signaling?

But on the original scenario the red people were murdering the blue people.

In THIS scenario the skull people are murdering themselves!

</s>

I mean it does matter

It just doesn't matter in the sense of "I am killing a person" or in any functional result of button presses

It matters in the sense of "how likely is blue to actually win vs skull" and with a skull button it's pretty unlikely, with blue you might have enough people out to save the planet failing to process the rules that it can plausibly win. So in that sense blue is a less clear suicide than skull is.

But yes the buttons are identical in function.

If I push the red button, I cannot die.
If I push the blue button, there is a chance I die.
If I push the skull button, there is a chance I die.
If I push the heart button, I cannot die.

I push the button that keeps me alive 100% of the time. This is not the same question.

GildedFool posted...

If I push the red button, I cannot die.
If I push the blue button, there is a chance I die.
If I push the skull button, there is a chance I die.
If I push the heart button, I cannot die.

I push the button that keeps me alive 100% of the time. This is not the same question.

How is this not the same question?

These two questions aren't the same question for the simple reason that they won't have the same result due to the psychological effect of the wording. I think that blue would win over red and that therefore nobody will die in that scenario, but it'd be better to vote blue to make sure of that. In the other scenario, heart will win, and people who pressed skull are going to die. No reason to press skull, you're just gonna die.

Leonhart4 posted...

This topic is...complex.

If you press the snail button, you cause the death of a single snail. If you do not press the button, we retcon Q-Team out of the series. The choice is yours.

Paratroopa1 posted...

These two questions aren't the same question for the simple reason that they won't have the same result due to the psychological effect of the wording. I think that blue would win over red and that therefore nobody will die in that scenario, but it'd be better to vote blue to make sure of that. In the other scenario, heart will win, and people who pressed skull are going to die. No reason to press skull, you're just gonna die.

Framing is important, but the buttons themselves are absolutely basically the same.

Hbthebattle posted...

Framing is important, but the buttons themselves are absolutely basically the same.

But they're not the same button. Yes, I understand that the mathematical outcomes of the buttons are the same except for the extremely important factor that the blue button is going to win and the skull button is not.

Virtue's Last Signal

if you push the Poop Emoji button, you survive no matter what

if you push the Laugh Emoji button, you die unless >50% of voters also push the Laugh Emoji button

Paratroopa1 posted...

These two questions aren't the same question for the simple reason that they won't have the same result due to the psychological effect of the wording.

In a real life scenario, both suicide buttons would be interpreted the same, so the results would not be significantly different. The results won't even be close to 50%, let alone close enough that changing the sticker on the button will tip the results in the other direction.

I can't imagine what disdain for humanity is needed to believe close to 50% would press the suicide button.

foolm0r0n posted...

I can't imagine what disdain for humanity is needed to believe close to 50% would press the suicide button.

I feel like the disdain for humanity is what you're banking on for the "kill everyone who pushes the other button" option to win too

I acknowledge that self-preservation most likely wins out. I'm just annoyed at all these people painting others as bozos because only red is "logical". By the pure logic of the scenario, blue is a rational option, even if it isn't a good bet by statistics.

Read what I wrote in the other topic. I stand by the blue button choice there. Mocking people because these two buttons map to the same outcomes in a purely mathematical sense is completely unwarranted. And it certainly has nothing to do with virtue signaling. Get that shit out of here, please.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/3/6/7/AAdoZGAAEwiH.jpg

Dels posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/3/6/7/AAdoZGAAEwiH.jpg

I love this :D

The discourse in these topics is fascinating to read, thanks to everyone who's participating

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/3/7/1/AAcDcBAAEwiL.jpg
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/3/7/2/AAcDcBAAEwiM.jpg

Dels posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/3/6/7/AAdoZGAAEwiH.jpg

If the question was actually phrased like this then yeah of course nobody would say they're different, and nobody would vote differently either. I guarantee you absolutely nobody is being fooled by the "heart sticker".

But the actual phrasing is:

Red button >50% Death to blue
Heart button No effect

And then:

Blue button >50% Everyone lives
Skull button <50% Death to skull

LeonhartFour posted...

I feel like the disdain for humanity is what you're banking on for the "kill everyone who pushes the other button" option to win too

There is no winning, only minimizing death

azuarc posted...

And it certainly has nothing to do with virtue signaling. Get that shit out of here, please.

You explain how you confirmed your decision has nothing to do with virtue signaling and is actually what you would do when your life is on the line. Then all the reds can follow you over to the blue side.

foolm0r0n posted...

There is no winning, only minimizing death

I mean there's an option where the number of deaths is zero, but it doesn't sound like you actually support that option

Leonhart4 posted...

I mean there's an option where the number of deaths is zero, but it doesn't sound like you actually support that option

Are you a skull voter?

Lopen posted...

Are you a skull voter?

Yep, voted blue the first time too

The fabled blue skull

Well at least you're consistent

Kenri posted...

But the actual phrasing is:

Red button >50% Death to blue
Heart button No effect

And then:

Blue button >50% Everyone lives
Skull button <50% Death to skull

Actually it's

Red button you never die, if >50% blue dies
Heart button you never die

And then:

Blue button >50% no one dies
Skull button <50% you die, >50% no one dies

The ONLY difference in phrasing is that red abstracts the death of blue (THEY die), while skull individualizes it (YOU die).

If you just had 2 seconds to think before choosing, like in an online poll, you might not take that extra step to de-abstract it. That's the only reason your decision making would ever change here.

Unfortunately I can't bring myself to rationalize that anyone who picks that option deserves what they get and I bear no guilt for them picking it, so yeah, if I die, I die.

Leonhart4 posted...

I mean there's an option where the number of deaths is zero, but it doesn't sound like you actually support that option

There's no such option. That's the point of the game theory. To eliminate options that aren't possible with actual humans.

Another way to put it: What do you think is the % chance of blue winning in reality?

Greater than zero

Leonhart4 posted...

Greater than zero

What is the number

It only has to be greater than zero since you're suggesting the chance is zero

Leonhart4 posted...

It only has to be greater than zero since you're suggesting the chance is zero

Absolutely wrong.

Let's say you're 10% confident. That means 90% of the time red wins.

90% chance of failure * 49% blue voters * 8 billion population = 3.5 billion expected dead using your strategy

Expected dead using the red strategy is about 5% of mistaken blue voters * 8 billion population = 400 million expected dead

My strategy saves 3.1 billion lives, but I have to pretend you're the bleeding heart??

Feel free to change around the numbers in the first formula to find out the break-even point where red and blue strats both have the same expected death toll. Ask yourself if you really trust in the blue strategy THAT much.

I think Blue has a decent chance of winning tbh

Skull is much lower cause the button decision logic is less ambiguous

People who voted blue heart and claim they understood the buttons in both topics I tend to disbelieve some part of their story because the only reason to jump from blue to heart is risk aversion. But if you're risk averse your life actually being on the line probably triggers risk aversion more than a skull and tweaked wording

I'm not calling myself a bleeding heart. Quite the opposite. I just can't bring myself to say it's just a math problem and picking the other option is just good business.

I voted blue because I think there is a strong likelihood blue would win. I voted heart because I think it's quite unlikely that skull could win.

Yeah, blue is more likely to win because the consequences are more clearly laid out, and people will be more likely to be confused by the symbols because they convey the opposite of what you'd think.

foolm0r0n posted...

You explain how you confirmed your decision has nothing to do with virtue signaling and is actually what you would do when your life is on the line. Then all the reds can follow you over to the blue side.

Nobody's answering this weird hypothetical in a particular way to project an image of respectability.

These two options are written in such a way that people are going to read it as either an act of mass murder or an act of mass suicide and I don't think either side is going to convince the other to read it the other way.

Also, just going off that idea, I imagine practically everyone who reads it as an act of mass suicide is going to vote red/heart, while a lot of people who read it as an act of mass murder are still going to vote red/heart because they recognize their personal safety is guaranteed with red. I don't see any possibility of blue actually winning simply based on how this choice would be interpreted.

Uh, blue wins easily because the average human isn't going to think that hard about it and they're going to push the button that doesn't kill everyone.

I'd say the chances of blue winning are astronomically small since the only button that kills anyone is the blue one.

Paratroopa1 posted...

Uh, blue wins easily because the average human isn't going to think that hard about it and they're going to push the button that doesn't kill everyone.

Or they won't think that hard about it and choose the option that doesn't risk killing themselves.

This entire thread reads like people can't fathom other people interpreting things differently. It's a question of self-preservation vs altruism, and people who lean more one way than the other are likely to interpret the question as such.

Also, why wouldn't the average human think hard about this? This is literally a life or death situation.

FFDragon posted...

I'd say the chances of blue winning are astronomically small since the only button that kills anyone is the blue one.

It depends on how you interpret the question. Some people might interpret it as blue is the only button that can save everyone.

FoolFantastic posted...

Or they won't think that hard about it and choose the option that doesn't risk killing themselves.

This entire thread reads like people can't fathom other people interpreting things differently. It's a question of self-preservation vs altruism, and people who lean more one way than the other are likely to interpret the question as such.

Also, why wouldn't the average human think hard about this? This is literally a life or death situation.

People aren't gonna press the fuckin' button that obviously kills everyone. This is so simple.

People I think would hit blue:

• Kids who don't think logically and think blue is the good choice
• Adults who don't think logically and think blue is the good choice
• Parents who won't risk hitting red knowing there's a solid chance their kids could hit blue
• Legitimately religious people who couldn't bring themselves to hit red for various reasons
• General do-gooders who still have faith in humanity and/or who are thinking of the above groups of people and want to help
• People who think life sucks shit and would love an easy way out
• People who think the world would quickly turn to shit after all the good people die, and would rather risk death than to live in that perceived hellscape of selfish and evil people

Altogether, I think those groups would likely add up to over 50%. And if they don't, well hopefully it's a quick painless death, lol.

Paratroopa1 posted...

People aren't gonna press the fuckin' button that obviously kills everyone. This is so simple.

But it's not so simple, or else this wouldn't be a discussion. There are literally people in this thread saying they would push red because they view the opposite as needlessly risking self-harm. You can be mad at those people for thinking that way, but I don't understand getting mad at me for pointing out that these other people exist.

FoolFantastic posted...

But it's not so simple, or else this wouldn't be a discussion. There are literally people in this thread saying they would push red because they view the opposite as needlessly risking self-harm. You can be mad at those people for thinking that way, but I don't understand getting mad at me for pointing out that these other people exist.

I know they exist. They're less than 50% of the population.

Obviously we can't actually test this, but I'm kinda baffled by how people think every person on earth is well-versed in fucking prisoner's dilemma death game bullshit. You think people are suddenly going to turn into super-logicians just because lives are on the line?

Paratroopa1 posted...

I know they exist. They're less than 50% of the population.

Obviously we can't actually test this, but I'm kinda baffled by how people think every person on earth is well-versed in fucking prisoner's dilemma death game bullshit. You think people are suddenly going to turn into super-logicians just because lives are on the line?

No, I think the opposite - a lot of people are not going to think and simply go with self-preservation. I don't know how many people would actually consider the innocent children who do not understand the situation.

Like, I have to imagine such a vote being under duress, and a lot of people save themselves without even thinking in such situations. People make selfish, sometimes catastrophic decisions when they panic.

What do you think the difference would be if people had 1 year to decide vs. 1 day?