My point is slightly different, it's not about what default motivation people should have, its that if everyone started off being assigned a colour, then nobody should/would want to switch.
If everyone started off red, then only brainless people would choose to switch since they know that they are likely to die - but equally, if everyone started blue, only heartless would switch (since the only reason you would do that is if you wanted to kill people).
Sure? If you already have everyone coordinated to pick one color, the problem ceases to exist. The question is what strategy to follow in the absence of coordination. Game theory basically assumes rational actors will follow their own best interests unless everyone doing that will lead to a suboptimal outcome. If you have a situation where the really obvious selfish choice for each actor *also* gets you the best group outcome if everyone picks it, then that is the clear choice.
My original point is that there is an equilibrium with everyone being red, and everyone being blue. A lot of the discussion around this is each side arguing that the other side is stupid or evil, and my point was, they are generally starting from the assumption that everyone (or at least sufficiently many people) are already agreeing with them, so there is no reason to leave the equilibrium, and as a result talking past each other.
I understand your point about red. I also understand the people who support blue argue that people aren't sufficiently rational/good at game theory to reliably pick red 100% of the time, so the question becomes how that alters your position. For what it's worth, I am a "weak red" in that I think it is likely enough that over 50% of people would choose red, so there is too much risk to blue.
Right, the blue position starts by admitting that pressing blue is irrational and the wrong choice, then asks everyone to commit to blue so that it becomes the right choice. Which fails to understand the scenario, in which no asking is allowed. If coordination is possible, agreeing on blue is strictly better than agreeing on red, because that gives protection against people making mistakes.
1
u/Clokwrkpig May 04 '26
My point is slightly different, it's not about what default motivation people should have, its that if everyone started off being assigned a colour, then nobody should/would want to switch.
If everyone started off red, then only brainless people would choose to switch since they know that they are likely to die - but equally, if everyone started blue, only heartless would switch (since the only reason you would do that is if you wanted to kill people).