I'm wondering if it's really the framing of the problem that's inflating the number of individuals responding with blue (similar to certain confusingly-worded ballot measures).

Suppose the problem were worded in a more concrete way: "I have a large container ship that I'm draining the ballasts out of tomorrow. If less than 50% of <whatever population we're working with> get on the ship, it will capsize and everyone who chose to get on it will die. You can choose either to get on the ship (blue button) or refuse to (red button)."

Would one hold a person guilty for not getting on the ship? Would a perfectly empathetic person even board that ship?

▲

empthought 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Of course the framing affects how people vote. The thought experiment demands we use the framing as given. Some people might reason themselves into your analogy, others won’t.

▲

bennettnate5 8 hours ago | parent [-]

So is your general take on the problem that because the way it's worded (blue => "everyone survives", red => "only those who press red survive"), enough people would choose blue that therefore the empathetic/moral thing to do would be to also choose blue to save them? I can get on board with that line of reasoning

	▲	rayiner 5 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		In the Slashdot days, I suspect the weight of views would be on the side of "remove the warning labels, let Darwin sort it out." Interesting change in "hacker" culture.
	▲	frotaur 7 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Yes! There is an excellent video on the subject, though it is in french (https://youtu.be/lo7iJnq_U9M?si=FFz6iHI_W4lz9V8D) He did extensive polling with different framings to see how these affect the outcome.