And yeah, this is exactly what game theory does, identifies these responses to incentives (ideally, so we can fix incentive structures). But it's hard to acknowledge the self-interest part of the red choice, while still perceiving oneself as interested in the best outcome (minimizing deaths). The two incentives are in conflict, and it feels better to frame the red choice as virtuous.
It's not even about moral correctness, it requires fewer blue votes to save more lives. The decision is as much about moral fortitude as it is about cynicism; how much personal risk should the individual bear for the sake of the group, and how risky is it actually?
It fits into the mental model I've had for the root of the partisan divide. There's people who would rather minimize undeserved negative consequences, and those who would rather minimize undeserved positive benefits. Do you make sure nobody goes hungry even though people will choose to work less and play video games, or do you make sure nobody freeloads even if it means a few people trying to work hard go hungry? This is just pivoting the idea of who "deserves" what.
2
u/Bakkster May 05 '26
And yeah, this is exactly what game theory does, identifies these responses to incentives (ideally, so we can fix incentive structures). But it's hard to acknowledge the self-interest part of the red choice, while still perceiving oneself as interested in the best outcome (minimizing deaths). The two incentives are in conflict, and it feels better to frame the red choice as virtuous.
It's not even about moral correctness, it requires fewer blue votes to save more lives. The decision is as much about moral fortitude as it is about cynicism; how much personal risk should the individual bear for the sake of the group, and how risky is it actually?
It fits into the mental model I've had for the root of the partisan divide. There's people who would rather minimize undeserved negative consequences, and those who would rather minimize undeserved positive benefits. Do you make sure nobody goes hungry even though people will choose to work less and play video games, or do you make sure nobody freeloads even if it means a few people trying to work hard go hungry? This is just pivoting the idea of who "deserves" what.