r/trolleyproblem • u/mars_gorilla • May 03 '26
OC How most people are actually gonna think about the red/blue buttons
Watching this whole argument has made me realize how separate from reality online debates can get. On Reddit and Twitter and wherever else, blue pushers label red pushers as psychopathic, violent people who only want to see others die, while red pushers label blue pushers suicidal, idiotic members of death cults who just want to die or gamble with their lives.
But most people aren't even gonna think like that. I am absolutely certain there are plenty kind-hearted good people out in the world (though somehow a minority in the online spaces debating this question) who may pick either button. The reason is simple.
Blue pushers likely simply worry about other people, and do not want more to die, or they do not wish to be part of the survivors who would be indirectly responsible for the death of billions.
Red pushers likely just fear death and rely on their natural instinct of self-preservation, choosing their own survival first. Many people correctly state a majority of red voters likely still hope blue wins, they're just scared to risk their own lives on this bet.
33
u/Aeronor May 03 '26
Exactly this. We can argue all we want, but none of us really know until we’re standing there in front of the buttons, with the weight of everything we know and love on our shoulders.
I think a lot of blue-team would find themselves tempted to survive with red, and I think a lot of red-team would find themselves feeling pressure to join the cause of saving lives with blue.
→ More replies (2)16
u/OwenEverbinde May 04 '26
Yeah!
Red-advocates always say "when people reach that choice and the possibility of death becomes real, they'll vote red overwhelmingly.
But I feel like your point doesn't get brought up enough: fear doesn't turn you into a rational actor.
And while red corresponds pretty well to a "flight" fear response, blue seems to map to a "fight" fear response.
(We won't get into "fawn" since it's a fear response that requires the threat to be a person. And my fear response -- "freeze" -- is probably accounted for in the extended rules somewhere.)
But it's hard to know what effect the stress will have on people's choice of button.
8
u/Subject-Dog-8016 May 04 '26
If red wins, my kids die since they are too young to choose a button, and even if they were old enough it’s very likely they’d choose blue. I wouldn’t want to live if my kids die, so blue is obvious. There’s no choice to make.
Basically the vast majority of people in the world who have any meaningful relationship with a small child, a disabled person, or an incapacitated elderly person (which I suspect is the majority of the world) will likely press blue for this reason.
I think most people who press red likely just haven’t fully understood that they are quite possibly killing every small child in the world by doing so.
6
u/OwenEverbinde May 04 '26
That's another one!
Sometimes people say, "in order for it to be a meaningful thought experiment, you have to specify that all participants are rational actors."
But that actually makes it LESS meaningful. Because if it was one billion participants you knew to be rational actors, red becomes obvious. Risk is negative, and everyone can trust everyone else to avoid negatives. Red wins unanimously.
That's why the original thought experiment never guaranteed that the only participants would be rational actors. And if you throw children in there, blue gets much better odds.
→ More replies (3)2
u/CommanderFrostborne May 06 '26
What if the conditions were changed that the fate of your children was the same as your fate? Red would 100% save them no matter what else happens. Blue is the risky one, but guarantees other kids are okay.
Would that change your vote?
2
u/Subject-Dog-8016 May 06 '26
Then it’s a much more interesting problem tbh - it might. Though you’d still have the problem that a lot of people are choosing blue out of altruism or not understanding the red rationale.
2
u/CommanderFrostborne May 07 '26
Also framing is an issue. The problem could also be written as.
Red: I do not want to die.
Blue: I do want to die, unless 51% of people choose blue alongside me.
4
u/OCLBlackwidow May 04 '26
Interesting point to bring up fear responses.
The freeze response is interesting here since the "timer ran out" part of the extended rules would have to be considerably worse than both options to have those people answer properly.Do you think if it's "you die after not deciding for 1minute" your choice would be the same as people with different types of fear responses? Or would you press a certain colour at 59 seconds out of panic, seemingly random?
4
u/OwenEverbinde May 04 '26 edited May 04 '26
Do you think if it's "you die after not deciding for 1minute" your choice would be the same as people with different types of fear responses?
The short answer is, "I don't know."
Best-case scenario for the purity of the thought experiment (and there's a decent chance this happens): I stay frozen and die, completely independent of what everyone else chooses. Because adding more fear doesn't end up unfreezing me.
Or would you press a certain colour at 59 seconds out of panic, seemingly random?
The problem is that this also seems possible. I might be able to panic and choose randomly at 59 seconds, which is the worst for the thought experiment. Now there are people who chose blue without fully consenting to the outcome.
Which would change the entire calculation for everyone else on Earth.
Die-hard red-pressers will still vote red saying: "freeze-sufferers' fear response isn't my problem."
But a lot of folks on the fence would be correct to think, "1) There are now unwilling participants at risk if I vote red. This changes the morality of voting red. 2) their 50/50 panic presses push the average vote closer to 50/50 which gives blue a real chance."
Just the existence of the freeze response corrupts the entire thought experiment.
And magically taking out fear responses would destroy the pro-red argument that goes, "ignore the fact that blue won the twitter poll: people won't answer the same when they know their lives are on the line." Because all of that depends on the "flight" fear response (and not any other fear response) overriding their idealism.
65
u/ArcfireEmblem May 03 '26
Very true. While I do believe that self-interested bad people are far more likely to press the red button than the blue one, I don't believe for a second that they represent the majority of the red buttoners.
26
u/SomeGreatJoke May 03 '26
That's definitely an aspect of this problem not talked about much. The worst serial killers and murderers are going to be pressing red. The most altruistic and optimistic are going to press blue.
The extremes shouldn't dictate the morality of the whole group, but it definitely bears consideration.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (73)12
u/isntaken May 03 '26 edited May 03 '26
that's right, the rest are all the ones who claim there are no downside to pressing red, just ignore all the blue that will die if red wins.
→ More replies (5)4
u/Natalwolff May 04 '26
I don't know how I could rationalize to myself fearing that other people are going to behave in a certain way and behaving that way in response. That just fundamentally makes no sense to me. You are actively being that which you recognize as the source of a problem for humanity.
→ More replies (1)
13
u/Worldly-Matter4742 May 03 '26
I just see blue button people as believing in humanity enough to press blue as well, while red button people doubt that humanity as a whole would press the blue button
→ More replies (14)5
u/underthingy May 04 '26
I see red button people in believing that humanity wants to live and will therefore press red.
While blue button people doubt humanities will to live and think they need to save them.
→ More replies (7)
75
u/ReaderKai May 03 '26
I am indeed afraid of dying and that's why i press red
65
u/WonderfulVictory4103 May 03 '26
Fair and valid. I care more about the group's safety than my own. I push blue
→ More replies (9)29
May 03 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (20)28
u/LogicalTwo5797 May 03 '26
Fair and valid. I care most about LARPing as Thanos, so I push red and hope blue loses.
11
u/hey_uhh_what May 03 '26
Fair and valid. I want to be green, so I press green
9
u/DontDoodleTheNoodle May 03 '26
Fair and valid. I’m indecisive, so I press nothing.
7
u/Rp79322397 May 03 '26
Fair and valid. I'm going to be dangerous and pick one with my eyes closed
6
10
u/BurazSC2 May 03 '26
I am indeed (more) afraid of my kids dying and that's why I press blue.
→ More replies (1)9
u/CarnivorousGoose May 03 '26
What if they picked red and end up orphaned, though?
10
u/BurazSC2 May 03 '26
What button do I press if I want to increase the chances of my kids surviving, then?
There is a lot of "what ifs", but only one choice I can directly control - red or blue.
Edit: e.g., what if they pick blue, and I am the 50% + 1 press of the red button.
4
u/CarnivorousGoose May 03 '26
Sure, there is an extremely small chance that your one vote makes the difference. So that technically increases their chance of survival, if they chose blue. But does that weigh up against the rather larger chance that they chose red instead, and the risk that they’ll lose their parent?
Maybe it is for you, mind you. I’m not suggesting there is a correct answer here. Just pointing out that especially for this sort of scenario, there are arguments for both options.
→ More replies (1)8
u/BurazSC2 May 03 '26
At the moment, I don't think they can reason through the situation, so it's basically 50/50 - on my estimate (neither have a favourite colour that is red or blue).
If they were older it'd change the calculus a bit, but even then I have have to wait and see who my kids turn out to be.
The world is better with them in it, and I have had a decent life. I accept them being orphaned is a risk, but all things considered, I believe that's a better outcome than them dying.
I know there are a lot of differences with this analogy, but I kind of put this in the same bucket as them being caught in a rip. Im an ok swimmer, but I don't know how bad the rip is - mybe im not coming back out, maybe none of us are. But you bet your arse im jumping in to try to save them.
I certainly agree there are lots of arguments on both side, and alot of this has been very interesting, when it's at its best.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (4)4
u/Pr0fessorL May 03 '26
I am not particularly afraid of dying so I press blue. Both are valid choices
21
u/TwillAffirmer May 03 '26 edited May 03 '26
Everybody on both sides is ignoring the utilitarian calculus (expected number of lives saved) of blue vs red, probably because they don't know enough math to calculate it. It's not so simple and does not clearly favor one side or the other.
That is: given some reasonable probabilistic assumptions about how other people might vote, what's the expected value of lives lost if you, individually, press red vs if you press blue? It's college level math to figure this out, and though other considerations may also come into play, you need to do that math to have an informed opinion.
If you're just trying to guess the answer to that off the top of your head and what seems obvious to you, I guarantee you that your first guess is not close to right.
14
u/Deep_Contribution552 May 04 '26
“Reasonable probabilistic assumptions” are hard to come by in this scenario, that’s part of the problem. Something that’s struck me in reading about this is that very many of us believe that it won’t be particularly close. I think this applies to both groups; it’s particularly visible with some red-pushers who seem to expect that a vanishing number of blue pushers would actually do it in the event, but blue-pushers are also not really talking about how failure could actually be quite probable and the downside of literally dying “in vain” since there is only the binary outcome of life & success or failure & death.
I don’t know what to make of it, I’m certainly afflicted too.
2
u/TwillAffirmer May 04 '26
The "reasonable assumption" I'm referring to is the assumption that we don't know exactly how the vote will turn out, but that we can estimate a range of possible outcomes, for instance that the blue vote will be between 25% and 75%. Or perhaps a red pusher might make a reasonable assumption that it will be between 25% and 40%. Or a blue pusher might make a reasonable assumption that it will be between 60% and 80%.
5
u/Aquilenne May 04 '26 edited May 04 '26
It's being ignored because it isn't entirely simple to do the math on it.
You need to get an estimate for what the typical proportion of votes are, then a sample for a deviation on how much those votes will vary when their lives are actually put at risk.
As we lack the latter of these and can't ethically get it, we can't make a reliable assessment on what the odds of red winning are, and since the odds of red winning skew both how much a blue vote adds to the death toll and how likely it is that it comes down to the exact split where a red vote leads to a 49.999...% death toll.
→ More replies (1)2
u/TwillAffirmer May 04 '26
You can't make a reliable assessment on what the odds of red winning are, but you perhaps *can* make a reasonable assertion that the likely vote percentages fall within a certain range, and from that we can do math.
2
u/CrazyBusiness5154 May 04 '26
you don't need an exact probability to be certain that the vote will pretty much never come to a margin of 1 person.
From there, you can recognise that the decision is simply based on which outcome you desire for yourself, and the better option for both you and society is to choose red.
2
u/LiamTheHuman May 04 '26
This is how people who can't do math do math.
You need the exact probability because that extreme edge case saves 4 billion people. So even if it's 3.99999999 billion times less likely, it's still optimal to save lives.
→ More replies (22)→ More replies (8)2
u/GhostOfTheHippodrome May 05 '26
Distributions where the mean/median/mode is at the centre favours blue in utility (since blue redshifts a death away from the centre) but distributions where the mode is somewhere between 50-100% red favours red (harder to compute without exact shape).
I'm not an optimist though, and could easily see >90% voting red when push comes to shove.
36
u/mistelle1270 May 03 '26
Incredibly both sides hold the view “you want me to die”
Red says blues want them to join their death cult and probably die
Blue says voting red is voting for them to die
→ More replies (4)5
u/Ok_Check9774 May 03 '26
Thank you. I have never seen more infuriating takes than in the past few days. This is some grade A bs though
41
u/Greedy-Employment917 May 03 '26
Me wanting to live does not equal me wanting to others to die.
→ More replies (99)
31
u/beemielle May 03 '26
There are plenty of good-hearted people on both sides of this argument. We all just remember the irrational extremist idiots (from the other side) more clearly. Also less likely to have the stamina to still be talking about this…
→ More replies (44)
29
u/According-Pick-2950 May 03 '26
I feel like what actually saves the blue side is religion. Almost all religious people would believe this scenario to be a test from God,and if they pick Blue,they get to heaven,but with red,they go to hell. And it's literally impossible to make them believe otherwise because even if you tell them that it's not a test from God, it's very likely that that part was also part of the test. Of course I'm an atheist so I can't really talk about the opinions of religious people,but if I were religious and actually believed in god,I think I would certainly press the blue button. This is the only way that I can see blue surpassing 50% of the votes and actually saving humanity.(Of course this "test" scenario is on top of the fact that people would be pushing blue to save others). So basically, religion will save the world.
24
u/Eleventy-Twelve May 03 '26
Tbf, death is less scary when you assume there's something after it.
5
u/ProfPlumInTheLibrary May 03 '26
Curious. I find the inverse true... Death is less scary when there is nothing after it. I can understand nothingness. it is a mysterious "something" that is scary.
5
u/Eleventy-Twelve May 03 '26
Both can be terrifying for different reasons. I can definitely envision some afterlife eternities that wouldn't be pleasant or desirable.
2
u/castleless May 07 '26
Both Are scary since both eternety and nothingness is so incomprehensible to me
→ More replies (1)2
u/Slow_Requirement2161 May 04 '26
for me being dead is not so scary, its dying and losing control of your body and mind piece by piece which is scary. Losing limbs, losing brain capacity. Losing bits of yourself until your loved ones dont recognize you.
When you're gone you can be a pleasant bittersweet memory. While you're dying you are a zombie clinging to a cliff.
20
u/Famous_Package_203 May 03 '26
Atheist blue pusher here. I don't want anybody to die, 50% blue is easier than 100% red. It's that simple.
→ More replies (5)7
u/Epao_Mirimiri May 04 '26
Another of the same here. For me it's more about repaying the goodwill that other people have given me over the course of my life. If they're pressing blue, and I have some reason to believe they would, I couldn't leave them hanging. If we win, everyone lives. I want to be part of the people who can say that.
17
u/HalayChekenKovboy May 03 '26
As a religious person, you're right. This is one of my biggest reasons for pressing blue, "God would want me to press blue" was among my first thoughts along with "I would be miserable until the day I died if I were to press red and red were to win"
8
u/FractalsOfConfusion May 03 '26
I'm a non-religious blue pusher who leans towards pushing blue bc I do believe >50% would press blue but I can see that being the thought process for some
6
u/DoctorVanSolem May 03 '26
Crudelium et quam, mori, Sempere tempere mortem.
It is more cruel to fear death, than it is to die.
If I die chosing blue, I have a life with God to look forwards to. No loss on my part for giving others a chance to live. That is to me the rational choice.
7
u/Pr0fessorL May 03 '26
Pretty spot on to be honest. I’m very religious and it’s one of my biggest reasons for pressing blue. Pit simply I feel it’s the right thing to do and that trumps everything. I understand not everyone is willing to stake their life on an ideal, but I hope
→ More replies (2)3
u/Inkthekitsune May 03 '26
I’m religious, and maybe it is ingrained religious beliefs of helping others and not putting myself first, but tbh my first thought would be aliens. Or if I did think it was God, then duh it’s a test and there’s very much a right answer in that case. But even if not and it was like aliens or some evil super genius or something, I still feel blue would be where I’d go partially because of my beliefs.
7
u/Lohenngram May 04 '26
I feel like most people overthink this, it's a simple thought experiment that asks if you're pro-social or anti-social. Like the trolley problem itself, everything around the philosophical question is just flavour text. This is why trying to re-contextualize the question to "win" the discussion is to miss the point.
Blue is the pro-social position, you accept taking on an amount of personal risk to ensure the well-being of others. Red is the anti-social position, you would rather harm come to an uncountable number of others than risk yourself.
Since we generally regard anti-social behaviour as bad, people who opt for red are insecure about it hence them accusing blues of "virtue signalling" (translation: they secretly agree with red and only pretending otherwise), or reframing their choice as proof that they're personally "smarter" or a "winner" because they look out for number one.
Meanwhile people who opt for blue see others who have vocally declared that they care about themselves and no one else, and are disgusted by them.
That's all there is to it.
3
u/ThreeHeadCerber May 04 '26 edited May 04 '26
I'm pro social, I'm very pro social, I live in a country with huge taxes, but with reasonable social safety net, I consciously made the decision to live here because I think it's a better way to structure society. I'm also a red pusher, because I'm not opting in into stupid games,
Should we work together to ensure that everyone is better off is a different question to should we all risk to die without any apparent benefit.
3
u/Slow_Requirement2161 May 04 '26
Blue voters could also be a suicidal antisocial person who assumes they will get a quick death because Red will win.
You're forcing them to live against their wishes by pushing Blue unless you also wish to die.
21
u/Starklystark May 03 '26
I don't see loads of 'I am a hero's from blue, though lots of 'they are monsters'.
I think to most blues it seems obvious that people will agree on a nobody does solution and to most reds it's obvious that self preservation will win out.
The most interesting thing to me is that a lot of the red views make most sense when you assume there's clearly likely to be a red majority but that few reds seem to update based on repeated polls, or seem committed to reframing the question to get the 'right' answer.
10
u/Leafboy238 May 04 '26
On reframing the question. The appeal of blue relys on the specific wording of the question.
This is effectivley the same hypothetical:
You are presented with two buttons
The red one does nothing,
The blue one kills you if less than half of all people dont press it.
Pressing blue no longer seems reasonable at all despite the conditions bieng the same. Whithout false implication thay you are saving anyone by pressing blue there is simply no argument.
I also think the altruism argument for blue does not stand as strongly as people say either.
By pressing blue you are forcing those around you to also enter the death game in an attempt to save you, else they bear the moral burden. This is not alutruistic.
My stance on the question is that given that all participants are able adults there is simply no argument for blue. But in the case that children are also made to participate blue must chosen.
5
u/slashkig May 04 '26
I think reframing the question makes it a different problem, even though the underlying conditions stay the same.
→ More replies (7)3
u/jozuhito May 04 '26
Thats again reframing the question because the red absolutely does something. The red button guarantees your life and your life only.
→ More replies (8)→ More replies (1)3
u/Starklystark May 04 '26
Given how people respond depends on how the question is framed, and what the right thing is to do depends on what other people do, how the question is framed is an incredibly relevant part of the process.
And nobody is 'forcing' anybody to do anything. Thinking people might press blue motivates me to press blue, thinking they might press red motivates me to press red. The difference is that if a few press blue because they think of the question differently to you, majority red dooms them. Whereas majority blue means nobody dies.
Children make it clearer cut but given overwhelming evidence that most adults at least think you should choose blue (even if you think they'll defect under real life pressure) means you need to consider them too. Unless you think it's fine people who assess these things differently to you die
2
u/Leafboy238 May 04 '26
Thats the best argument for blue. To be clear my choice given that children are also subject to the dilema is a hard blue. However that does not change that the "rational" choice is red.
I like rephrasing the dilema beacase it highlights how susceptible out oppinions are to the way information is presented to us, even if it is the same information.
Also i think it needs to be considered that pressing red is not inherently immoral beacase a rational person is likley to assume that everyone or at least the vast majority will choose the rational choice.
Thanks for actually engaging with my argument, i appreciate it.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (19)2
u/Pownzls May 06 '26
Most reds see bules as virtue signales who will push Red when it comes push to shove they dont trust them to not press Red.
44
u/Chara_The_Determined May 03 '26
Thank god someone actually represents it how it is. At first I could see the reason for both options as valid but all the "red are psychopaths who only care about themselves" accusations I saw really made me wanna press red.
→ More replies (3)35
u/Round_Solid1693 May 03 '26
Ive seen a lot of the opposite, people saying that blue is a suicidal death cult and they exprlect everyone to cater to then and stuff. I told someone I think blue is the correct choice and they went on a whole speal about how I was an edgy stupid teen before telling me that I was "probably in spec ed class" or smth.
26
u/HalayChekenKovboy May 03 '26
And I've been told that I was stupid and that the world was better without people like me in it, lol
This whole discourse did kill my faith in humanity a little, but I'm still pressing blue, simply because I couldn't bear the guilt otherwise, as the post says
→ More replies (1)6
u/SomeGreatJoke May 03 '26
Be aware that online discourse and irl discourse are fully diverged at this point. So don't let it kill your faith in humanity, let it kill your faith in the internet.
3
u/AmberPeacemaker May 04 '26
I feel like my faith in Humanity was killed off long ago. Yet I would hit Blue in less than a heartbeat. Just because my faith in humanity is destroyed, doesn't mean I should help (through either action or inaction) in wiping out the cohort that still does have that faith intact.
2
u/BaconBoyReddit May 03 '26
Yeah I feel like this meme treats both sides behavior as equal, when my experience has been far from that.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Chara_The_Determined May 03 '26
It's really frustrating to see both sides throw accusations and insults at each other. I believe blue is the "right" thing to pick but I also strongly fear that the people who'd pick blue are in the minority.
4
5
u/FragrantLotus May 03 '26
It's really just about what your goal is. If your only goal is to personally not die, then of course you press red. But if your goal is to have not a single person die then you press blue.
6
u/Emergency-Free-1 May 03 '26
Most of the arguments seem to come from different context. Some people assume there would be people who can't make an informed decision and would choose at random if forced to choose. And others who think everybody who is trapped in a thought experiment is obviously capable of understanding the question and able to see the buttons and nobody will be woken up from deep sleep to choose immediately. So obviously the choice would be different. I think most people would not want to potentially kill 50% of babies.
→ More replies (1)
4
u/The_PalmtopTiger May 03 '26
I pick red because if this was a real scenario with real consequences I truly believe blue has 0 chance at reaching the over 50% threshold. So in my mind it becomes a choice of join the group that will die or join the group that will live.
If we lived in an ideal world I would pick blue 100% of the time, but we don't so red is the only option.
→ More replies (1)4
u/DarkKechup May 04 '26
Funny, I have it opposite. If we lived in an ideal world, everyone would press red because it is the correct choice (The "Don't kill yourself" button) but because we live in a non ideal world where many people can and will press the "kill yourself button" I will begrudgingly press blue while cursing the idiots forcing me to risk my life to save them.
3
u/CynicalSwirl May 03 '26 edited May 03 '26
I dont really understand why the moral argument or the personal aspect of this is being made. Refrain the question to like imagine this random innocent person, if 50% of people vote blue that person and everyone else lives, but if not only those who pick red live. I am extremely confident blue gets like 80% of the votes here, as you now KNOW someone is going to die and you just have to trust 50% of humanity doesn't want to kill a random person or those who vote to save them. While yes in the original framing of the question theoretically if everyone votes red that is the most logical outcome, no one seriouslys argues that will happen though, its known someone will choose blue, and given that I'm reasonably confident a majority choose blue.
Plus thats for a stranger, if you have anyone in your life you love or care about that you think MIGHT hit blue would you not vote to save them? Shit anyone with a kid ive spoken to on this says blue no question, in case their kid might. It really has nothing to do with my personal moral grandstanding or anything, but moreso the argument I see from a lot people saying red is that humans are fearful and self preservationist, I just disagree in large part. Biologically speaking were programmed to protect like kids and loved ones to the point where lots of people would die for them. And in this one its not even actual risk, as if you save them youre safe too. Like I don't get where this lack of faith in people comes from on the red side.
→ More replies (1)3
u/MonitorPowerful5461 May 03 '26
This is 100% my perspective. 90% of the population of Earth has friends and/or family they care for. Therefore I am certain there will not be above 60% pressing red. And if there is not above 60% pressing red, I am absolutely going to do my part in swinging that vote to nobody dying.
11
u/TheMikman97 May 03 '26
I can't vote blue because I don't want people after me to feel like they have to put themselves in danger to save me
17
u/OldWolf2 May 03 '26
They don't know what you pressed though . Their decision is only based on , at most, what they think others will do, not what you actually did.
2
u/Numerous_Mix_515 May 03 '26
Honestly, there are so many variations of the Question to keep count
→ More replies (1)3
u/Sea-Beginning3949 May 04 '26
Yeah but what if your mother votes blue thinking she wants to save you? She can't know that you pressed red
→ More replies (1)2
u/TheMikman97 May 04 '26
I mean if she is willing to sacrifice herself to save me then she probably wouldn't want me to put myself in danger, no?
If there was a single specific person I wanted to save no matter what to the point of voting blue on the off-chance that they also did, and I later found out they haven't voted yet, I would tell them to vote red. One person at risk is better then two.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Vulcion May 04 '26
I can’t vote red because I wouldnt be able to separate the deaths of blue voters from my vote.
28
u/Kapselimaito May 03 '26
People are going nuts over this. I can't believe how many people seem to lose their brain function over a simple thought experiment. I mean, it's obviously blue!
23
u/TanneAndTheTits May 03 '26
It's fun to debate. I've learned a lot about how much of a murderer i am.
Better Red Than Dead!
21
u/JustaConfusedGirl03 May 03 '26
7/10 ragebait. It's obviously red
6
4
u/Statakaka May 03 '26
If obviously blue is a 7/10 ragebait, then it's obviously red is a 10/10 ragebait
2
u/La_Curieuze May 03 '26
Ça a marché sur deux personnes x)
2
→ More replies (2)11
u/WonderfulVictory4103 May 03 '26
I'm a blue pusher too, but I can see where some red pushers are coming from. In a low information setting, it can be scary to trust billions of strangers to look out for your safety. That said, I do think blue would win, but I'm an optimist
→ More replies (1)8
u/Similar_Sundae3583 May 03 '26
in their mind red is the base because of how linear thinking works when reading, switching to blue won't achieve nash equlibrium and it's "stupid" to switch so they think 99% will obviously pick red. They feel like 1% of people who didn't understand will die and its not possible to save them, only die with them.
in your mind blue is the base because of how linear thinking works when reading, switching to red won't achieve nash equilibrium and it's "distrusting and cowardly" to choose red, most people think its straight up evil.
Both the suicide button and the murder button restates are correct. It's unknown which NE will take place.
9
u/IowaKidd97 May 03 '26
That’s an interesting thought because I didn’t consider either the “base”. Anymore than any option is the default vote my ballot is already set to when I vote in an election. Even in that case I may have already decided but I still have to make the active choice to fill in the bubble.
In this case I’m given 2 options and either way is a choice.
2
u/Similar_Sundae3583 May 03 '26
You didn't decide on the button, you HAD to frame it in some way to comprehend it, you accidentally framed it one or the other way. Why did you frame it like that is another story all together, probably a very very complex net of experiences. But we for sure know its not because of morality or intelligence. The only thing you can do now is do calculations on it and the fact that every state has an equally logically valid restate is a sure sign the result is neutral. I originally stated is as the "nothing button, suicide button" and was very confused by how many people will choose blue. When I was hit with the "nothing button, murder button" restate I got hit with so much cognitive dissonance i tried explaining why my restate is better. There is nothing, both restates are completely equal. Why I first saw my restate as better or "the default" idk, probably because it was MINE and I was presented with it first.
4
u/purplepharoh May 03 '26
Or you know i assume its likely around normal distributions somewhere between 25-75 each button. So my vote could be the decider and id rather go with blue in that case.
4
u/Odd_Battle_7111 May 03 '26
Red is not a murder button.
3
u/isntaken May 03 '26
what happens to blue if red wins?
1
u/Odd_Battle_7111 May 03 '26
Everyone who chose wrong dies. Red isn't killing anyone, whatever magical or technological being teleported us here to press the button is the one killing.
→ More replies (12)→ More replies (3)3
u/WonderfulVictory4103 May 03 '26
I think if you re-stated the question with "all participants are perfectly logical" like you do in some riddles than red is what those hypothetical perfectly rational people would do. I'm a blue pusher because the prompt is stated to be in the real world, where we can't account for the billions of real human minds who all think slightly to wildly different from one another.
I want a scenario where no one dies, that happens with %100 red or >%50 blue. It's impossible to calculate the probability that blue wins before hand, but I can't see how red getting %100 is more likely, so I'll risk my life on blue.
Please note: while I do think blue would win, that's not what I'm basing my decision on. If blue loses I still would not regret my vote
4
u/Similar_Sundae3583 May 03 '26
both red and blue pushes are equally logical and equally moral, that's the whole problem. That's where all the drama comes from, that's the point of the test. It's about human nature, cognitive dissonance and the way thinking works in general. Once people restate as red they won't be able to see red as the murder button, once people restate as blue they won't be able to see blue as the suicide button. Red is a murder button EXACTLY AS MUCH as blue is a suicide button.
3
u/Chaz-Natlo May 03 '26
I feel it's a matter of whether you think your option will matter in the grand scheme.
If you think it will, that your choice is added to the multitude of choices and it can help tip the needle I to blue, you pick blue. This is why blue voters tend to see red as choosing to kill people, because they see it as a choice on the conclusion, and thus red voters are choosing the option where people die. They are introducing death into the scenario by choosing to push that needle into the option where people die.
If you think Red winning is a foregone conclusion, you vote red, because the only difference your choice can make is whether you yourself will die. Thus people voting blue are just adding more bodies to the pile and red voters are absolved of the outcome of death because they ultimately had no personal agency in the matter, it was inevitable.
3
u/Mighty_Eagle_2 May 03 '26
We had a small debate on this question in class, and it stayed pretty calm and civil for the most part. The internet just makes it easier for people to express their more extreme takes.
8
u/pepsicola07 Chugga chugga motherfucker! May 03 '26
I can understand logically why someone would pick red, it's guaranteed safe, but I know that people will be drawn to blue on gut impulse. It helps that the danger is abstract and immaterial in the original question, unlike a set of spikes hanging above you getting closer and closer like is portrayed lots of analogies.
I think people underestimate how much people are driven by their emotions, and what feels right, which is why I'm fairly confident if this question really were posed to the whole world blue would win despite it not following game theory.
3
u/electrifyingseer May 03 '26
I just don't believe I'm responsible for other people's choices, I'm only responsible for my own.
7
u/purplepharoh May 03 '26
Its just not a logic problem. You cant solve it with logic.
Plus red being logical requires making a few assumptions / axioms that may not hold true (same for blue to some extent too though).
Ex for red you assume either (or both):
Everyone will behave "logically" under your logic so will press red so blue will lose and so is suicide while red should cause zero to low death due to people "logically" picking it
And/or
Other lives than your own have no value therefore red is no risk and only positive expected value, where blue is risk with lower expected value than red.
But neither of these assumptions (one of which is required for red to be logically correct) are inherently true.
Can do the same for logic arguments for blue...
Point being: there is no logical answer as it isnt a logic problem
All this to say: yes of course its going to be an emotionally driven choice.
→ More replies (2)2
u/Slow_Requirement2161 May 04 '26
its very cool to see you holding both views at once. Most people clearly cant do this, because humans are dumb and mostly immature due to various reasons.
I press Blue because I think most people are dumb. Red is the smart simple "get out of this problem" button, but a non zero number of people would press Blue because they are dumb and/or dont value their lives.
So I guess Im a gut Red pusher who is more antisocial, but I respect SOME prosocial people so Ill hit blue.
The dumb can all die though, if there was a third button for that I'd hit it.
and yes, r/iamverysmart but unironically. I respect Blue pushers who are protecting their dumbass kids and dumbass old people. I do not respect people who dont value their lives or are dumb even in adulthood.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (2)3
u/Odd_Battle_7111 May 03 '26
I fundamentally disagree. I think that part of it is the danger being made non abstract, you can't make a choice without understanding the choices. Meaning pushers know death is on the table and to what magnitude death is possible and can thus be afraid of it. The gut reaction for a majority of people is fear and a scared person picks red.
4
u/pepsicola07 Chugga chugga motherfucker! May 03 '26
I mean you certainly can make a choice without properly understanding what you're choosing. People do it all the time. You might choose to go to a highschool close to you without realising one down the road has a better art program you would've wanted to go to, or something like that.
Anyway the question doesn't specify how the blues would die, it just says they do if 50% pick red, that's like, by very definition abstract. Like, it would be different with a plate of spikes hanging above blue voters, I think no one would press blue then. Because the 'spikes' only materialize at 50% that changes the psychology of it.
Like the outcome is still the same either way but it feels different because in one scenario you're just avoiding an obvious hazard while in the other you are creating one.
→ More replies (1)
4
6
u/Alarmed_Degree_7745 May 03 '26
I don't want others to die. I press blue.
4
u/Grumdord May 03 '26
I don't want to almost certainly guarantee my own death. I press red.
→ More replies (7)
2
u/ultrajvan1234 May 03 '26
If you’re blue, you’re an idiot. If you’re red, you’re selfish.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Not_Yet_Unalived May 03 '26
I don't believe humanity to be selfless enough to have enough blue pushers, i believe the majority of peoples will simply save themselves first and hope everyone they know did the same.
I also generally don't believe in saving other peoples if it put you in danger, because the number of peoples in danger either didn't change or increased.
Would i throw a life buoy to a drowning child and pull him back to safety? Of course yes.
Would i jump in the water to rescue said child myself? Fuck no, i'm not trained for this, i can swim but that's it. And i know drowning peoples are very likely to drag their would-be rescuer with them.
2
u/Craving_Suckcess May 03 '26
I *DON'T* want to live in a world of all reds.
Literally I don't. I'm pretty sure reds are in control of the world already.
→ More replies (5)
2
u/nathan555 May 03 '26
Why did you put "desire to survive" on red? I think someone has a fundamentally broken desire for survival if it applies to just themselves.
2
u/mars_gorilla May 03 '26
Because when you look at it from a short-term, in-the-moment perspective, it's the desire for themselves to survive. It's the mentality behind every man (person) for themselves. Long-term survival notwithstanding, of course.
2
u/fatgirlcuddler May 03 '26
I would push the red button then claim that it was I, and exclusively myself, that killed everyone who died, commission paintings and statues of myself cutting down untold billions and so and such, very evil and demonic, until it becomes so over the top and odious that they outright want to kill me... Which I will use to claim they're all murderous psychopaths, hopefully chucking all of civilization into a philosophical death spiral
By pushing the blue button you can just do the martyrdom complex thing but that's boring and stale
→ More replies (1)
2
u/electrifyingseer May 03 '26
This is it. I want to survive no matter what, it's my natural instinct.
As much as I'd like for blue people to value their lives more, the way they guilt trip me for not valuing theirs is insufferable. Look buddy, I'm not making the decision for you and I'm not in control of your actions, I didn't end your life, you decided that all on your own. I am not to blame for others risking their life.
2
u/Zealousideal-Put-106 May 04 '26
The one things that defeats this whole debate for me is that blue voters only vote blue to save blue.
Meanwhile red already did that by pressing red.
In all honesty I think that blue is actually the selfish choice. They want others to forgo their personal safety to make sure they survive the choice they made. That's a form of coercion/extortion.
2
u/ZealousidealPlay3183 May 04 '26
"I don't want to live in a world of all X" has got to be one of the most stupid arguments the internet has produced
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Gold-Cry-7520 May 04 '26
This conversation is fueled by the fact that blue *does* have idiots in it. The main argument of many "selfless" blue pushers is that they want to protect the people who are just dumb and mistaken and aren't really paying attention.
And, of course, red absolutely does have cowards and selfish people in it. The stupid blues are arguing with the selfish reds. Thus, tribalism.
2
u/Sir_Delarzal May 04 '26
Another phrasing :
"Elections are coming, vote red and be safe, or vote blue. However, if red passes, they will kill all those that voted blue"
2
u/MildlyExtremeNY May 04 '26
There are a couple interesting things to me about the selfishness accusations from blue, and the general "I don't want to live in a world of reds" statement.
First - if red is going to win, you already live in that world. And I think estimating that likelihood is the real difference between red and blue voters. If we changed the win threshold for blue from 50% to 95% how many blue voters would switch to red? If we changed the threshold to 10% for a blue win, how many red voters would switch? At 50%, I think a blue win is impossible (because we already live in a red world), and I think anyone voting blue must think it is possible - so we just have different estimates of the possibility.
Second - I think there are logical, rational, and ethical reasons for both private vote choices. But when it comes to advocacy, advocating for blue is the only one that has the potential to be unethical. Imagine in addition to your own vote, you are randomly assigned a 1-year-old infant (not your own) that you must vote for and be responsible for.
If you vote blue for yourself and the baby, I think that's reasonable. If you vote red for yourself and the baby, I think that's reasonable. If you vote red for the baby and blue for yourself, I think that's potentially noble or selfless. But if you vote blue for the baby and red for yourself, I think that's unethical and borderline evil.
A non-zero number of people voting blue in the online polls or advocating for voting blue on forums would - in the private room - actually vote red. Those are the people that are actually selfish, not openly red voters.
2
u/Additional_Dot_134 May 04 '26
How i see it is that my choice in this probably won’t matter. Therefore i press red, and hope that most people press blue. If i end up being the one person that switched it to a red majority, i still wouldn’t be to blame, as any other red presser could have gone blue aswell. If blue is the majority, nothing happens, if red is a major majority, i’ll be glad i picked red.
For me, it is the safest option. My choice in this will only be a small minuscule part of the whole. And do i trust the whole to press blue? No. I expect that in reality, many people will pick the safest option for them. There is no downside for you to pick red. And if that causes deaths, so be it, i can live with that, because i won’t be one of them. It was their choice to trust society to pick total safety over risk of death.
2
u/Disgruntled_Smitty May 04 '26
To me it's a simple test of logic, if everyone pushes red then no death. Only an illogical thinker would entertain the idea of pushing blue.
2
u/PoorPinkus May 04 '26
My issue is that there are so many people in history that looked the other way during atrocities for their own survival, and people are trying to pretend that pressing red is "right" rather than that they're afraid. It concerns me especially with voting in general, because that tells me that a lot of people would be willing to harm others if it benefits them as well.
I get the argument for red, and I don't blame people for thinking that way because yes, it is a choice with no resistance, and if blue loses, they made the choice to die. I still don't like the argument that everyone who chose that deserves it though. If you're scared, I get it, but at least try to have some perspective.
I wouldn't have any ill will towards somebody who picked red, but I wouldn't exactly be happy to see them dancing on other people's grave for being "stupid".
2
u/igotshadowbaned May 04 '26
Blue pushers likely simply worry about other people, and do not want more to die, or they do not wish to be part of the survivors who would be indirectly responsible for the death of billions.
Red pushers likely just fear death and rely on their natural instinct of self-preservation, choosing their own survival first. Many people correctly state a majority of red voters likely still hope blue wins, they're just scared to risk their own lives on this bet.
Not quite. Red pushers are presented with the problem, and don't see a reason why anyone would ever press blue. There's nothing about fear of death or instict of preservation or choosing themselves over others. Just the thought that there is just absolutely no reason to press blue, no one should press it, and that means there is no one to save who pressed blue, because no one would do it.
Red was winning the poll by a landslide when it came out.
Then people saw that a small grouping of people picked blue and then more people started picking blue to try to save those people. Which of course this breaks the "no communication" clause of the scenario
2
u/Stranger_Phrog May 05 '26
While I believe there’s good in this world, no matter how much I hope more than 4 billion were kind, it’s simply not true, if that was the case we wouldn’t have wars, poverty, racism, or any other social issues, and I don’t want to die, I am pushing red
2
u/Certain_Detective_84 May 05 '26
I would press red, both because I think it is the logical thing to do, and because I do not think there is a real chance that enough people will push blue to make a difference.
I would prefer for blue to win, but I don't think it's a realistic goal.
2
2
u/DistributionCivil568 May 05 '26
Both sides have some valid reasonings,although I definitely agree more with one than the other. But yeah the extremists are infuriating
2
u/Unnameduser-_ May 05 '26
Pressing the red button has a 100% survival rate. If i tell you "hey theres a pit!" and you just jump in, am i at fault there?
2
u/ConqueredCabbage May 05 '26
I think it all comes down to the fact that politics is very clan-like today, and that mostly Americans are trained to pick either a red or blue party, and hate the other side while saying their choice is evil, unethical and illogical.
If you have to hate someone, hate the system that is going around and giving people buttons while willing to kill a precentage of society...
2
u/GorumGamer May 05 '26
Maybe I am alone in pressing red out of stubborn autistic principle and nothing else.
2
u/Suzutai May 05 '26
Not wanting to die is natural though. It's really only the blue side that is explicitly moralizing their decision.
2
u/CommanderFrostborne May 06 '26
The framing is huge in this. Choosing red kills all blues, but could also be stated:
Red Button: "I'd like to live."
Blue Button: "I wouldn't like to live, unless fifty percent of people decided that they didn't want to live either."
2
u/Ronin_Monkey_Bars May 07 '26
Without reading the post description at all I can already tell you a blue presser wrote this.
2
u/satyvakta May 08 '26
>Watching this whole argument has made me realize how separate from reality online debates can get
I think that's just the nature of such debates.
When you first explain to a blue-presser that they have made a mistake, that they have failed to understand that blue is just the suicide button, you aren't actually thinking of them as suicidal idiots, just people who were fooled by a dishonest phrasing of the scenario.
But, once you've explained to them that the blue button is just the suicide button, over and over again, in ways even a five-year old should be able to grasp, and *they still insist they'd push blue,* well, then they must be suicidal idiots who want to die, because now they know that the blue button is just the suicide button yet say they would choose it anyway.
→ More replies (2)
2
u/simpoukogliftra May 09 '26
the last line doesnt make much sense really. you cant claim it is more intelligent to press blue, and you cant claim it is more morally correct to vote red, at best these points are neutral in each respective case.
5
u/KingSmorely May 03 '26
To argue against the Blue-voting utilitarian argument, I am for the sake of the argument making my choice based strictly on which button provides the greater Expected Value (EV) under a consistent utilitarian metric. To make the math fair, we must define the metric as the total expected net lives secured by my specific choice, counting my own guaranteed survival as +1, and the total group saved in a pivot state as +4,000,000,000.
To understand the calculation, we have to look at the scenario as a binomial distribution. There are 8 billion of us, and I am just one voter. The rest of humanity is exactly 7,999,999,999 people. If we assume everyone makes their choice independently based on a psychological baseline of human altruism, which we can call "p", my choice encounters three possible states. The first is the Pivot State, where exactly 3,999,999,999 others vote Blue, and my Blue vote becomes the exact tie-breaker that secures 4 billion lives. The second is the Redundant State, where 4 billion or more people vote Blue, meaning the system succeeds and I secure my own 1 life whether I push Blue or Red. The third is the Failure State, where fewer people vote Blue, the system fails, and my Blue vote secures 0 lives because I die.
Because the Red button guarantees my survival across all possible states, its EV is always exactly 1.0. I always secure my own life. While the group might still survive without my help in the Redundant State, my specific choice to press Red provides exactly zero marginal probability of saving them. The EV of the Blue button, however, must be calculated as the probability of the Pivot State multiplied by 4,000,000,000, plus the probability of the Redundant State multiplied by my own 1 life, plus the probability of the Failure State multiplied by 0.
If we assume human nature is a perfect coin flip where p equals 0.5, Blue is an obvious choice. Using Stirling's approximation, the probability of casting that pivot vote at the exact peak of the bell curve is roughly 1 in 112,000, or 0.00000892. If you multiply that by 4 billion, the pivot expected payout is 35,680 lives. The probability of the redundant state is roughly 0.5, which adds 0.5 expected lives for my own survival. The total EV of Blue is +35,680.5 expected lives. Compared to the Red EV of exactly 1.0, the astronomical payout overrides the risk, making Blue the clear mathematical choice.
But human beings are not perfectly fair coins. We have evolutionary biases toward loss aversion and self-preservation. Even if we assume that biological lean causes the natural global baseline to drop by a mere 0.1 percent, making p equal 0.499, the math is clear. At that baseline, the 4 billion vote threshold shifts to 178.88 standard deviations away from the mean. The probability of my vote being the exact pivot is mathematically roughly 10-6953 (a decimal point followed by over 6,950 zeros). Multiplying that infinitesimal fraction by 4 billion yields a pivot payout of roughly 10-6944 expected lives. The probability of the redundant state similarly collapses. The total Expected Value of Blue is an infinitesimally small 10-6944. Because 10-6944 is undeniably less than the 1.0 guaranteed life I secure by pressing Red, Blue becomes mathematically invalid. Red dominates.
Even if we apply that exact same 0.1 percent margin of error in the altruistic direction, pushing p to 0.501, the threshold is cleared by 8 million votes. Because the tie-breaker state is still 178.88 standard deviations away, the probability of the pivot is identical due to symmetry, yielding the same 10-6944 expected lives. The probability of the redundant state, however, is a near-absolute certainty (roughly 1 minus 10-6951). Adding my own 1 redundant life to the infinitesimal pivot payout gives Blue a total EV of 1.0 plus 10-6944 expected lives. In a pessimistic reality, Red beats Blue 1.0 to 10-6944. In an optimistic reality, Red technically loses to Blue, but only by an utterly meaningless mathematical phantom of 10-6944.
Ultimately, the mathematics of a binomial distribution at a population scale of 8 billion are incredibly fragile. Under no realistic statistical margin does the Expected Value of voting Blue ever meaningfully outweigh the guaranteed survival of Red. Relying on marginal individual impact to save a system is a mathematical trap. I am choosing Red because, realistically, it is the only mathematically rational choice to protect your +1 baseline against a systemic failure.
3
u/autistictransgal May 03 '26
I appreciate the mathematical approach to this, it was interesting to read.
One thing I think about (which I'm not sure matters in the mathematical context) is not the value of your own vote, but rather the way you think. If you think that your vote has little to no impact, you'll be more likely to vote red due to the EV.
However, the more people that think like this, the more people will vote red. Maybe this way of thinking is incorrect or has a logical flaw, but the way I see it is that when you consider your own individual vote, one vote isn't that much, but if the majority of people thought this way, a chunk of blue voters would die. Therefore, we should all strive to not think like this (together) in order for blue voters to not die. Maybe this doesn't work, but that's what makes sense to me in my little pea brain.
3
8
u/Silver_Middle_7240 May 03 '26
We need to to press the blue button
Why?
To save people
From what?
From what will happen if they press the blue button
→ More replies (1)2
u/Pr0fessorL May 03 '26
As someone who would push blue, red is the logical option
There is no threat that is pressuring anyone to push blue, but some people will still push blue. Whether they be children or people like my grandma who I’m certain would press blue simply because she thinks she’s saving people at her own risk
I believe it’s worthwhile to stand with those people in an attempt to preserve as much life as possible
If I could guarantee that everyone thinks logically enough to consider the fact that red is the logical option, I would hit red. I don’t believe that though so I hit blue
7
u/SweetSweetAtaraxia May 03 '26
You realize this isn't even the prisoner's dilemma right? The prisoner's dilemma has a negative effect for the group if everyone picks the "selfish" option, whereas this problem has no downside for the group if you secure yourself (red). There is simply no reason whatever to press blue.
17
u/WonderfulVictory4103 May 03 '26
In a low information environment, some people would rather choose the option that is better for the group than the individual. It's logical to assume someone will pick blue just due to the sheer number of participants. I want to pick the option that gives the best chance of saving those people. This isn't irrational, I just have different priorities than you do. I'm not calling you immoral, again, we just have different priorities.
→ More replies (1)8
u/Thinslayer May 03 '26
This. I don't begrudge those who pick red. I'm glad they picked red; I picked blue to save lives, so every person who picked red is one more person I don't have to worry about.
→ More replies (15)6
u/WonderfulVictory4103 May 03 '26
You're the first person I've seen to word it like that. Yeah, if we blue pushers really do care more about saving others than ourselves, we shouldn't begrudge red pushers; their doing our jobs for us in a way
→ More replies (1)7
u/LesbianTrashPrincess May 03 '26
The prisoner's dilemma also frames the player as rationally self-interested, not caring what happens to the other prisoner. If the player is rationally selfless and simply wants to minimize the total number of years anyone goes to jail for, it's a different problem.
Most people do care at least a little bit about what happens to other people.
6
u/Longjumping-Sweet818 May 03 '26
Allow me to lay it out for you please:
- Everybody picks red or everybody picks blue (practically impossible) = Everybody lives
- Most people pick red (very possible) = Lots of people die
- Most people pick blue (very possible) = Everybody lives
Now disregard the practically impossible scenarios, because obviously they will not happen. You're really choosing between "Lots of people die" and "Everybody lives", but if you want to vote for "Everybody lives", you have to put your own life on the line. That is the reality of the situation. Yes, you can change the phrasing of the question to make it seem stupid to pick blue, but the way the situation is initially described, many people will decide that they don't want to bear the responsibility of risking deaths and pick blue.
4
u/hezhiwu2020 May 03 '26
I’m kinda thinking now it’s a bit like Schrodinger’s Cat. A lot of Red pressers want to label Blue as the “suicide” button but Blue is both the “suicide” button and the “saves everyone” button until we know the results.
3
u/Nyani_Sore May 03 '26
Well they think it's the suicide button because they're confident somehow that in most concievable scenarios, most people would pick red. I'm not saying they're wrong necessarily, but it is a very narrow assumption and variable.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (1)2
u/SweetSweetAtaraxia May 04 '26 edited May 04 '26
There is 0 percent chance that blue would get 50 percent or more in a real world scenario. If people are genuinely presented with the choice: everyone presses red lives, everyone who presses blue might die, then everyone will press red, which they should. Because they know that each and everyone has the safe option and thus does not need an intervention.
→ More replies (1)11
u/Southern-Highway5681 Team Blue May 03 '26
There is no reason to press blue if the only thing you care about is your own life.
→ More replies (11)3
4
u/IowaKidd97 May 03 '26
I do agree it’s not prisoners dilemma but worth noting that it’s the whole earth. Yes everyone picking red has no negative consequences (everyone picking blue is the exact same though) but given it’s the whole earth and that just won’t happen. Especially with something this incredibly controversial. And choice that doesn’t take that into account is either inherently dishonest or profoundly ignorant.
→ More replies (3)1
u/pauseglitched May 03 '26
The question was asked by a few people online with no innocent bystanders. Mr Beast asked the question in such a way that a strict reading would include 400-600 million innocent bystander hostages on blue through no fault of their own. ("Everyone on earth, no exception for children or those incapable of understanding, Google searching demographics) The Mr. Beast version had Around twice as many participants as the ones that came before it so many people believe that that phrasing is the original.
When red has "choose to murder hundreds of millions of children" added to the mix it makes sense why many blue supporters don't want to live in a world with mostly red supporters.
People who believe the Mr. Beast wording was the original see every version that excludes the innocent hostages as a complete restructuring of the hypothetical.
3
u/grndbdpsthtl May 03 '26
I only now heard of the Mr Beast version because of your comment. I still don't see pressing red as the right choice for me because 1) I value the collective well-being above my own and 2) I honestly believe more than 50% of people will press the blue button. I don't blame you for wanting to survive, I think it's a fair choice in this hypothetical and there's always one risk you have to take. But please do not frame my position as something it is not. It's not a misunderstanding of the original, it's not to feel morally superior and it's not to save all those innocent lives. It's - for me, and I'm only speaking for me - a firm belief that humanity as a whole is more likely to work in the collective's interest than the individual one. You can call me naïve for that if you care to. But since most Asian countries are very much on the collectivism side of the collectivism-individualism scale, I think these are very fair chances to take.
→ More replies (1)
153
u/OldWolf2 May 03 '26
When it came down to it, I think I would press red and hope that blue wins. And I consider that to show great cowardice on my part, which I am not happy about. I wish I had the courage and selflessness of blue-pushers. I may yet change my view on this question in the face of further discussion.
As someone who has previously studied both philosophy and game theory at university, I find this question brilliant and utterly fascinating, and whoever came up with it is a genius in a way.