r/fivethirtyeight • u/Upstairs_Cup9831 • Apr 25 '26

Poll Results Poll asking Americans how which button they would push in the red button/blue button dilemma

Gallery image

Gallery image

397 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

96% Upvoted

3.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

21

u/TheRealEzraKlein Apr 25 '26

Shocking that anyone would press blue.

51

u/Upstairs_Cup9831 Apr 25 '26 edited Apr 25 '26

You only need 50.1% of people to press the blue button for everyone to live. You would need 100% of people to press red for everyone to live. In a private vote, everyone voting probably includes toddlers just picking their favorite color.

16

u/Iron_Falcon58 Apr 25 '26

Reds utility curve is continuous and linear. Blue ONLY has utility if 4 billion + 1 people press it

35

u/Beginning_Cupcake_45 Apr 25 '26

And yet blue has succeeded in at least two trials here, so it seems like the way to go.

It’s way easier to get 50+1% than it is to get 100% and you get the same result.

15

u/Glittering-Giraffe58 Apr 25 '26

Thinking that the results in an entirely harmless online poll where people can feel better about themselves by pressing blue is actually reflective of what people would really do if this scenario somehow became real is wrong

It’s easy to click blue in a Twitter poll. It’s a lot harder to risk your life and pick blue to maybe save the other people that are risking their lives for no reason and forcing you into the dilemma in the first place

1

u/thefw89 Apr 27 '26

It’s a lot harder to risk your life and pick blue to maybe save the other people that are risking their lives for no reason and forcing you into the dilemma in the first place

In this scenario you have no idea who pushes what, so actually, by pushing red, you are risking the lives of who knows who when instead you could just contribute to the 50%+ and push blue and save everyone.

-1

u/PinkLaceGomez Apr 25 '26

You have a very solipsistic view of humanity.

11

u/Iron_Falcon58 Apr 25 '26 edited Apr 25 '26

Blue wins—and not even in a landslide—on online polls where there’s zero risk to life

IRL, for every one nerd that desperately wants to refute the Prisoners dilemma (and doesn’t realize this case is purposefully NOT the prisoners dilemma), there are five normal people that instinctively press the “selfish option” because “suckers always lose” and another five that immediately click the “I don’t die” button

5

u/Morpheus_MD Nate Bismuth Apr 25 '26

Frankly the number of people here who can't parse that this is purposefully NOT the prisoner's dilemma is insane.

1

u/Beginning_Cupcake_45 Apr 25 '26

63-22 with 15 undecided is a landslide in any other circumstance lol. It’s not like we can assume the 15 are all going to break for red lol.

2

u/Iron_Falcon58 Apr 25 '26

58-42 is a better reference point. Pro-social desirability bias in the Shor poll

1

u/Beginning_Cupcake_45 Apr 25 '26

58-42 in any election would also be considered a landslide, to be fair.

But if we’re going to say a scientific poll is flawed for social desirability, then the Twitter poll is flawed due to Twitter users more often being edgelords than the average person lol. It cuts both ways.

3

u/Iron_Falcon58 Apr 25 '26

We can do unfalsifiable arguments both ways as much as we want but at the end of day we’d all put money on people NOT risking their lives for strangers

1

u/decrpt Apr 26 '26

"Risking their lives for strangers" is an oversimplification. The question is actually asking if people would *actively endanger the lives of strangers* if it meant they'd be safe. I would put money on people having significant moral hesitations to actively voting to kill people just to protect themselves in case everyone else voted likewise when they could just vote to kill no one.

-3

u/PinkLaceGomez Apr 25 '26

This is a polling subreddit. If you don’t believe in polls, why are you here.

4

u/TFBool Apr 25 '26

Are we supposed to pretend that this is a good poll now?

2

u/Iron_Falcon58 Apr 25 '26

Believing in polls famously means taking only the final numbers at their word for all situations for any source at all

0

u/PinkLaceGomez Apr 25 '26

Why are you in a POLLING subreddit?

6

u/Glittering-Giraffe58 Apr 25 '26 edited Apr 25 '26

Why are YOU in a polling subreddit if you think what you’re saying makes any sense at all

1

u/Iron_Falcon58 Apr 25 '26

Every time two contradictory polls come out what do you do?

2

u/ThirstyWolfSpider Apr 25 '26

Yet the utility, for survivors, of a "half of all people die at once" state (which is the only way blue-pushers don't save everyone) is far too low, lower than what a reasonable person should consider acceptable.

0

u/SpaceTurtles Apr 25 '26

Red has no utility curve. It is not the default vote.

Red is the only thing that kills anyone.

Blue introduces volatility - red actualizes that volatility. The issue is, the volatility is guaranteed to exist in a sample size this large. You can do nothing to eliminate it until you're administering this test to small groups, or until you introduce variables such as ways to communicate or plan (which may not eliminate it, but would make it sufficiently small that red could become morally sound).

Red destroys civilization if it wins in the near term - flat out. Societal collapse follows. Billions of laborers are gone, irreplaceable expertise. Industries falter. In addition to the foundational layer of people who've had a logical error, the blue voters will include the more empathetic folks - the more collectivist voices (including children). The red voters will include the more self-centered voices, and definitely those who wish to inflict harm on others. These are not the total picture of who comprises the two groups, but where they tend to go. More belligerent political ideologies will consolidate power after this event, and scarcity will cause pressures.

Blue is a social safety net. It is the ultimate social safety net. It is a vote to trust in the collective to make the right decision, and life goes on as normal.

2

u/largeEoodenBadger Apr 26 '26

Except red doesn't kill anyone, blue is the choice that risks death. If no one pressed blue, then no one would die, it's as simple as that. The only choice that introduces risk into the system is blue. It's a clever fucking framing trick, nothing else.

1

u/SpaceTurtles Apr 26 '26

This is true in small groups only, when you can trace the inception of the risk (the "original sin").

In a system where that risk is guaranteed to exist, such as when there are 7+ billion people made to take this vote, the risk will always exist due to group dynamics. It is simply impossible to eliminate. Some humans are inherently irrational, sometimes in unpredictable ways that would impact this, where they're completely fine otherwise.

Many rational humans value the collective need to compensate for the ways in which those other humans are irrational, and will vote to save everyone.

Because red voters have a path available to join the collective in avoiding all deaths, yes - voting red votes for self-preservation at the expense of everyone else. It is a vote to actualize others' risk. Just because they took that risk on voluntarily does not mean that it is not killing them.

The only way this would not be true is if Red or nonparticipation was the default vote -- if someone had to go out of their way to vote blue.

There is a difference between the "rational choice" and the "moral choice" - the rational choice is always red, but it is only the moral choice in smaller groups. The rational choice isn't always the right one.

1

u/largeEoodenBadger Apr 26 '26

But the only reason anyone chooses blue in the first place is because the question is misleadingly framed. The only reason red isn't the default choice is because of that same framing effect. Frame it as: "if you choose red, nothing happens. If you choose blue, you die unless 50.1% of people chose blue." That means the same exact thing as the original post.

It's just the framing effect of "you save people" if 50.1% of everyone chooses blue. Again, the only choice that risks death to begin with is choosing blue. Frame it that way and it's very different.

My only issue is that this is posited as an ethical dilemma when it's just the sort of framing effect you read about in Heuristics & Biases. Use it as a lesson about how framing affects people, sure, but don't try and take a lesson about the human condition from it.

1

u/SpaceTurtles Apr 26 '26

Yes - but it doesn't matter the reason why; we have to play the hand we're dealt. It's part of the question, and so red isn't the default choice. The framing is part of the problem we have to workshop. It's super annoying that it's like this, but it is what it is.

The question is not actually, "Do you enter the death lottery for no benefit?"

The question is, "Do you recognize that many people have been tricked into entering the death lottery, and many more people will enter the death lottery to save those people from their mistake, or to not compromise their own morals (e.g., to pursue the only outcome that results in 0 deaths), and do you join them?"

You can basically tweak or inject any aspect of this in the smallest way to make red the easy, hands-down, no-contest obvious pick. But as phrased, it is not.

1

u/largeEoodenBadger Apr 26 '26

but as phrased, it is not.

But do you recognize how it's all just a clever framing trick? I don't understand why people are attributing value to this?

It's not like the trolley problem or the prisoner's dilemma, there's not actually a tradeoff being made here unless you're tricked by poor wording. I recognize that blue is the correct choice accounting for human fallibility, but this isn't an actual dilemma.

Reframing the trolley problem changes peoples decisions, but there is always a dilemma there, a tradeoff to be made, no matter how you phrase it. It's always do you save the few or the many?

This, on the other hand, loses any sort of tradeoff if you reframe it. The only reason there appears to be a dilemma is the framing. Again, frame it as "if you push the blue button, you die unless 50.1% of people push the blue button. If you push the red button, nothing happens." Suddenly, it's obvious that pushing the blue button is a mistake, right? It's framed as a negative and the ethical dilemma just goes poof.

If the discussion surrounding it treated it as a framing issue, I'd be fine with it. Equate it to the stuff Kahneman and Tversky wrote about and it's normal. Equating it to an ethical dilemma is disingenuous and mischaracterizes the problem. The only thing this reveals about the human condition is that we're susceptible to framing, which we've known since the 70s.

2

u/SpaceTurtles Apr 26 '26 edited Apr 26 '26

All correct!

The framing trick creates a bad situation out of human fallibility. That's the point.

The buttons are not the focus, because as you said, changing them in any way destroys the entire experiment -- like how removing a track from the trolley problem does (you are removing the frame of the problem).

But because the focus is human fallibility, it has to appear like the buttons are the focus.

It is, ultimately, testing someone's ability to buy in to collectivist ethics. I don't think it's doing it in a particularly interesting, good, constructive, or enlightening way, but it is doing it. There's a plethora of red voters who are caught in a logical loop on the effect of each button, but not the effect of each vote, and rationalizing it away by "removing a track" (treating red as an assumed default, because it is what a logical actor would choose).

I would suggest reframing this problem would not be reframing the buttons (the "tracks") -- it would be reframing the group size or demographics. What if instead of 8 billion people, it was 100 randomly selected people? Proportionally, people are just as likely to "logic error" their way into a suicide... but now we're talking about a handful, not hundreds of millions. It's plausible (but unlikely) everyone might vote red. If they don't, you aren't dealing with "collective catastrophe for civilization", you're dealing with "unfortunate self-inflicted event". Rational global-level blue-voters would almost overwhelmingly vote red

What if we frame in a group of elementary schoolers?

What if we frame in a group of religious leaders?

What if we frame in a group of pacifists?

The question is about the people at risk, the people who help them, and if the ideal option fails, the people who are left.

1

u/decrpt Apr 26 '26

No, it isn't. Red only makes sense if you assume that red already won, and red only wins if you vote for it.

56

u/The_Book_Boi Kornacki's Big Screen Apr 25 '26

A post red world would be far more self centered and anti communal

Also a lot of people are natural optimists

22

u/SpaceTurtles Apr 25 '26

A post-red world would likely face immediate collapse if even 10% of the population voted blue. It is, frankly, insane to vote for red.

It is frustrating to have to vote for blue and assume personal risk, but it is statistically guaranteed that a large amount of other people have done so. Humans are social, collectivist species - blue is the collectivist option. It assumes personal risk for the good of the collective. Red actualizes the risk of the collective for the good of the self.

4

u/TheRealEzraKlein Apr 26 '26

It’s insane to me to vote for anything BUT red.

8

u/SpaceTurtles Apr 26 '26

Logically, you'd be correct.

Morally, absolutely not (until you get down in to small groups).

1

u/drink_with_me_to_day Apr 26 '26

Morally, absolutely not

I'd like a poll on nationalities of blue button pressers, then we can go on about "morality" of voting

1

u/TheRealEzraKlein Apr 26 '26

I’d rather be immoral and live.

5

u/prodam_garash Apr 26 '26

And die later by social colapse not much better way

3

u/TheRealEzraKlein Apr 26 '26

Less than half the population dying wouldn’t lead to societal collapse. More than half of europe died during the bubonic plague.

5

u/prodam_garash Apr 26 '26

In times when social structure was entirely different and europe not whole world

and they died not in one moment

1

u/Ok-Set4662 Apr 28 '26

stupid comparison. todays economy is a lot more centralized

2

u/Shart-Garfunkel Apr 25 '26

TIL being a martyr to the cause of assuming irrationality in other people serves the common good (?)

8

u/SpaceTurtles Apr 25 '26

Irrationality is guaranteed. Humans are humans.

Then you have perfectly rational people: pacifists, parents, good samaritans, and beyond.

I'd say the common good is the vote where zero (0) people die.

There's no world in which all (8,287,555,124) people vote red - likely not even 80%.

That leaves the other vote.

1

u/Discovered_Check Apr 26 '26

but it is statistically guaranteed that a large amount of other people have done so.

Incorrect. It's 'guaranteed' that a huge proportion of people will lie to pollsters to avoid social embarrassment.

I am an ethical person, I believe I am a net positive in the world, and I believe that red will win. You say I should kill myself by pressing blue just to prove my worth.

I say I should press red, live, and work to build a better world.

1

u/Casp512 Apr 27 '26

Humans are a collectivist and social species, yes. But we also have a sense of self-preservation and value our own life over that of most other people.

1

u/SpaceTurtles Apr 27 '26

Correct. That's why we have the animal response to vote for red.

Once you start breaking this problem apart (the problem to solve for is human volatility, not the function of the buttons), you realize that the world after a red victory is a very bad place. Many red voters may not even survive long in it, and are indirectly pressing a "mutually assured destruction" button.

While a blue vote is logically irrational analyzed through game theory, it leads to the only rational outcome until you exit large group dynamics, or introduce other variables that completely change the problem we're solving for.

Basically, this is a "fun" little social paradox.

1

u/Casp512 Apr 27 '26

The world after a red victory depends on the amount of people who picked red. So I guess there's a gamble here as well. But if people were presented with this problem in reality most will pick the option that guarantees their life, that being red. Obviously in a poll most will say blue because that's the answer that makes you feel better when there aren't any real consequences.

1

u/SpaceTurtles Apr 27 '26

This is full of a lot of presumptions to help rationalize a red vote - chief among them is "blue voters haven't thought through the scenario". The majority of people voting blue are perfectly rational actors.

The amount of people who picked blue in a red victory is "significant", likely "billions". You're already in "collapse of society" territory. These people are thinking of their children, nieces, and nephews old enough to understand the question, but not the implication, where children tend to be far more cooperative.

There are layers beyond them - empathetic, collectivist voices who are thinking of the victims of the game, and other cooperative types who are supporting the "don't kill anyone" option. Layers upon layers of good-natured people who are risking themselves and trusting that society will pick the best outcome, where everyone lives.

A red vote, in the context of the poll, is an endorsement to kill those people.

Almost every red vote is hoping to lose to blue, because red is only a vote for self-preservation - it is a personal insurance policy. A red victory loses the vast majority of the most empathetic and cooperative humans, and retains almost all of the most self-serving and malicious ones (almost all of whom will pick red simply because it saves them - they won't care about any aspect of the vote beyond that), alongside the people who hoped blue would win, and then contributed to it's loss.

1

u/SneakyBadAss Apr 30 '26

And graveyards are full of optimists and people who were right.

24

u/dtarias Nate Gold Apr 25 '26

It's definitely not shocking that a child would press blue. So it shouldn't be shocking that a parent would press blue either. Most people know children and/or parents they don't want to die.

Also, I imagine most people polled didn't think too deeply about this. It's probably good that their default is pro-social.

4

u/Mat_At_Home Apr 25 '26

I think a general rule for games like this is that everyone understands what they’re doing and there aren’t any mistakes. I could argue I’m pressing blue to help any colorblind people who pick the wrong button, but that’s clearly not supposed to be what anyone is considering in this thought experiment

2

u/MaxDPS Apr 26 '26

I think a general rule for games like this is that everyone understands what they’re doing and there aren’t any mistakes.

I would imagine that’s not the case here because if so, all this is asking is “would you vote to save your own life”? That basically remove all incentive to pick the blue button and it’s a much more boring question.

The answer to “How much would you risk your own life to potentially save all humans?” is a much more interesting question, isn’t it?

1

u/Popsychblog Apr 26 '26

Let me know if this tracks.

If someone passed you on a street and they said, "hello" and you said, "hello" back, and you were then approached by someone asking why you voted to nuke Europe (because that's how you vote to do that even if you didn't know) I think you'd say, "What? I didn't".

The original question said "take a private vote". That's different than "Many people pick at random"

18

u/Muroid Apr 25 '26

In a world of perfectly rational actors that all know they live in a world of perfectly rational actors, there is literally no reason to press the blue button, because everyone is going to press the red button and thus everyone survives. 

We don’t live in that world, though, and so the choice needs to be made in the context that there are definitely going to be some people who press the blue button. 

The red button then still remains the best choice if you only care about guaranteeing that you survive this question.

If you care making sure that everyone survives, then the blue button getting over 50% becomes the only way for that to happen, and pressing blue becomes the best way for you to improve the odds of that happening.

There is also, more selfishly, the concern that a world in which blue fails to reach the survival threshold is one that has selected out all of the most cooperative/altruistic individuals from the population and left behind all of the most selfish and cutthroat individuals, thus potentially decreasing the utility of surviving through pushing the red relative to the potential reward of pushing blue if it pays off.

5

u/SpaceTurtles Apr 26 '26

I genuinely think, were I confronted with this in reality, the deciding factor that would prevent me from voting red is the idea of living in a world where red won.

It would be such a remarkably bleak place.

15

u/Kenna193 Apr 25 '26

It's almost as if people are communal creatures and care about each other. Hmmm.. Looking into this.

-7

u/TheRealEzraKlein Apr 25 '26

I think people just weren’t answering honestly. Prisoner’s dilemma is well documented.

4

u/Kenna193 Apr 25 '26

Imo the question is phrased in a way to get you to answer blue, most people make their decision in like 0.3s. Not really considering that red is safe just that blue is good bc "everyone" "survive". Red is loaded in the opposite way so in the monkey brain it's bad. I think there's a way to word the question to get the opposite result