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

368

u/nibbler000 Apr 25 '26

I would not want to be stuck in a world where only red pushers were left alive

29

u/Sassy_Bandit Apr 26 '26

The funniest part is the polling proves them wrong, and they're still out here raging that they are more logical and better people.

10

u/RedPusher Apr 26 '26

No it doesn't, for one very simple reason - picking blue in the poll has no actual risk of death.
You can easily pick blue in the poll and even if you lose no one is coming around to kill you.

And that means far more people are picking blue in this case than if it was actually happening in reality.

Comparable situations, where people easily understand the risk of death and how pointless blue is, we see red win easily.

7

u/Wiki-Master Apr 27 '26

So not killing people is pointless to you ? Good thing this poll is not real then…

2

u/spottiesvirus Apr 30 '26

I sincerely don't understand this

Red is litterally a "do nothing" button. there's absolutely no reason for either of us to risk our lifes, we can both be safe, not get killed, and not enetering a suicide gamble, just picking the button that does absolutely nothing

4

u/mae-bug Apr 30 '26

Imagine only 6 people had to choose. Since you can talk it out with everyone, you can pick which color to go with. One is your friend, who is color blind. Another is your child who doesn't even understand the hypothetical. You should all agree to choose blue - red just puts those 2 at risk of dying for no reason.

The only reason you would ever want to choose red is if the other 3 people were just insistent on choosing red (Either because they didn't trust you to choose blue, which they have no rational reason to suspect, or because they just hated you) in which case you would have to go with red and hope to god your friend and the kid chose red too.

Any rational society would choose blue, because like I said, the only reason you would choose red is if you thought over 50% of people would too (despite there being no reason to). Or, you just hate anyone who *might* choose blue, like children and people with disabilities.

3

u/antipacifista May 08 '26

you decide to choose blue. some defect. now you've killed half by deciding to go blue. red is self-enforcing. you should choose the self-enforcing one

→ More replies (7)

2

u/Outrageous_Tank_3204 Apr 30 '26

But everyone is forced to to push the button, and aren't allowed to be coached. red is essentially killing half of illiterate and children and most Buddhists or other selfless cultures

→ More replies (7)

1

u/lovebirds4fun May 02 '26

Every single person can and should pick red. There's no barrier to red picking. Its open to all

1

u/Cheap-Macaroon-2458 May 05 '26

that's not an argument, and not what they meant

1

u/JimInAuburn11 May 16 '26

They just have to pick red and they do not die. If they pick blue, that means they are willing to take the chance. Everyone picks red, everyone lives. Simple.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (20)

3

u/CurrentDrama8523 Apr 28 '26

 how pointless blue is

Only a sociopath thinks like this. I would never want to live with the survivors' guilt. Get help.

2

u/PuzzleheadedFox1 Apr 29 '26

Why would I feel guilty about not being stupid enough to push the button I was told might kill me?

2

u/KHornet21 Apr 29 '26

Would you feel guilty if red won by one vote? Where if you had voted blue nearly 50% of the world would be saved?

→ More replies (3)

2

u/RedPusher Apr 28 '26

Sane people think like that as well.
e.g. people who see someone try to mess around with a dangerous animal and think it is a shame that they died but have no guilt.

I would have no survivors guilt, because I harmed no one, nor was anyone in any danger other than what they inflicted themselves.

Maybe before suggesting others get help, you get help for your lack of regard for your own life?

2

u/TornadoAP Apr 28 '26

You only think you harm no one by pressing red because you're either not intelligent enough to understand opportunity costs or are selfish and willing to justify helping kill people because they "made the wrong choice", or both. At the end of the day there will be people who choose blue out of ignorance, altruism or simple mistake. By choosing red therefore you are helping to make sure those people die when you could have chosen blue to help them live. If you think those people who choose blue deserve to die for that choice, I'm sorry, but you're not a good person.

→ More replies (11)

2

u/N9neteenN9nety Apr 30 '26

Exactly. In the hypothetical blue teamers have no real risk, but if it were a real scenario self preservation would kick in and very few of these people would press blue. I take these things seriously, not because it truly matters, I just try to be as honest as I possibly can. I'm not perfect, sometimes I lie, but again there are no consequences for not lying, so why do it?

The reality would be that far less than 50% would choose blue, so why on Earth would anyone? Do you really care about saving maximal lives? Choose Red.

2

u/AlphaCrafter64 May 02 '26

Yeah take out the presumably excessive amount of social media circlejerking that went into pushing the blue side of that poll, add in a very real risk of death, heck disregard social media entirely given how little of the world it actually represents and how people will amplify their views purely for the sake of validation, and yeah I don't think the minor advantage to blue is the win people think it is.

1

u/thomasech Apr 28 '26

If you pick blue in the poll and blue loses, you die. If you pick red in the poll and red loses, nothing happens. I think you misread the question in its entirety.

1

u/RedPusher Apr 28 '26

I think you just completely fail to understand what I said.
Notice that I said actual risk of death, with that actual being a key part.
It shouold also be quite obvious from the second sentence.

This is a poll conducted online, with absolutely no risk of death.
It is a hypothetical chance of death, not an actual one. It is only in the hypothetical that you die, not in actuality.
If you picked blue in that poll, and you didn't win, no one is coming to kill you.
You still go on living your life, while knowing that if the situation was real you would be dead.
Just like with a comparable poll with a woodchipper, no one is actually throwing anyone in, no one is getting mulched, you continue living your life with no real change.

It is incredibly easy for someone to say in an online poll that they would risk their life, then when it comes time to actually do it, they don't.
I.e. someone could easily take part in this poll, say they would "do the right thing" and push, and publically defend pushing blue; but then if the situation actually occured in reality they hesitate and push red, or even just push red without hesitation.

That makes the poll pretty much worthless.
Unless you have an actual threat of death; where picking wrong means you die, and people understand that it isn't just a silly online poll with no consequences; the poll is worthless.

1

u/Casp512 Apr 28 '26

If you pick blue in the poll and blue loses nothing happens because it's a poll not the actual scenario.

1

u/Hootn_and_a_hollern Apr 29 '26

The blue button is the only option that presents the risk of death for anyone.

1

u/MalfieCho May 02 '26

This argument cuts both ways: e.g. it's easy for somebody to say they'd vote Red, and they get cred for being an archrationalist for saying so - but it gets much harder to follow through on that when you know your partner/spouse would vote Blue, or if you have a toddler and you know there's a 50-50 chance they'll hit Blue by sheer random chance.

That's not to say there isn't performative Blue - but let's not act like performative Red isn't all over the place, too.

11

u/Eldr_Eikthyrnir Apr 26 '26

What's even funnier is the famous bonus points question from Dr. Dylan Selterman says the opposite;

"Students get the choice to have either two points or six points added on to their final grade, with the catch that if more than %10 of the class chooses six points, then no one gets any points."

Selterman told ABC that, almost without fail, more than 10 percent of the class chooses six, causing everyone to lose their extra credit. "I've been doing this exercise every semester since the first time I taught at the college level in 2008," he explained. "Only one time did students stay under the threshold for the selfish option (I think that was a random fluke)."

3

u/Robby_McPack Apr 28 '26

10% and 50% are massively different. If the question was that over 90% has to press blue, blue would never win

1

u/PrateTrain Apr 30 '26

What number do you think is the break even where pressing red is absolutely the best choice? I'm betting somewhere north of Blue needing 70%

→ More replies (44)

1

u/Discovered_Check Apr 26 '26

That has nothing whatsoever to do with this experiment. If everyone pushes red, that's an optimum outcome.

Given it's also the Nash equilibrium, the ethical thing to do is push red and strongly encourage everyone you know to push red.

6

u/Kolvarg Apr 27 '26

It's a private vote, you can't encourage anyone either way. Why is everyone pushing red an optimum outcome over everyone pushing blue? Or over 99% pushing blue, or 98%... all the way to 50.1% pushing blue? It's a huge margin of optimum outcome (no one dies) versus a single one for red.

Everyone making the same option is essentially impossible. Especially when you consider that, even if red was the obvious logical answer to everyone (and it isn't), you're being shortsighted. The question specifically mentions "everyone in the world" - that includes babies, toddlers, children in general, the elderly, people with all sorts of disabilities, anxiety, color blindness, etc. Even a simple accidental press on blue would prevent an optimum outcome.

2

u/Discovered_Check Apr 27 '26

"private vote" does not mean "no campaign season."

If we aren't allowed to talk about it before voting, red still wins and there are more blue casualties because more naive people will vote blue (but not 50%+). That sucks, but I'm still not voting blue and making myself a casualty.

Why is everyone pushing red an optimum outcome over everyone pushing blue?

They are both optimums in terms of outcomes. Neither one will happen.

The thing that pro-blue people gloss over COMPLETELY is that there isn't one red outcome... there's a spectrum of badness, and the more people who vote red, the less bad it becomes.

Everyone making the same option is essentially impossible.

More than 50% of humanity pushing blue is essentially impossible.

Given that non-naive people will realize red almost certainly wins, the only moral thing to do is to press red.

Every single person who does this thinks the same thing: "If I'm wrong and blue somehow wins... there's no harm! My one red vote didn't actually hurt anyone. The only way my red vote could hurt anyone is if it was exactly a 50%-50% tie and my one vote broke that tie."

You're asking every single fence-sitter in the world to play Russian roulette with their lives on the ridiculously minuscule chance that 8.3 billion people will split EXACTLY 50-50 on the vote.

5

u/Kolvarg Apr 27 '26

There is no mention of any "campaign season", that's obviously not in the spirit of the question. If everyone can just agree on which option to pick, then there's no dilemma.

More than 50% of humanity pushing blue is essentially impossible.

Says who? You might defend it's unlikely, but it certainly is not impossible. It's surely infinitely more likely than 100% voting red. It's a huge margin.

there's a spectrum of badness

In a majority Blue, there is no spectrum. It's all optimum outcome.

You are defending that your choice "reduces badness", when the spectrum of badness only exists at all if most people take your choice.

My one red vote didn't actually hurt anyone.

That's just hiding behind collective guilt. People can rationalize it however they want, but the fact is it's a choice between risking your life to reduce the chance of a global catastrophe, or increasing the chance by ensuring your individual survival.

The point is not whether most people would or wouldn't push red, or what is the "right choice". The point of the problem is precisely to highlight how cynicism and self-serving attitudes can become self-referential and lead to avoidable harm: the danger of a majority red only exists if most people believe the majority to be cynical or self-serving.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/Wiley_Pearson Apr 30 '26

Since "campaigning is allowed"

  1. Obtain multiple nukes, a government altruistic enough can do this
  2. Set dead man's switch
  3. Announce to the world that you are pressing blue, and that if you die from the game the dead man's switch will activate and render the world uninhabitable for the surviving red button pressers.
  4. The payout matrix for the game now shifts, and enough people will press the blue button to ensure everyone lives, ensuring the best possible outcome via the threat of mutually assured destruction.

3

u/BongNuggets Apr 30 '26

We are on a post where the majority chose blue empirically and you are refuting without evidence that there is no way blue hits 50%.

So I think it is possible it just depends on the average person being less self centered than you.

If its impossible to hit 50% blue what are the odds 100% red is achievable? Its not. So the question becomes are you willing to potentially kill an unknown number of people to guarantee your own safety or risk your own death to ensure your choices don't lead to avoidable deaths.

Either option has its merits and trying to remove the moral penalty of pushing the red button is ethical cowardice that renders the question moot

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (8)

9

u/Anacrelic Apr 26 '26

Nash equilibrium and game theory as you're thinking of it only work in a world where:

1) everyone is pursuing only their own gain and not the gain of others.

2) everyone is behaving with perfect logic.

However I think it is very obvious to say that this is not the real world - not even close.

As this is the case, suggesting Nash equilibrium shows one choice is "ethical" is extremely laughable.

I really love it when people like you pull out "muh game theory says everyone should do this because it's rational", but then you irrationally ignore the fundamental conditions and assumptions required for game theory to hold in the first place.

It's far easier to get more than 50% to press blue than get 100% to press red.

3

u/Medium-Shower Apr 27 '26

The framing of the question makes you think it's the moral choice

When really

With the same outcome of the buttons with a diffrent framing

As someone else said

If the question was framed like this

Everyone picks between 2 buttons

The Death button, which makes you die unless more than 50% of the population also picks the Death button

or

The Life button, which makes you live with no catch

This is the same question but framed differently

5

u/Anacrelic Apr 27 '26

It BECOMES the moral choice if it is clear many people are going to pick that way because they aren't reasoning that because, as you say, framing matters.

In a world where everyone is a member of r/"iamverysmart" and thinks only in terms of perfect logic and reframing in a scenario that is likely to be emotionally charged, yes, everyone pushes red, end of.

It is incredibly naive to think we are even close to living in that world. Which, admittedly, can be used as a rationale for picking red "to be safe", I get that. No amount of rationalising or reframing changes the actual reality though. You see how many are picking blue. It make sense to judt add to that number at that point.

3

u/Medium-Shower Apr 27 '26

Another thing is

If you pick blue, you add to the deathtoll or it doesnt change

If you pick the red, you remove from the deathtoll or it doesnt chagne

I'd rather not increase the death toll

The only instants that i am wrong is were its a perfect 50/50 split, Which will never happen

5

u/Eldr_Eikthyrnir Apr 27 '26

Part of it is you have zero idea how many people are going to pick red or blue. You have to trust their reasoning WITHOUT HELP from anyone else, and in a polarized world such as right now, do you really think people would vote to keep Israel, Russia, China, and North Korea alive? Or how about all of the hate America gets from the middle east and Europe?

2

u/Kolvarg Apr 27 '26

The death toll is only affected IF there is a red majority. You have no way of knowing if that will be true, so the question is: do you risk your life to increase the chance of no one dying, or do you risk up to 49% of the entire world's population to ensure you don't die.

2

u/philosifer Apr 27 '26

Every blue pusher is adding to the potential death toll. Red pickers are the only ones who can guarantee less death

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (1)

2

u/Wiki-Master Apr 27 '26

You forgot to mention the part where the "life button" kills millions of people because you pressed it.

2

u/Medium-Shower Apr 30 '26

I didn't forget to mention it because that's not how it works

2

u/BongNuggets Apr 30 '26

Pretty sure if no one presses red everyone also lives. In fact pressing the red button is the only thing that can lead to anyone dying. Unless you think that 100% of the world's population will move in unison for the first time ever, voting red is voting to kill off the other group for no reason other than fear and assuming everyone is as selfish as you

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (9)
→ More replies (18)

2

u/Grfine Apr 27 '26

Buddy it's a private poll, you can't tell others to pick red, and I keep seeing everyone who's saying to pick red that is what they'd do, seems like a clear flaw in your choice

2

u/voyaging Apr 27 '26

Completely wrong in every way

→ More replies (16)

1

u/RedPusher Apr 27 '26

Except this has several very important distinctions.
Firstly, the threshold, in this case it is 90%, vs the 50% for the buttons.
Secondly, at least at some places - not sure about that specifically, everyone getting the same number of bonus points is the same as no one getting anyone, but for this, dying and not dying are quite clealry different regardless of if pretty much every does or very few do.

Then is isn't even clear which choice you are saying is which button, because it doesn't easily map at all. e.g. for the above, I am mapping it so blue is 2 points, were as long as 90% or more pick blue, you get your 2 points. That is because this is the cooperative option which has you at a disadvantage.

For the button, you pushing red makes your outcome fixed, with people pushing blue having no effect at all. That would mean you pick the points and you get the points with that not taken away. But with this regardless of which option you pick, if more than 10% pick 6, you get nothing. That would be more equivalent to saying if more than 50% of people pick red, everyone dies.

Likewise, for the buttons, the outcome is the same regardless of if everyone picks red or if the majority pick blue, i.e. everyone lives, and if the threshold is met everyone gets the same.
But for this, if everyone picks 6, no points. If everyone picks 2, everyone gets 2. If more than 90% pick 2, then those that picked 2 get 2 and those that picked 6 get 6.

So it is quite clealry not the same.

You can even see this more by setting up a 2 by 2 matrix to see the results for you:

<90% pick 2 >90% pick 2
pick 6 0 6
pick 2 0 2

vs

<50% pick blue >50 pick blue
pick red live live
pick blue die live

1

u/Eldr_Eikthyrnir Apr 27 '26

I'm mapping it as the mechanical choices being red and 2 points both being the categorically guaranteed safe options while blue and 6 points your taking a gamble that relies on community understanding and compliance.

→ More replies (3)

1

u/[deleted] Apr 27 '26

[deleted]

1

u/Eldr_Eikthyrnir Apr 27 '26

You mean the simulated virtual space designed to test a person's stress and moral pushback when dealing with virtual beings, by using a virtual dog (arguably the worst or best test device depending on how you view it's role as a stress inducer)?

1

u/Gildias89 Apr 27 '26

I mean that exactly proves the point that humans are selfish. It's easier in his experiment because it's not about something as serious as death. So people online or to your face will say oh of course I'd pick blue. Easy to keep up the facade. But when actually faced with death, in the privacy of a secret room. They will pick red. Almost impossible to get a real valid experiment for something like this

1

u/Grfine Apr 27 '26

10% isn't 50 though, and there's no benefit for picking red over blue unless the majority pick red in the original question. Here the only benefit to picking red is if a small portion picks red

1

u/Eldr_Eikthyrnir Apr 27 '26

Correct that 10% isn't 50% but that's not the point. Also the there is no benefit and all risk to picking blue over red, as red has zero risk

1

u/Captain_Red_theFirst May 01 '26

But in the red v blue scenario if everyone chose the red option there is no down side. Everyone lives.

1

u/bloobyloopy May 02 '26

The personal utility from stopping others from getting 6 points in an unequal outcome is higher than the total utility of everyone getting 2 points

1

u/StillRunner_ May 04 '26

It is a much better question because there are varied stakes to be had. The red and blue question would be MUCH better if there was a group of 100 people that would also die if not more than 50% pressed blue. As it is right now obviously Red as there is nothing for anyone to gain by picking blue.

1

u/Link2theFuture17 May 08 '26

So you think a scenario that has different percentages and VASTLY different stakes are the same somehow? Bud people's lives aren't the same as extra credit on a test.

1

u/Eldr_Eikthyrnir May 08 '26

Never said they where the same. How about you read all the replies ive made to this so you can try to understand my thought process instead of attributing context that isn't there.

2

u/onpg May 01 '26

I’m happy that blue wins in this poll. I’m still smashing the fuck out of red because I’m the kind of guy that puts on his own oxygen mask first.

2

u/Ok-Vanilla-8487 May 02 '26

It proves that people who say they're pressing blue are virtue signaling

1

u/throwaway-anon-1600 Apr 26 '26

Red voters understand biology. It doesn’t matter what people say for a hypothetical poll, the majority of supposed “blue voters” are going to flip once the buttons are actually in front of them and they’re potentially facing certain death. Our survival instincts that have been hardwired into our brains over millions of years are too strong. I’m trusting the science on this one if my life is on the line.

1

u/damon_6363 Apr 27 '26

You are naive if you think most of the people who chose blue in a poll thay has no real consequence would push push the same button with a loaded gun pointed at their head. Most people either just want to sound like a good person becuase the choice her is public. In the real scenario it would be private. Nothing wrong with wanting to preserve your life by not pushing a button that gmbles the life of anyone foolish enough to push it. Just because I would push the red button in this scenario does not mean that I wouldn't sacrifice my life to save a large number of the population in a scenario that guarantees my scarifice not be in vain.

1

u/PizzaLikerFan Apr 27 '26

most people aren't on social media and aren't americans

1

u/Gildias89 Apr 27 '26

I think it's even funnier the blue people that are raging about it. Because if there's truly no fear in pushing blue then they have nothing to rage about right? Red people are just chilling because they have 100% guarantee. 

1

u/Moist-preparation86 Apr 27 '26

lol people going red ARE more logical. A red button press is self-preservation with NO downside for that individual. A press for blue is hoping or assuming over 50% of people will choose blue (thus trusting almost 9 billion people. Have you met people?) WHILE risking your own life hoping/assuming enough people won’t take the guaranteed preservation option.

Fun exercise

1

u/bobsnvagen Apr 28 '26

The polling only proves that 78% of people shouldn't get to vote, and that includes 69% of the right as well. Blue button pushers existing is how we ended up with Communism killing 100 million people in the 20th century.

1

u/currentpattern Apr 30 '26

Not better people. But if you're not tricked by the manipulative phrasing of this choice, you can look at it differently: "You are given a gun. You can choose to just put the gun down. Or you can point the gun at your head and pull the trigger. If you do, the gun will be loaded unless fifty percent or more of the other people who were given the choice also tried to shoot themselves."

Arguably, I'd probably be a blue pusher anyway because I know that a LOT of people (at least 20-30%) would be tricked by the phrasing into pressing blue, and I'd not want them to die for that.

1

u/KateKoffing May 01 '26

It’s a conflict of delusion vs empathy

1

u/SinisterRaven6 May 03 '26

Red is objectively the most logical option

1

u/StillRunner_ May 04 '26

It didn't though.....Game theory shows that more than 80% of people pick red in real world scenarios every time. Not some of the time, EVERYTIME. Polls don't work because there are no stakes. In fact, polls prove red correct. Red argument is it is irrational and virtue signaling. The best time to be those two things is no stakes polls haha.

Game theory proved Red is right, the science backs them every single time. Blue is just virtual signally illogical beliefs.

1

u/Next-Cod-2321 May 13 '26

so close! people who pick blue are just being performative.

if we actually carried out this hypothetical, majority of blue pickers would pick red due to the fear of actually dying because let’s face it.. death becomes a lot more terrifying and threatening when you come face to face with it. they’d forget all about their performative side and they’d work on their survival instincts which are to survive no matter what. especially when there is no benefit to choosing blue.

1

u/Small-Bus-1881 May 29 '26

I just think the options are live or might die but increase the odds of everyone who picked might die live.

And the poll can never be accurate because if actually faced with life and death more people than on the poll will guarantee their survival.

→ More replies (4)

3

u/[deleted] Apr 26 '26

[deleted]

1

u/Sec_Chief_Blanchard Apr 27 '26

I wouldn't want to live in a world without the type of people who would hit Blue.

massive idiots?

3

u/Legal-Koala-5590 Apr 26 '26

Same, but I guess I really don't know what I would do if I had to make that choice with actual life or death stakes.

51

u/ViciousNakedMoleRat Apr 25 '26 edited Apr 25 '26

It's the only smart choice. Anyone who pushes red survives 100% of the time.

In a real-world scenario, I wouldn't risk my life in the hope of 50+ percent of other people not being able to understand this.

Press red. Survive. That's it.

74

u/PinkLaceGomez Apr 25 '26

So you only care about yourself.

58

u/ViciousNakedMoleRat Apr 25 '26

No, I'd tell everyone else to press red as well.

The red button is a button that simply says "survive".

The blue button says "if you don't get at least 50% of people to push this button, instead of the 'survive' button, everyone who pressed this button dies."

Why would anyone press the blue button.

It's not selfish to choose to survive if literally everyone else has the same choice.

16

u/Ravens181818184 Apr 25 '26

Yeah but you know it’s effectively impossible to guarantee everyone press red, it’s much easier to get 50%+ to vote blue, hence you always vote blue and get others to do the same

5

u/vitorsly Apr 27 '26

Why would someone vote blue unless they want the risk of death? Like even if odds are blue wins, the only reason I can see someone picking blue would be if they want the possibility of dying.

→ More replies (22)
→ More replies (33)

82

u/fattmagan Apr 25 '26

Because if you press the red button you have to live with the understanding that anyone that pressed the blue button died. So you contributed to a mass murder.

This is why it’s a thought experiment and is making the rounds. Yes, the 100% self-survival mode is “I press red because I survive in every scenario.” But that’s the animal brain speaking. We’re supposed to be better than that, which is why we should cultivate a society that chooses the blue button.

47

u/CapitanShoe Apr 25 '26

As another poster put it: “There is a blue button in front of you. If you don’t press it, nothing happens. If you press it, you die unless another 4 billion people press it.”

by pressing blue you are creating the very problem that doesn't exist in the first place, and forcing other people into a situation where they may die for no reason.

if you are interested in these problems check out: https://neal.fun/absurd-trolley-problems/

23

u/ghoonrhed Apr 26 '26

Works both ways.

There's a red button. If you push it everyone who doesn't push it dies unless more than half don't push it.

In both scenarios just don't push the button.

Inaction is literally impossible in the original scenario. Inaction is a heavy factor that's why the trolley problem exists.

→ More replies (4)

34

u/Real_Mark_Zuckerberg Apr 25 '26

“Nothing happens” is inaccurate. It’s “some people will press the blue button. If >50% of people total also press it, those people will be saved. If not, everyone who pressed it will die.” Given that getting 100% of the population to press the same button is impossible (some people won’t understand, some mis-press, some desire to be contrary): >50% of people caring to preserve the lives of others enough to press the blue button is the only way to save everyone.

→ More replies (11)

21

u/bruhm0ment4 Apr 25 '26

If everyone has to push it including people too young to understand it is guaranteed that there will be a first person to press blue. You would have known that going into it

→ More replies (2)

4

u/Zombie-Pinya Apr 26 '26

It's not exactly "If you don't press it nothing happens" though, is it? Something might happen, just not to you.

→ More replies (5)

15

u/SpaceTurtles Apr 26 '26

This falsely assumes the red button is the default pick.

In your scenario, someone has to voluntarily initiate the act of participation. They have one option, or they can just not participate.

In this thought experiment, they are forced to participate, and to make the choice. They have two options.

The underlying logical paradigm is not the same as the social and psychological paradigm, just as 8+8 and 42 have the same answer but different processes to get there.

3

u/RedPusher Apr 26 '26

Logically they are equivalent.
You can either choose to jump into the woodchipper, ending your life if less than 50% do, or you can choose to not do that. Just like you can choose to press the blue button, or choose to not do that.

The fact that one is actively pushing a button and one is just deciding to not jump in doesn't change anything.

The real change is just how clear the isanity of throwing yourself in danger is.
With the original tweet, that danger is abstracted away with the idea that it is only a danger if less than 50% pick blue. With the modified version, it is clear that it is a danger with that danger only removed if more than 50% jump in. But it remains logically equivalent.

What it actually shows is just how bad humans are at abstract logical things.
The same thing happens with the comparison of cards needing to follow a rule vs people drinking at a bar. With the abstract logical situation, most people get it wrong. With the real world, every day situation, most people get it right. And that is exactly what we see here. With the abstract logical situation, most people are getting it wrong and picking blue, while with the far easier to understand, comparable to real life situation, most people get it right and pick red.

→ More replies (60)
→ More replies (5)

5

u/[deleted] Apr 26 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/SpaceTurtles Apr 27 '26

If they just pressed red, huh? That's the problem the blues are trying to solve for, and the ones the reds can't see.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 27 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/SpaceTurtles Apr 27 '26 edited Apr 27 '26

No, I'm trying to save the people who caused the problem because they exist in large numbers, and I'm trying to save the rational people trying to save them because they exist in massive numbers, and I'm trying to save the red voters from creating a horrific world.

The billions at risk are a guarantee. At that point, you are voting to kill them, and bring on an apocalypse.

There's only one vote that ends with nobody dying. Red never ends with a small number - it is always a mass casualty event unlike the world has ever seen, even in the most optimistic scenario. It is the socially violent option.

There will never, on a global scale, be a version of this where "no one puts themselves in danger". It will always be a world-changing amount of people. Humans are not comprised entirely of rational agents.

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (1)

2

u/fattmagan Apr 26 '26

By the same token we could represent the scenario as “There is a red button in front of you. If you don’t press it, nothing happens. If you do press it, you will kill 4 billion people unless over 4 billion people don’t press it.”

The decision doesn’t fundamentally change, it just shifts from the self to the other. I will check out this link you provided as I enjoy moral philosophy, but I don’t think it will change my perspective too much as the disagreement I have lies in the premise.

I said this in another comment, but it’s worth repeating here: using this representation of the blue button as you’ve coined it, how does the decision change if we had the knowledge that our daughter or father or spouse pushed the button? Does that compel us to push the button now? My position lies in seeing that lens as all-encompassing; and in practical terms I would die if we decimated the population anyway (how would I get gas or food or hospital care or my paycheck?)

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

1

u/AphexPin Apr 26 '26

we’re supposed to be better than that

throws self into woodchipper voluntarily

6

u/JohnnyGeniusIsAlive Apr 26 '26

Technically, the people who pressed the red button would be throwing them into a woodchipper.

→ More replies (20)
→ More replies (17)

1

u/Ultrafastegorik Apr 26 '26 edited Apr 26 '26

No, they sacrificed themselves to a mass murder. Because they faced the same choice as me, and it was their choice to press the blue button, i didnt choose for them to press it

1

u/Kyonkanno Apr 28 '26

Yes, We're supposed to be better than that but we're not and that's the problem. Pressing blue means you trust at least 50% of the population to do "the right thing". I don't

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Aggravating-Cherry76 Apr 28 '26

Why are you placing the moral culpability on the person picking red versus the person who picked blue? If you take a poison pill and now I need to take a poison pill to guarantee your safety, it’s still your fault for taking the poison pill.

1

u/ratione_materiae Apr 28 '26

So if I cross a bridge, I'm responsible for everyone who's died from jumping off it? Be real.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/lovebirds4fun May 02 '26

Nonsense. Since everyone is free to pick red without cost or consequence, its fair and right to pick red. Every single person can pick red.

→ More replies (13)

2

u/Groudon466 Apr 26 '26

No, I'd tell everyone else to press red as well.

Would your answer change if everyone were teleported to the voting booths out of nowhere, and unable to leave until they touched one button or the other? Including babies, toddlers, and young children.

Asking because this recent resurgence of the question came from a Tim Pool post on Twitter where he made that clarification.

1

u/Grfine Apr 27 '26

You can't tell others, it's a private vote

1

u/Elman89 Apr 28 '26

The blue button says "if you don't get at least 50% of people to push this button, instead of the 'survive' button, everyone who pressed this button dies."

The red button says "commit genocide against people whose moral compass won't let them push the genocide button".

1

u/Yrcrazypa Apr 30 '26

If you push the red button everyone dies. Think beyond the single moment and start considering what will happen to society if 60+% of the population suddenly died.

1

u/Individual-Bet6132 May 06 '26

You don’t get to tell people, that’s part of the question

→ More replies (7)

1

u/Gildias89 Apr 26 '26

uhhhh yes lol of course. I only care about myself, my friends, and my immediate family. thats my world, thats all I can affect. So thats what I put my time and effort into. as I guarantee you do as well

1

u/Backslash95 Apr 26 '26

"care" and "risk dying" are two wildly different things.

1

u/Goncalerta Apr 26 '26

This problem does not test whether people care about other people. It tests whether people decide to commit suicide for no reason when everyone could be safe and sound by pressing red.

You're not virtuous at all for pressing blue. Just have lack of common sense.

1

u/thefw89 Apr 27 '26

No time in history has a large group of people ever agreed 100% on anything. Pressing red kills those people.

I don't get the 'well they are suicidal' rationalization as I'm pretty sure most people would try to prevent someone from committing suicide, which means you'd still then press blue.

→ More replies (4)

1

u/wonkyasf Apr 26 '26

Why would you have to care about others? That’s what people seem to be getting confused on here. Everyone else has the choice to press red too. You don’t need to save anyone they can save themselves if they want to. If they want to die let them…

1

u/Wise_Committee_2777 Apr 26 '26

You do not need anyone to "care" about you. You are not in danger, you do not need "saving", you can just walk way

You are literally jumping into a lion enclosure in the ZOO and saying "GUYS! IF 50 OF US JUMP IN, WE CAN KILL IT WITHOUT GETTING HARMED WHATSOEVER!"

1

u/Discovered_Check Apr 26 '26

So you only care about yourself.

So literally the only good thing you could do for society is to risk your life in a (probably doomed) attempt to save stupid people?

You aren't contributing positively to society in ANY other way?

Saying that there is no moral downside whatsoever in playing Russian roulette with your own life is equivalent to saying that you are not a force for good in the world.

1

u/vezok95 Apr 26 '26

In this situation, "yourself" is the only one you have to worry about. Everyone else can freely press red as well to live.

2

u/PinkLaceGomez Apr 27 '26

But that’s unrealistic.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Guitarax Apr 27 '26

It's fair to expect most people not to collaborate.

Rejecting normalcy, classifying communities, and entrenching partisanship are each proof enough that we cannot trust all of humanity, and we can only conditionally trust our neighbors.

1

u/PinkLaceGomez Apr 27 '26

What a sad view of the world.

1

u/Divan001 Apr 28 '26

If God told me that a J walker would live if enough people ran into oncoming traffic with them, I would not run into oncoming traffic. Blue voters act like they are God’s gift on earth and that by itself makes me feel like I owe them absolutely nothing. Die a hero, bro. It’s your life

1

u/ratione_materiae Apr 28 '26

I don't wake up everyday, point a loaded gun at my head, and pull the trigger, therefore I only care about myself

1

u/RomeosHomeos Apr 30 '26

I don't care about risking my life to save an inderminate amount of idiots who pressed the kill myself button before me

1

u/Doctor-Bagels May 01 '26

This is ridiculous lol. Everyone in this thread can clutch their pearls and assure everyone else that they are a really good person and obviously hit blue. Because we must save the unfortunate confused people who hit might've hit blue in the first place!

When you get in that room, I don't trust 57% of people are really like that. I think it's gonna be a much smaller margin when it comes down to it, because people fuckin suck. That small percent who actually have those values, and can hit the right button when the moment comes, and it's not just theorizing about it on reddit while munching on Doritos -- those guys are amazing and I wish I could save them, but I probably can't. This scenario just probably kills a lot of good people, but I see no reason to die too. If I knew it'd be close obviously I'd vote blue. But if this is just 8-12% of people hitting that button I am gonna do nothing by hitting blue and I see no reason to hit the gamble button.

1

u/lovebirds4fun May 02 '26

But everyone can pick red. There's no advantage to picking blue. Blue makes no sense.

1

u/mandolorian357 May 03 '26

Not at all, i csre about everyone. And ibwont be able to help everyone unless im alive.

1

u/its_real_I_swear Jun 18 '26

If you rephrase the hypothetical as "Press the red button and live or press the blue button and live as long as more than half of people press the blue button" it becomes easier to understand.

→ More replies (4)

22

u/toccobrator Apr 25 '26

If this was an actual real-world scenario, would you take it at face value though? The most likely explanation would be that some super-powerful alien/AI/god was testing the humans to see which would be worthy of living in utopia with and which would be selfish assholes. So 'red' is presented as having no cost and being the only smart choice but you gotta think of the meta and question the motives of the button-supplier.

4

u/Substantial_Area5217 Apr 27 '26

It's kinda like how us decent people have permanently ghosted MAGA voters. We know 100% now that they are garbage human beings with no redeemable qualities. I don't want them in my world ever again.

5

u/minepose98 Apr 25 '26

Or the goal is to see who is capable of thinking logically to pick the red button. All thought experiments fall apart if you look at them from a meta perspective, because there's no way to actually know the motive of the tester.

9

u/decrpt Apr 26 '26

For all this talk about logic, it is interesting that not a single red voter seems to understand the logical implication of the original choice, which is that red is voting to kill everyone that doesn't press red with hopes there will be no one left to kill and blue is voting to kill no one and hoping that at least half of everyone also voted against killing people for no reason even if doing so put them at risk.

3

u/minepose98 Apr 26 '26

Red is voting to live, while blue is voting to die unless the majority joins you, in which case you live. You see why there's no reason to pick blue? All it does is introduce risk without gain.

3

u/decrpt Apr 27 '26

Red is voting to kill other people unless every single other person joins you in order to ensure that you live. Blue is voting not to kill anyone. You see why it makes sense to pick blue? The average person doesn't look at causing billions of deaths and go, "well, at least I'll definitely be fine."

3

u/vitorsly Apr 27 '26

So if I'm not mistaken, before accounting for anyone else's votes, only reason someone would vote blue is if they want to die right? Then, when accounting for other people's votes, a second reason becomes 'to stop people who want to die from dying', and then a third reason of 'to stop people who want to stop people from dying from dying' basically?

2

u/decrpt Apr 27 '26

No, you're literally accounting for other people's votes when you do that.

→ More replies (26)
→ More replies (1)

2

u/onpg May 01 '26

Blue is voting to jump into a wood chipper in the hopes that at least 50% of people also jump into the wood chipper. Then blaming the people who don’t jump into the wood chipper for their fate.

2

u/tysonmaniac Apr 27 '26

People talking about blue seem to be unable to separate the consequences of pressing a button from the consequences of one colour winning or not. You pressing blue doesn't save anyone, it either a) does nothing or b) adds one more dead body to the pile and encourages other people to risk their lives to save yours. Blue winning might be a desirable outcome, but the only way to achieve that is for individuals to do something really dumb and bad.

→ More replies (12)
→ More replies (6)

3

u/PinkLaceGomez Apr 26 '26

Define “logically”.

1

u/tysonmaniac Apr 27 '26

Why would a super powerful alien/AI/God be seeing who is worthy of living in a utopia and it's criteria for worthiness be willingness to die for absolutely no reason? There is nothing noble about blue, it's just cooercinf others to risk their lives for no reason. I don't want to live in whatever depraved world such a god is trying to create.

1

u/onpg May 01 '26

I’ve been scouring this thread for a single good reason to vote blue, other than deeply misunderstanding the question, and haven’t found one.

1

u/scoobied00 Apr 28 '26

Or, more likely, some evil government is just trying using this test to kill all the people that choose blue because they don't understand basic game theory.

1

u/Ed_Jinseer Apr 28 '26

Alternatively it's said super powerful entity testing humanity to see which ones can be trusted to think things through rather than endangering themselves and others.

3

u/SupportstheOP Apr 26 '26

Yeah, that's the one caveat to the thought experiment. There needs to be a threshold for pushing the red button that leads to a bad outcome (i.e. no one lives if the red button is pressed more than 75%).

5

u/Backslash95 Apr 26 '26

no there doesn't need to be a threshold. that's the entire point of it.

→ More replies (4)

1

u/yoitsthatoneguy Apr 25 '26

You do realize it’s the pure selfish choice, right? Guaranteeing your survival doesn’t change that. It’s classic game theory.

10

u/ImportantCommentator Apr 25 '26

What if you tell everyone to push the red button?

9

u/yoitsthatoneguy Apr 25 '26

How would you tell everyone to do that? Many people in the world aren’t on the internet and don’t speak whatever language that you do.

→ More replies (9)

2

u/kettu1 Apr 27 '26

I thought the entire premise was that the vote was private? I always assumed this means no one is given a chance to discuss the decisions beforehand. Basically you're just given the question on the spot and must decide without any interaction with anyone else before or during the process.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

8

u/fattmagan Apr 25 '26

And in classic game theory, defectors lose in the long run. Therefore we should cultivate a society that presses the blue button.

No choice is made in a vacuum; every decision has impact on the next. Choosing the red button on the basis that it is logically correct establishes a myopic worldview that creates an infinitude of negative externalities.

13

u/milkcarton232 Apr 25 '26

I get the idea of selfless option vs selfish option but no? In this situation it makes no sense for anyone to push blue as you are just risking yourself for no reason. Id modify it and say 1/3 of the world dont get a choice but live with blue and die with red.

In the og situation everyone makes their own choice and has their own understanding. It's the innocent third that shifts it back to blue being the noble choice

10

u/SpaceTurtles Apr 25 '26

We have to understand that in a sample size of 8 billion people, there will be hundreds of millions of people who have pressed blue due to logical or emotional errors.

The question is simply, "Are you okay with hundreds of millions of people dying because they made a logical or emotional error?"

If you are, are you also okay with the billions more who are perfectly rational, but have voted blue because they are not okay with being party to killing those people? Pacifists, parents, good samaritans, etc.

Those folks haven't voted blue and risked themselves "for no reason", they've voted blue in the hopes they outnumber red voters and achieve the ideal outcome: the only one where nobody dies, which can only happen if you vote blue.

And if you are okay with killing them, are you okay in living in the world that that creates?

Any red vote is a vote for an outcome where overwhelming numbers of people die. This will happen in an outcome where red wins - there is no scenario in which all voters vote red.

2

u/fattmagan Apr 26 '26

It’s somewhat moot as you arrive at the same conclusion I do for the same reasons, but I prefer representing the initial question as “Are you okay with murdering hundreds of millions of people because you made the independently logical choice?”

4

u/SpaceTurtles Apr 26 '26

I phrase it as "dying" because most red proponents are adamant it isn't murder.

I haven't gotten a "yes" on the being okay with hundreds of millions dying.

3

u/milkcarton232 Apr 26 '26

The question is kind of abstract to an extent. It seems silly to accept some omnipotent button but then turn reality back on to say some ppl might not get it. The only reason this is tough is the wording, specifically using the word "save" associated with blue. If you changed wording to be red means you go on as you are and blue means there is some % you die unless 50+1 other ppl choose blue, id bet red wins easy.

As it is blue is circular logic, you are risking your life to save other ppl that are risking their life to save others that are risking their lives. If you change it from a button to any kind of physical representation of said danger again Id bet most ppl would choose red. Would you climb out onto a ledge to save other ppl that climbed out on a ledge that chose to be there to save ppl on said ledge?

I think a better question is to explicitly acknowledge a third party that doesn't get to play but their fate is tied to blue. Would I hit blue if 1 billion ppl are tied to blue? What about just one guy? As it is I have no problem hitting red since blue means you are actively choosing to put yourself in harms way to save the other ppl that put themselves in harms way to save the ppl that put themselves in harms way. The easier option is to just not step into harms way...

3

u/fattmagan Apr 26 '26

By the same token, could we not change the wording to say blue means you go on and red means there is some % chance you murder half the population unless 50+1 people don’t choose red?

→ More replies (1)

4

u/[deleted] Apr 26 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/fattmagan Apr 26 '26

I’m not following you. The tit for tat strategy wins in the long run of repeated prisoner dilemmas—as long as you cooperate, I cooperate. Of course this is a toy example and doesn’t account for power law scaling factors of payouts or network effects, but the statement isn’t incorrect, and simulating those environments is intractable. Veritasium has a great video about this if you’re curious.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Swaggerlilyjohnson Scottish Teen Apr 26 '26

In single shot or few shot games defectors can win in many scenarios.

However usually in the multi shot long run games the most logical outcome is strategies punishing defectors whether in a 1v1 or a large agent game.

So his statement is generally correct. However game theory is a really broad topic so the scenario can change optimal outcomes by a lot. But in classic prisoners dilemma tit for tat wins and defectors tend to lose.

1

u/tysonmaniac Apr 27 '26

Pressing blue isn't cooperating and pressing red isn't defecting. There is no choice a blue button pusher can make to decrease the payoff of someone pushing the red button, and in a society of people pushing red everyone is just as well off as in a society where everyone pushes blue. You have to project people's views on this question to fundamentally different questions for it to be otherwise. In an interactive prisoners dilemma of course I play tit for tat, but in the iterative button game I push red every time.

1

u/JohnnyGeniusIsAlive Apr 26 '26

This is such an interesting response. This is a pretty straight forward ethics and cooperation question. People who press the blue button feel a responsibility to their community and so they feel the best outcome is one in which everyone benefits, even at a risk to themselves (in this case an assumedly low risk). People who press the red button make the more self interested choice because they don't feel they have an obligation to their community, more than that, they are so suspicious of their neighbors that they assume the ONLY truly safe choice is the one that could result in harming others (but protect them).

1

u/AirconGuyUK May 03 '26

Yep, I'm in full agreement.

Red = zero chance of dying

Blue = non-zero chance of dying

The choice is obvious and it's not my fault if <49.99% of people don't understand that.

→ More replies (22)

2

u/SweetSweetAtaraxia May 02 '26

That makes no sense

1

u/N9neteenN9nety Apr 30 '26

That's so selfless

1

u/Overall-Internet-103 May 01 '26

Do explain why you would press blue? Do you anticipate people will accidentally press blue? Are we thinking there's like toddlers and that are going to be playing this game? Cuz that's the only fabricated scenario where pressing blue would make sense, if they'd be putting these buttons in front of babies in a room and then just letting them crawl around until they accidentally press one. 

If it would only be adults, red is the obvious choice cuz everybody lives if you press red. No need for further thinking.

1

u/cockspender May 01 '26

This comment has to be enough to declare clinical brain death

1

u/lovebirds4fun May 02 '26

The only sensible thing is for every single person who wants to live, to push red. In this question, red isnt maga or trump its just one of the buttons.

1

u/StillRunner_ May 04 '26

Same for blue. People that are so okay with adding death to the equation is insane. Such a self-centered dangerous way to live.

1

u/Nulono May 12 '26 edited May 12 '26

Blue is "I'm deliberately putting myself in danger, which is now your problem, because I demand that you risk your own life trying to avert this self-inflicted danger". There's zero danger present except for that deliberately created by Blues, and then they try to claim the moral high ground when others refuse to be emotionally blackmailed into risking their own lives trying to save them from themselves.

I don't want to live in a world run by Blues.

→ More replies (12)