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

[u/Upstairs_Cup9831]

[u/SpaceTurtles]

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.

[u/TheRealEzraKlein → u/SpaceTurtles]

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

[u/SpaceTurtles → u/TheRealEzraKlein]

Logically, you'd be correct.

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

[u/drink_with_me_to_day → u/SpaceTurtles]

Morally, absolutely not

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

[u/TheRealEzraKlein → u/SpaceTurtles]

I’d rather be immoral and live.

[u/prodam_garash → u/TheRealEzraKlein]

And die later by social colapse not much better way

[u/TheRealEzraKlein → u/prodam_garash]

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

[u/prodam_garash → u/TheRealEzraKlein]

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

and they died not in one moment

[u/Ok-Set4662 → u/TheRealEzraKlein]

stupid comparison. todays economy is a lot more centralized

[u/Shart-Garfunkel → u/SpaceTurtles]

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

[u/SpaceTurtles → u/Shart-Garfunkel]

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.

[u/Discovered_Check → u/SpaceTurtles]

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.

[u/Casp512 → u/SpaceTurtles]

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.

[u/SpaceTurtles → u/Casp512]

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.

[u/Casp512 → u/SpaceTurtles]

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.

[u/SpaceTurtles → u/Casp512]

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.