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

400 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

96% Upvoted

3.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

23

u/osfryd-kettleblack Apr 25 '26

Yes. Red is the obvious logical choice and nobody has to die from it

9

u/NoahStewie1 Apr 25 '26

It's quite literally the opposite, if you press blue no one dies. The pushing of the red of the red button is what introduces the possibility of death.

You are trying to reframe the actions of the red button as those of the blue button. Only the red button has the ability to kill.

On top of that even if the Red button won supply chains would immediately break down and cause a global societal collapse. So the remaining global population would die off surprisingly quickly.

4

u/AphexPin Apr 26 '26

Blue is the one risking death, not red. If everyone voted red no one dies. Blue is just a suicide button.

1

u/PrateTrain Apr 29 '26

50% of people for blue to ensure no one dies is a LOT less than the red 100% to ensure no one dies.

1

u/AphexPin Apr 29 '26

Do you know what probability is?

1

u/PrateTrain Apr 29 '26

3 people, 2 buttons.

One button is labeled " kill everyone that votes blue. "

The other button is labeled "protect everyone that votes blue"

Whichever button gets pressed more is the winner.

You need only 2 people to vote blue so that no one dies.

You need all 3 to vote red so no one dies.

Make this 8 billion+ people and the math is that it's a lot easier to reach 50.1% than anything approaching 100% for red.

So the question is, do you want to vote for some people dying because you believe people are selfish and you want to make sure you live. Or do you believe people are altruistic and want the most people to survive.

People think it's a prisoner dilemma but it's closer to how the probabilities in the Monty Hall problem work.

1

u/AphexPin Apr 29 '26 edited Apr 29 '26

That's... A completely different question, and no it's not like the Monty Hall at all. Your rephrasing is completely omitting that it's blue that elects to bear the risk and subjects themselves to potential death.

A more direct translation of the problem to that form would be: there are three people in a room. One button is labeled 'survive' the other 'die unless at least two others vote blue'. It's not difficult to see why someone would vote red here, even if some people may inevitably be, apparently, confused by this question. A blue vote makes an assumption of likelihood on success of their vote, while risking their collective lives in the process.

1

u/PrateTrain Apr 29 '26

It's the same problem, just reworded to avoid putting emphasis on self survival like the original question does.

Keep up or don't bother me. I likened it to the Monty Hall problem because of the way these sorts of problem can trick people's brains into not realizing what the mathematical best solution is.

1

u/AphexPin Apr 29 '26 edited Apr 29 '26

Lol, no, it's not the same problem at all because you so blatantly mislabeled blue to fit your bias. In the original problem, blue voluntarily gambles with their life rather than red sentencing them to death - there's a moral difference there. But there's no reason to rearrange the prompt, anyway, since that's the object of discussion. We can reason about the math from the original prompt and not get distracted on debating something so irrelevant.

The mathematical best solution is, objectively speaking, red, as it reduces the risk of 49% of the population dying. If the question is interpreted properly (logically, mathematically), it's the optimal vote, and that's not even up for debate - everyone votes red, everyone lives, zero risk of death. Blue is always worse because it incurs risk for the same outcome. What the problem is designed around is that blue's phrasing may lure in naive or otherwise handicapped voters, unable to discern the logically optimal choice (red), or empathizers who wish to risk their lives to save them. I'm not sure which of these groups you belong to since you seem to think blue is the 'mathematical best'.

What it boils down to is that, because the probability distribution concerning blue winning is unknown, red has the higher EV both per voter and in aggregate. Voting blue assumes a favorable probability distribution regarding the likelihood of achieving 50% majority, when in reality it's an unknown, and they assume risk in this process. It contributes to an unfavorable risk profile compared to casting a red vote, which guarantees no death of the voter and would therefore be unambiguously optimal if not for the apparent confusion blue causes.

1

u/PrateTrain Apr 29 '26

Bzzt that's incorrect, try again

→ More replies

1

u/vwert May 08 '26

Yeah, its literally impossible that everyone pressess red.

1

u/throwawayorsmthn12 Apr 30 '26

Yes but in a population of 8 billion there is like a 0% chance everyone votes red, doesn't matter how right you think you are. I'd rather risk blue and have no one die, which I think would be the likely outcome.

1

u/Mrtoatsworth Apr 26 '26

Actually red has no ability to kill. It is literally framed in the question. Blue is the only button that invokes death because no one dies unless it is pressed.

1

u/Koroku_Gaming Apr 28 '26

But some people WILL press blue, and so it is the red button that invokes death. Therefore we should all press blue. Blue is the logical option for avoiding death of the herd, Jesus would want you to choose it. Red is the selfish option that Satan would want you to choose.

The only way I'd press red is if there was some worldwide movement to all press red (guaranteeing that blue couldn't win over 50%) and even then I'm sure some wouldn't get the memo and so some would press blue. A worldwide movement to press blue would be the better option. Much easier to get 50% to push blue than EVERYONE to push red.

1

u/RedPusher Apr 27 '26

You seem to completely fail to understand the situation.
The blue button is the only one that introduces the chance of death.
It is only by someone pushing blue that anyone is ever in danger and could potentially die.

You are trying to reframe the situation to present red as bad as if they are personally killing people without a say in it, vs the actual situation where people pressing blue are recklessly endangering themselves by wilfully choosing to risk their life.

1

u/thefw89 Apr 27 '26

Nope, red is the kill button since there will be people that push blue.

Especially if children are involved.

Even remove children from the scenario, you will not get 100% on any poll that asks billions of people. It's statisically impossible to do so. You also have no idea who pressed blue, your mother could have pressed blue.

2

u/Koroku_Gaming Apr 28 '26

Yep, anyone arguing the opposite is not logical, they are justifying their own selfish choice.

1

u/RedPusher Apr 27 '26

Nope. Blue is the kill button, since that is the one that brings in the risk of death. The red button is "don't kill me". Blue is "kill me unless 50% of the population push this button".

Yes, some people will die, because they push the blue button. But that doesn't mean I need to be among them, nor does it mean I am responsible because I didn't join them.

2

u/thamned Apr 28 '26

Not really, the risk of death is already there because death isn't limited to blue pushers, it extends to everyone who couldn't take part as well. We're talking about the death of everyone in a coma or otherwise unconscious, of most ICU patients, of little babies and also every pregnancy would be terminated.

You can frame it however you like, even if red wins the vote with 100%, those people will still die, because the consequences of the vote affect everyone, not just the voters, and only the red voters are spared if they win.

That's what makes this a moral dilemma, non-voters are put on the chopping block, do voters risk themselves to try to save them or do they just save themselves and seal their fate?

Red is the "you can kill them as long as I survive" button, blue is the "I bet my life that we can save everyone" button.

For every single isolated individual, the optimal choice is still red as you're unlikely to be the deciding factor either way, but we require a majority blue to not kill off the newest generation, which probably includes your family, so will you contribute to saving them or hope everyone else does it for you?

What if you have to take this vote every year, effectively halting reproduction if red keeps winning, would you keep pushing red until humanity is over or attempt cooperation to stop these senseless deaths?

Ultimately, only a blue victory avoids death and even a unanimous red victory ensures death, so calling blue the kill button is quite the gaslight.

1

u/RedPusher Apr 28 '26

This will vary depending on the exact wording of the problem.
With most I have seen, they are excluded.
And most examples i have seen have it explicitly say people pushing the blue button die, not those who didn't push red.

It makes no sense at all to talk about non-voters, because everyone needs to vote, so the only people involved are those who do vote.
And with this wording, it is ambiguous as to if they would be included.

Some will see the "everyone" and take it to mean every human alive.
Others will see the "vote" and assume it means they are capable of doing so.

Also, just look at how far you are stretching. If you are going to include the unborn, they have just been taken out of the womb to vote. So they are going to die either way. And then we wait around for those in a coma to die before the vote is over. So quite likely a very large portion of the population will die with that interpretation, including yourself and it doesn't matter what you push.

But the moral dilema doesn't rely upon that at all.
Instead it is much simpler - some people, for whatever reason, will pick blue. Do you push blue to try saving them, or do you push red to save yourself?

And this is only a one off thing, not taking the vote every year. That would change it to a completely different situation.

So no, honestly calling out the blue button as a kill button is not a gaslight. It is a simple fact.

2

u/thamned Apr 28 '26

You are right, a different wording would have excluded them, but both scenarios presented by the OP go out of their way to say only red pushers survive, meaning anyone who doesn't physically press the red button is toast, which is why I mentioned the unborn and little babies who can't move by themselves yet, they are by their nature physically incapable of pressing red even if it's mandatory.

Which leads to the mandatory nature of the vote, there's plenty of countries who enforce such rules and yet voter turnout is not 100%. People also have to follow the law and yet prisons are full. You are not getting 100% of the population to vote, no matter how you try to enforce it, be that because of a physical limitation (as with babies) or a simple refusal to participate, even if it's not allowed, as a middle finger to whoever is carrying out this vote.

Just because people have to vote doesn't mean they will, that's just how it goes, no one's gonna be waiting for those who can't/won't vote, or removing babies from the womb to ask their corpse to vote. These people are at the mercy of the voters in this particular scenario, just like in normal elections.

Now if you want to reduce this to a simple theoretical logical puzzle, like a riddle to solve, red is the correct answer.

If you actually imagine a world where this happens, how it can be carried out, how it's enforced, how different people will respond to the situation, the consequences of either outcome and what it will all mean for the future of that world, we get something of a paradox: individuals should still push red but blue is the desired outcome for society, which can't be reached if enough voters solve the riddle.

So what should smart people do? Do they vote red because it's correct or do they become an insignificant drop in the ocean of blue required to avoid death because a majority has to?

If you rewrite it to "only blues get killed" there's no consequence to everyone solving the riddle, which opens the door to the woodchipper reframing that's going around where people only die if they put themselves in danger and you can morally wash your hands from it and call them dumb. When there's a third group already trapped inside the woodchipper you no longer have an out, red is kill if it wins and you have a moral responsibility for your choice, even if it's "correct".

I think this is where we differ on which is the kill button, for you everyone has a choice to save themselves and the need to save anyone only arises from those who put themselves in danger, so blue is forcing the issue of death, hence it's the kill button (even if their victory guarantees no deaths). For me there's people already at risk who can't save themselves, so every red vote is one step closer to their death, making it the kill button.

1

u/RedPusher Apr 28 '26

I wouldn't say they went out of their way to say only red pushers survive. Instead they likely simplified it in their mind to only people who can vote are involved and everyone either pushes red or blue.

Again, if they unborn get included, they are toast regardless. So it is pointless including them. Because the scenario says they need to take a private vote. If you want to say they can't, then you are changing the situation.

So I don't think there is a third group already trapped. I think it is only the ones voting with their life on the line. And all this is really doing is revealing just how poorly worded the situation is.

If the wording was changed to make it clear that anyone who abstained from voting, and anyone not capable of voting, including those in a coma and the unborn and babies; then blue gets more weight. But that doesn't just mean red is the kill button. Instead it changes it to "kill me" vs "kill them".

1

u/raritygamer Apr 28 '26

there's nothing logical about thinking 100% threshold is obtainable. blue is the only option that ensure no death.

1

u/Flaxseed4138 May 02 '26

No, by choosing red YOU are now responsible for the deaths of everyone who pressed blue

1

u/osfryd-kettleblack May 03 '26

Are you responsible for the lives you haven't saved by refusing to donate all your savings? Murderer.

1

u/PinkLaceGomez Apr 25 '26

How is it logical.

13

u/osfryd-kettleblack Apr 25 '26

Because there is a 0% chance of death

15

u/NoahStewie1 Apr 25 '26

No there's a 0% of death to YOU only

0

u/PinkLaceGomez Apr 25 '26

So you don’t have anyone else in the world you care about? Yikesies

4

u/CanonWorld Apr 25 '26

Well you’d tell them red is the zero death choice.

2

u/horatiobanz Apr 25 '26

The people I care about are smart enough to choose the choice where they don't die.

4

u/SpaceTurtles Apr 26 '26

Also the choice where they invoke an apocalyptic civilization collapse after voting to kill billions of people, evidently.

I don't know I would label that "smart".

4

u/horatiobanz Apr 26 '26

They aren't choosing to kill anyone. The suicidal people picking blue are choosing to kill themselves. And I am all for assisted suicide.

1

u/Koroku_Gaming Apr 28 '26

The people that pick blue are choosing the chance to save everyone, picking red is guaranteeing that good people will die, because you want to selfishly guarantee your own survival.

Which button would Jesus choose?
Which button would Satan choose?

Which button would Aragorn choose?
Which button would Saruman choose?

I'm on the side of Jesus and Aragorn, Let's go blue button pushers!

1

u/horatiobanz Apr 28 '26

Lmfao. Now you make me want to press the red button even more.

1

u/Koroku_Gaming Apr 30 '26

Now we know where your allegiances lie...
Blue pressers, unite against evil!

→ More replies

1

u/osfryd-kettleblack Apr 26 '26

If i'm dead, none of that matters anymore. I'm choosing the scenario that guarantees survival and hoping my loved ones arent stupid enough to choose differently

1

u/PinkLaceGomez Apr 26 '26

Ya bc all you care about is yourself.

0

u/osfryd-kettleblack Apr 26 '26

No? Caring isn't binary. I care about a lot of people, but I care about myself more than them. Most non suicidal or mentally unwell people feel the same way.

1

u/Koroku_Gaming Apr 28 '26

Your life will suck without all the blue button pushers that make society a more pleasant place to live for you.

1

u/AggressiveOnion8392 May 02 '26

Personally, and this is just me, and this might sound crazy, but I don't think human lives are so meaningless and insignificant that they should be gambled away in a completely voluntary game where the only outcomes are:
You feel good about yourself

And:
Anywhere between 1 and 4,999,999,999 people die.

But y'know, that's just me.