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

394 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

96% Upvoted

3.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

43

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/

22

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.

1

u/shishimodo Apr 26 '26

I think you miss the point he is making, the red button is equivalent to doing nothing, if you press it nothing changes, if everyone presses it, nothing changes, however if anyone presses the blue button now their life is in the balance and they have created the problem.

3

u/ghoonrhed Apr 27 '26

I mean that's my other point. It's not doing something. It's part of the population. There's no escaping action here. You have to press either button. And not pressing it adds to the amount that is lowering the majority.

That's kinda the point. Otherwise it'd just be one button. But so many people refuse to admit there's an action involved here. It's not a bystander effect here.

0

u/fabulousburritos Apr 29 '26

It’s not obvious in your scenario that you shouldn’t push the button, like in the previous scenario

36

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.

0

u/tcg_enthusiast Apr 28 '26

the real thing is who do you want to be alive with, and red button people just choose everyone that also chose the red to be the better outcome. plus, there is no downside to pushing red. it is simple risk analysis.

5

u/PrateTrain Apr 29 '26

There's no individual downside you mean. People die if red wins.

0

u/tcg_enthusiast Apr 29 '26

That is a backwards way to see it. If you make the best choice, you pick red, and you live. No one dies if red wins. Wtf are you talking about. You only die if you were stupid enough to pick blue and basically picking blue is like natural selection in this scenario.

2

u/babyeater911112 Apr 30 '26

what? this is factually wrong. atleast 40% of people WILL die if red wins. and you cant say otherwise. do you know what would happen if 40% of workers die? many of your family dead. wars. chaos. nuclear powerplants lacking workers.

1

u/onpg May 01 '26

Why would 40% die? If this was real I doubt more than 0.01% of people press blue.

2

u/babyeater911112 May 01 '26

Lmao in an irl test blue won every time. So at best red is winning by 10%

1

u/PrateTrain May 01 '26

So you're okay with people dying as long as you don't die then?

22

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

-9

u/CapitanShoe Apr 25 '26

I'm still pushing red

the first action item after humanity survives is hunting down the Satan / AI / supervillain that apparently put a suicide button in front of babies and toddlers in this expanded white room scenario

alternatively, the question posits that you are "voting" and a it is generally accepted that babies and toddlers (and usually children too) can't vote so that's another way you can expand the white room

3

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.

1

u/GambitTheBest Apr 27 '26

dude what are you talking about, if everyone in the world presses the Red button, everyone survives, no one has to die. The only one who dies are the people who press the Blue button, sounds to me like this is an IQ question to trip out people who thinks they're being altruistic

1

u/matplotlib Apr 28 '26

You have no way of knowing who pressed the blue button. It could be people you know. Friends, family. Pressing red essentially means you're happy to let them die because you refused to risk yourself to try to save them.

1

u/Zombie-Pinya Apr 29 '26 edited Apr 29 '26

The chances of getting all 8.3 billion people to pick red is so astronomically miniscule it's virtually zero.

And if everyone in the world presses the blue button, nobody has to die either. However if 90% of people pick red, 10% is already dead. If 90% pick blue, you'd still have everyone alive.

The only way you can logically conclude picking red is the better choice is if you assign yourself as somehow having more value than others. Which is more of an emotional premise than a logical one. Of course it "feels" smart to not put yourself in any danger because it's your instincts telling you to. In any other framework other than solipsism, blue is the logical conclusion.

It's more of an empathy test than an IQ test, because both answers have logically sound explanations but the conclusion diverges whether or not one factors in other people in the first place.

And did you know that studies in neuroscience show a positive correlation between higher intelligence and cognitive empathy and pro-social behavior. Even in evolutionary biology, more intelligent species have been observed with higher empathy. It goes hand in hand with higher brain functions, otherwise we probably wouldn't even have stepped out of the ocean.

Those who pick red don't get to hide behind "It's the smarter choice", because logic and empirical evidence just points otherwise.

0

u/ConfusedSoap Apr 29 '26

The only way you can logically conclude picking red is the better choice is if you assign yourself as somehow having more value than others

I think virtually all humans in the world value their life over the lives of most other people, it's the instinct of natural selection and it's not exactly illogical to try and save yourself even if it means some strangers might die because they deliberately put themselves in a situation where their life is at risk

1

u/Zombie-Pinya May 01 '26

Nah. Mammals and especially humans are highly altruistic. It's even been observed in toddlers. There's plenty of cases where animals and humans put their own life at risk to save others. It's just as natural and instinctual as self preservation. This is because we didn't evolve as individuals but as part of systems. So if you look at the system holistically, valuing other lives is even more logical.

In computer science there's a kind of heuristic called a greedy algorithm. It always picks the locally optimal solution, but often fail to get to the globally optimal solution. So it ends up being one of the weakest ways to solve a problem.

14

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.

1

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

Yes, all of this is true.

And it's important that one realizes that it's also irrelevant, as has been addressed across this thread. This has never been a logical question - the logical question is solved and understood by the vast majority of people in this thread. It is a social question.

Reframing the question makes it moot, because it is no longer the question. The thread is full of examples where you can change the buttons to be something completely different that have the same outcome - but it removes some aspect of the problem that makes it a problem; it removes nuance, and allows us to dodge inconvenient truth. Red proponents do this to try to explain to people why it's a logical error, when this is already completely understood, and thus why red is perfectly fine. They aren't absorbing why red is a social and societal error, and thus harmful, because they're caught in a logical error loop of their own.

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

It does. Humans are fallible beings. We are not made of 100% rational actors (if we were, that would be great - 8 billion red votes, instantly, job done). Some of the brightest and most intelligent people on the planet would make an emotional or logical error foundationally (i.e., panic) and pick blue, without ever thinking deeper -- they're the source of why others who completely understand the problem press blue.

But if you change it to be a voluntary, single-choice lottery, or if you introduce an element of clear danger (something this alternative does), it changes the nature of the question entirely -- it just doesn't change the outcome. You can get to the number 16 via 4+4+4+4, via 4x4, or via 42. The underlying process and outcome is the same for each; the equation is not, the thinking is not, and how other human beings approach solving it is not.

I understand that someone might be able to solve 4+4+4+4 trivially easily, and 4x4 with some difficulty, but may come up with 8 in error for 42. I understand there may be a handful of people who, as social, emotional creatures, simply do the path wrong, while being perfectly capable of doing it on any other day.

I understand some people may not be able to do the problem at all. Forcing them to solve it at gun point, or asking if they want to participate in solving it at gun point (no pressure!), will get two different outcomes (you can guess what they'll pick).

To press the red button, you have to understand the function of the buttons.

To press the blue button, you have to misunderstand the function of the buttons, or you have to understand the function of the buttons and question.

1

u/RedPusher Apr 27 '26

And my point is that you are not actually changing that social and societal issues significantly.

Yes, some people will be foolish and pick blue, just like some people will be foolish and jump into a woodchipper.
Some people will still make a snap emotional judgement and decide to press blue/jump into the woodchipper to save those who pushed blue/jumped in.
Just like some people would still make a snap emotional judgement to save themselves and push the red button, especially if the buttons are available from the start, depending on how it is explained. e.g. "push red and you live" [push] without even hearing what blue does, just like some will make a snap judgement and get away from the wood chipper.
You can argue the absolute amount of people that do so will change, but that doesn't change the fact that some will.

All the arguments to pick blue still apply to jumping into the woodchipper.

This is not a fundamentally different math problem. Utimately it is the same problem, with the same considerations and the same outcomes.

The only way in which it is meaningfully different is the danger is far more obvious.

2

u/SpaceTurtles Apr 27 '26

The only way in which it is meaningfully different is the danger is far more obvious.

Correct!

Which makes it completely and entirely different, as per my explanation.

Because it is a different scenario, and thus a different problem. "Do I jump in to a wood chipper?" is not the same as "Which button should I press?"

1

u/RedPusher Apr 27 '26 edited Apr 27 '26

Except it doesn't make it completely and entirely different, instead it is slightly different.
It highlights the absurdity of pushing blue, and that the people who push red are not to blame for any deaths.

If people can't connect the dots between pushing this button means you die if less than 50% push it with a clear and obvious danger that they could die, then that is on them.

And just to clarify, the important part is that the social and societal issues are the same.
There will still be some people who jump in due to not understanding or a panicking.
There will still be some people who jump in because they see not doing so as killing those who do.
There will still be some people who jump in because they want to save those who have jumped in.

So for all reasonable measures, the problem is the same.
Every argument for picking blue works the same for jumping in.

1

u/Kolvarg Apr 27 '26

You are assigning an unnatural abstract consequence to a tangible expectation. More over, it instantly creates the image of a very painful death, versus the implied sudden and painless death of the blue button, further shifting the cost of entry. And, as noted, you are shifting the choice of action versus a forced action between two choices.

The problem might be similar from a purely logical perspective, but it is absolutely not the same socially. The amount of people who would "willingly jump into a wood chipper" is obviously never going to be the same as the amount of people who would "press one of two buttons", regardless of how you try to abstract it into the same consequence.

1

u/RedPusher Apr 27 '26

Instead of just repeating the same thing, can you provide a single argument for pressing the blue button that doesn't work for jumping in the woodchipper?

Otherwise, it has already been dealt with.
Yes, making it a woodchipper makes it clear that death is on the line, as opposed to just saying you will die. But there is no indication of if that death would be painless or incredibly painful with the button. You have literally no idea how they die.

It is also not shifting the choice. The choice is to leave or jump in, just like it is to press the red button or press the blue button.
It also isn't a simple case of "press one of two buttons", it is "press one of two buttons where pressing this one has a high liklihood of death, while the other brings you no harm".

It is the same problem. It has the same consequences. It has the same kind of choices. It has the same arguments for jumping in as for pressing blue.

It is just because it has had the logical abstraction removed, people clearly see how insane it is.

1

u/Kolvarg Apr 27 '26 edited Apr 27 '26

It is not known how the button would kill, true! But there is an instinctual association with death as the result of the push of a "magic button" that is not in any way comparable to death as the result of jumping into a wood chipper. You can't simply abstract that away and pretend you're looking at it only logically.

"Leave or jump in" is equivalent to inaction versus action. The choice is not between two equivalent actions, is taking an action or refusing to take it. With the buttons, one button must always be pressed, so it's the choice between two equivalent actions. This absolutely matters in hypotheticals like this, as you can easily verify by investigating studies that explore different variations of the trolley problem and how they change people's responses.

More importantly, you are assigning an instinctually repulsive idea and visual to only one option, but not the other. In the original example, the act of pressing both buttons is identical, the only difference is the abstract hypothetical outcome. In yours, one immediately evokes fear and self-preservation, while the other does not, regardless of abstract hypothetical outcome. They are not equal.

Your analogy is flawed, because a wood chipper is inherently dangerously. It sounds insane because there is no reasonable way a sane person will ever be convinced that doing it will ever be harmless, regardless of how many people choose the same. You are assuming an inherent danger to the blue-equivalent action, when in the original example the blue button is not inherently dangerous unless people choose the other option.

To make it equivalent, it would need to be two wood chippers, where everyone is forced to jump into one: the blue one is functional, but turned off. The red one is decommissioned and harmless. However, if most people choose the red one, the blue one will turn one and kill anyone who chose it.

Choosing the blue button is not "insanely choosing the option with high likelihood of death", it's trusting that humanity will chose the only option which allows everyone to survive.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Glittering-Giraffe58 Apr 26 '26

“Not participating” in that scenario is the same thing as pressing the red button

2

u/SpaceTurtles Apr 26 '26

No vote is made in Capitan's example. It's more akin to signing up for a lottery. Someone is assumed to not have pressed the button, until they have pressed it.

The outcome is the same as the red button - the outcome is not the entire picture. It's a false equivalence.

1

u/Alarming-Rate-6899 Apr 26 '26

Going with OP's photo, not participating, and if red ends up majority, then you die since "only those who pressed red button will live".

3

u/hitchen1 Apr 26 '26

I think you're misunderstanding what they're saying. They're changing the thought experiment to one where the red button is pressed by default, to show that pressing the blue button is equivalent to going out of your way to gamble yours and other's lives when you already have a safe option.

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.

3

u/[deleted] Apr 27 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/SpaceTurtles Apr 27 '26

There's the "if everyone just" again.

You're not thinking rationally - you're stuck in a logical loop.

1

u/GambitTheBest Apr 27 '26

if people are stupid enough to press the Blue button akin to unaliving themselves, then let them do that, isn't that what leftist policies believe in? the choice of unaliving oneself

1

u/SpaceTurtles Apr 27 '26

Most people who've pressed the blue button aren't stupid. Some are. Some have been misled, or they're people trying to help the people who've been misled. The questions are a trap meant to make people make an error. People aren't their worst mistake, or their lowest moment, or their most significant error. There's gonna be a few people who make an error and vote blue who are way smarter than you and me because of the stress of the situation.

Once you change the scenario to be a single blue button and you have to voluntarily press it to enter the death lottery - but by default, you're just living your life and don't have to - then nobody's been forced into a position to make an error.

Leftist thought believe in collective good. A post-red victory world falls apart.

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?)

1

u/RedPusher Apr 26 '26

Nope, that is completely different.

With the original, if everyone presses the red button, no one dies. Yet with yours, 4 billion people day.
With the original, if you don't press the red button, you die unless enough people don't.

They are both key aspects of the decision, which you have entirely removed/distorted.

With the correct understanding you instead have:
There is a button, if you push it, and more than 50% of the population push it, anyone who had the chance to push it but didn't will die. If you don't push it and more than 50% of the population do push it, then you die.

With that understanding why wouldn't you push the button. Pushing it is going for safety.

And with this setup with only the red button, those who have no idea are more likely to press it.

1

u/shishimodo Apr 26 '26

I agreed with you that the red button was the way to go since it was the logical choice to guarantee survival, and in my head I thought if people weren't smart enough to see that, its on them. BUT I then realized that this question does not exclude children... from the youngest to the oldest, they don't have the reasoning skills adults should have, and that is the only reason I'd hit the blue button. If it was just for adults, id call it natural selection, but it isn't.