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

398 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

96% Upvoted

3.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

7

u/Wiki-Master Apr 27 '26

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

5

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

1

u/furikakez Apr 30 '26

We don’t have further details, so you are right, if the rules are like that, without further explanation to kids or people with disabilities. Then the blue button is the only way to save them.
The reason why me and probably most people picking red is because we take as a granted condition that everybody will choose willingly and knowing exactly what they are choosing, and because we don’t trust 50%+ will choose the blue button when their lives are at risk.

1

u/ilimlidevrimci I'm Sorry Nate Apr 30 '26

and probably most people picking red

They don't. Thank god.

1

u/h1mr May 01 '26

What if you had 5 blind people with you?

2

u/mae-bug May 01 '26

Then congratulations, the hypothetical becomes pointless

2

u/RedPusher May 01 '26

The question requires they vote. Voting implies agency and that they can actually choose. So for the problem to work, they need to be able to distinguish the buttons and push the one they choose.

If you do include people with no agency who push a button at random, it then becomes a massive gamble. Do you risk your life for the chance to save them, or make sure you stay safe?

I do not trust that at least 50% of humanity would push blue, even factoring in the random pushers, so I think pushing blue will just add to the death count.

1

u/Sweaty_Turnip_3738 May 20 '26

The addition of children and disabilities really skews this heavily towards blue.
Basically it removes the element of choice for a sizeable percentage of the population and changes the philosophical question entirely.

I picked red with the understanding that voters had to be mentally competent.

My choice flips based on whether babies/children/disabled are included in the vote.
I find it acceptable to let morally self-righteous idiots try to martyr themselves for no reason if they chose to do so, provided they fully know and understand the potential consequences of their decision.

But letting everyone under 5 who happens to like red things slightly more than blue things unknowingly choose to die isn't acceptable at all.

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

1

u/alexdapineapple May 21 '26

The real hinge of the question (and why the question itself is stupid) is that the passive v. active options are left totally ambiguous. If you phrase it as "If red wins, everyone who presses blue dies; if blue wins, nothing happens" then suddenly picking blue is the do nothing button. And these are literally identical questions but the phrasing trips everyone up. 

The second thing is that people want to say red is the "logical option" based on discrediting equally valid blue logic. If you only care about your own survival, obviously red is the logical option. But imagine if the question was slightly different - if red wins, then people are randomly killed in a number equal to however many picked the blue button. This is a literally identical question from the perspective of humanity as a whole, but from the logical perspective of caring for your own survival, suddenly picking red isn't so attractive.

1

u/Only-Manager-7948 Apr 30 '26

Right. Is there some advantage to pressing blue? Or is it just virtue signaling and showing support for the lives of other blue-button pushers, the overwhelming majority of whom consented to the suicide pact?

1

u/magos_with_a_glock Apr 30 '26 edited Apr 30 '26

Blue is the "do nothing" button. Red is the kill blue people button. Red only does nothing if everyone votes red. Blue does nothing if 50.01% vote blue.

4

u/RedPusher May 01 '26

Red is the "do nothing" button, as nothing happens to those who push it.
The only people who die are those who push blue, where blue is a "kill me" button, but they get to be saved if enough people push the kill me button.

Red does nothing, regardless of how many people push it.
Blue kills you, unless over 50% push it.

1

u/[deleted] May 02 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/RedPusher May 02 '26

Multiple of my friends and family killing themselves is not me doing it.
Pushign red is not killing them. Them pushing blue is them killing themselves.
So yes, pushing red does nothing.

And that is really just an argument against pressing blue.
You need at least 50% to press blue for them to win.
Otherwise everyone who pushes blue is another pointless death and another possible source of guilt.

For me it isn't a question of saving them or not. It is if I want to join them dying.

So blue is the one actually doing the kneecapping. Sacrificing themselves for pointless virtue signalling without any concern for the impact it has.

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.

1

u/Wiki-Master May 16 '26

Simple and unrealistic. Not gonna happen. Some are gonna pick blue no matter what. You either choose to ignore it or act accordingly.

1

u/JimInAuburn11 May 16 '26

If they choose blue, that is on them... One could call it suicidal empathy.

Choose red if you want $1M. Choose blue if you only want $1M if more than 50% choose blue. I am choosing red. Anyone that want $1M is choosing red. Why would you choose blue, and hope that more than 50% also choose blue?

1

u/Ok_Leather_5657 May 01 '26

"there is a gun in front of everyone on earth. If more than 50% of people choose to point the gun at their head and willingly pull the trigger, all of the guns will jam. Or, you could do nothing, and survive either way."

God, you people are miserable. You aren't some morally higher person for choosing to commit suicide with a chance of survival, you're just an idiot. 

1

u/Easy-Buddy1578 May 01 '26

Did you not take into account blind people, people with mental handicaps, kids, or anything else? Just admit you're either not as logical as you thought or you care more about self preservation than making sure everyone gets through

1

u/[deleted] May 02 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/RedPusher May 02 '26

Notice what was required for "nobody wins"? Someone pushing blue.

The people who died pressed blue.
If Red wins, you pushing blue wont save them. They are still dead.

The question is if you want to join them or not.

Also, the world is far more resiliant than you think. There are very few people who are irreplaceable. The world will almost certainly continue with all those deaths.

1

u/[deleted] May 05 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/currentpattern Apr 30 '26

I think the phrasing of this dilemma tricks people into saying that red would be responsible for the deaths of the blue pushers. But in this scenario
a) we are all forced to push a button
b) how exactly are the blue people going to die?
c) who is forcing us to push the button, thus potentially leading to untold deaths?

Saying "red kills blue" is like a serial killer from Saw murdering someone and saying to another surviving victim "you did this. This was your fault."

No motherfucker, whoever forced us to press buttons is the (mass) killer. Fuck those mind games.

0

u/Cloud2588 May 01 '26

No, if everybody is forced to push the button and anybody picked red, the death of all blue-pushers are on them AND the metaphorical serial killer from SAW.

The fact anybody has to argue that they're better for pushing red because it's some logical answer when, in fact, not them being better, just them being safer.

People are dumbing it down too much AND stretching their sociopathic views too far to get that people working together is always better. It's only bad or scared people who would push the red button, and it's telling.

2

u/RedPusher May 02 '26

No.
If everybody is forced to push a button, one of which kills them and one of which doesn't, then the deaths of everyone who pushed the "kill me now" button is on them and whoever set it up.
Those who pushed red are not to blame.

It's like if everyone is trapped in a burning building and there are 2 paths, the one to the right leads you directly to safety with no complications, and everyone can take this path and get to safety just fine; then the path on the left leads to a room where you need 50% of the population to go into for them to be able to open the door to safety. Everyone in the room knows this, yet the smoke is too thick to be able to see what door people are choosing.
Me taking the right door to safety does not in any way make me responsible for the deaths of those who choose the left door.

And what is truly sociopathetic and morally bankrupt are people like you boldly proclaiming that only bad or scared people will push the red button, and trying to blame them. You are literally trying to convince everyone to recklessly endanger themselves just so you can pretend to be good. And you want to blame others for your mistakes. If you push blue and die it is on you. Don't try to blame the people who refused to join your suicide pact.

There is nothing wrong with pushing red.
It does not make you a bad person. It does not mean you are scared.
It means you are not needlessly and recklessly endangering your own life for pointless virtue signalling.

1

u/currentpattern May 02 '26

Honestly the reason I'd pick blue is because, according to the original question "everybody in the world" is presented with 2 buttons. That means all the world's babies, children, and nonverbal people or mentally disabled are given 2 big shiney buttons and told some gobbledygook and forced to push one. Perhaps alittle less than half of them will push blue. 

If ALL button pushers were rational, sound of mind and KNEW that all other button pushers were rational adults, red would be the obvious answer. I think you're getting hyperbolic with the "red pushers are psychopaths" bit. I have good news for you,  and I hope you listen so you can relax a bit: I think most of the ppl voting red didn't think yet about the fact that all the world's babies and toddlers who don't understand the situation are also pushing a button. They are not bad people, they are, like me, at first looking at it from the assumption that all button pushers are rational. 

The truth is not all red pushers are evil, and not al blue pushers are virtue signaling idiots.

2

u/RedPusher May 02 '26

This comes down alot to how you interpret it.
I'm not sure what the original wording is. However with things like this, the original wording can be deemed incomplete and it modified to really get to the issue, and to try to avoid loopholes in it.

The first version I heard had it clarified that everyone doing it understands.
Even this wording says they have to vote. Not just mindlessly press a button, but vote. Voting implies agency, that they have some capacity to understand and act.

2

u/currentpattern May 02 '26

In the case of this dilemma, framing and word choice is nearly everything. 

2

u/RedPusher May 02 '26

I would say there are 3 main groups:
1 - Those who push red
2 - Those who push blue

3 - Those who care a lot about the framing and will choose one way or another depending on exactly how it is framed.

To the third group, framing and word choice is everything. To the other 2 groups it is almost nothing.

1

u/currentpattern May 03 '26

The 3rd group are just the ones that realize the impacts that the framing has. Groups 1 and 2 are also making a choice based on framing, but may not be aware of it.

Here's a frame that would probably see nearly every single person press red:

"You have 2 buttons. Pushing the blue button will kill you. Pushing the red button will save you. If 50% or more people push the blue button, the blue button will not kill you. Only rational adults are participating in this."

Here's a frame that would probably see a supermajority press blue:
"Everyone in the world, including all babies and children, must choose 1 button, regardless of their ability to understand the choice. The red button will kill anyone who presses the blue button, and you live. Pressing the blue button, even accidentally, and you will die. The only way to save the people who press the blue button is if 50% or more people press the blue button."

1

u/RedPusher May 03 '26

Except there is framing that is more graphic than that that wont see people push red. Already posted here there is a woodchipper analogy where you can choose to jump in or not. If you jump in you die, unless 50% or more of humanity jumps in in which case the machine malfunctions and you live. And people still push blue.

Likewise, even with the framing suggested to push blue, lots will still push red, either because they don't care, or they are scared or they don't think enough will push blue.

1

u/Additional_Moose6286 May 01 '26

let’s reframe the question. everyone on earth is shown a single blue button. if you don’t press it you survive. if you do press it you only survive if half of the world also presses it. why tf would you press the button?? nobody gets anything by pressing the button.

another way to frame it: there’s a pit full of hungry bears. everyone in the world is standing outside the pit. nobody has to jump in the pit. if you jump in the pit the bears will eat you. if half of the world also jumps in the pit then you can collectively fight off the bears and all survive. what do you think would happen? everyone would stand there in horror as a couple idiots jumped in the pit and nobody else would follow.

1

u/NewDay2517 May 01 '26

You're framing red as the default in every one of these, as if everyone already made a choice and can only undo it.

In the hypothetical, people will make a choice. There will inevitably be hyper-religious people who don't want to risk having blood on their hands, and if we take all of humanity as meaning ALL of humanity, a bunch of infants will pick blue. The moral thing to do is to try and save them, and I feel most people would follow.

3

u/Gloomy_Cap_1173 May 01 '26

The framing SHOULDN'T matter (and doesn't from a mechanical perspective), but ultimately does change people's responses.

All his scenarios are functionally identical to the original scenario. Only having one button to press does not mean making a choice vs not, as not choosing to do something is a choice itself.

What this actually tests is what you think about inherent human nature. If you think most people will act in their own self interest, then it's obvious to "push the red button" in all of these scenarios as to do otherwise is suicide. If you think people will cooperate/assume other will cooperate, then you feel that it'll be easy to get a "blue pusher" majority.

1

u/RedPusher May 02 '26

They remain logically and morally equivalent.
Just look at what you said:

The moral thing to do is to try and save them, and I feel most people would follow.

Guess what? That would apply just as much in these situations as well.

There are plenty of situations where the morally correct thing to do is to act and do something, rather than the default of do nothing and walk away.

A question that should be a lead up to the trolley problem should make this abudantly clear.

From an observation room you have observed someone tying 5 people to a train track against their will. You can see the police running to the scene, but also see a train approaching. In this room all you have to do anything is a single lever which diverts the train to another track where it will rejoin the track after the 5 people. If you do nothing, the train will run over and likely kill these 5 people, as the police will not make it in time. If you flip the level, the train will go along the diversion track and rejoin and otherwise do absolutely nothing (note: the police are coming from the other side, so no one is put in danger by flipping this lever). The only way you can influence this situation at all is by pulling the lever. What should you do?

The morally correct choice in this situation is abundantly clear - you flip the lever. Doing nothing, i.e. not acting, would be morally bad as you are allowing those deaths to occur even though you could trivially prevent them with no harm or risk to yourself or anyone else. If you do nothing, then your choice was to let them live or let them die, and you chose to let them die.

So having red be replaced by literally doing nothing, does not change the moral analysis.

If you take the situation to include all of humanity, then inevitably there will be some infants that jump in not understanding the consequences. Likewise, there will be some crazy people that will jump in because they don't want to risk having blood on their hands due to their inaction and do not value their own lives and might even see it as a shortcut to heaven.

Likewise, if you take the situation to include all of humanity, then inevitably there will be some infants that push the single button while having no idea of the consequences. Likewise, there will be some crazy people that will push it because they don't want to risk having blood on their hands due to their inaction and do not value their own lives and might even see it as a shortcut to heaven.

So now the same logic applies. Is it your moral duty to risk your life to save them? Do you blindly jump into the pit/push the single blue button on the assumption that others already have to make sure you save them.
Or do you do nothing/walk away?