If more than 50% press blue, everyone survives. Red pressers always survive (opens in new tab)

This is like a prisoner's dilemma, but with no payoff for the risky option.

In a prisoner's dilemma, you can choose a risky option (stay quiet), but the potential reward is that if the other prisoner also stays quiet then you both go completely free. But if one prisoner instead speaks up and accuses the other prisoner, the accuser gets a short sentence and the one who stayed quiet gets a max sentence.

But in this scenario, there's no payoff whatsoever for the risky option (pressing the blue button). 100% of people choosing blue and 100% of people choosing red lead to the exact same outcome. So why would it ever be rational to choose blue?

This "dilemma" would make more sense if getting over the 50% blue threshold caused some additional positive outcome, like world peace or a cure for cancer.

This question has multiple layers of thinking:

1. People who can't read pick randomly.

2. People who can read, but are too dumb to model or care about other people pick red.

3. People with enough intelligence for basic cognitive empathy pick blue.

4. People a little smarter and think through game theory overall pick red, and think they are smart for doing so.

5. People smarter than #4 and capable of seeing the big picture realize they don't want to leave people who choose #1 and #3 dead, so they pick blue.

6. People who realize the game theory optimal strategy is to announce you're pressing blue and convince everyone else to press blue, but privately press red.

There are probably more layers to this but the whole debate involves people getting upset at each other and accusing people of being in groups they are not. Red group #4 accuses blue group #5 of being #3 (not thinking beyond basic cognitive empathy). Blue group #5 accuses red group #4 of being group #2 (too dumb to model how others act). It's almost a perfect ragebait question.

As for which camp I am in, I am pressing blue and think you should too.

Hello, Blue Presser here.

We learn something about humanity based on the results of the poll. It's naive to think that 100% of people will press the red button. Some people will die if red wins. I think pressing red is selfish and violent, in that it can result in the death of human life by their own unwillingness to cooperate.

If we are not willing to work together in order to protect each other then I have a very pessimistic long-term view of our future. If every blue-presser dies, then our average cooperation level will only decrease, and the population will be over-saturated with defectors. I'd rather just go out now then deal the those consequences.

I love this thought experiment.

If you pick red you survive.

If you pick blue and at least 50% of people picked blue, you survive, otherwise you die.

There's 0 advantage to picking blue, none what so ever, the only reason you'd pick blue is because you assume there's some subset of people that is so unbelievably stupid that they'll pick blue. You're sacrificing yourself in the hope of saving them.

IMO, the reality is that everyone you think would pick blue would actually pick red. Very few people are that stupid, and even if they are they probably also have access to someone not as stupid who will tell them to press red.

The only people you'd be saving are other suicidal white knights that pick blue to save those imaginary "blue pressers", and the outcome of that, since that blue pressing base doesn't actually exist, is that you're all just committing collective suicide for absolutely no reason.

What "blue pressers vs red pressers" says about our society is best left to philosophers.

I imagine this making more sense if this were framed with the backdrop of living in an authoritarian state, with progressively worsening social conditions.

You can choose to protest (blue button) and if over some threshold of people then conditions reset. Otherwise protestors are killed off, and red buttoners survive, but with increased oppression.

Sorry for bringing the mood down with this topic. I'll go back to playing Papers Please! now.

Considerations:

* many people (at least toddlers, people with dementia) are going to press blue roughly by accident. See the lizardman constant

* other people will not want to be responsible for any deaths and will press blue out of a sense of moral imperative

* many other people are going to take this into account and vote blue out of hopes we can save everyone

You should vote blue.

The problem posted is being taken at face value by some and being interpreted outside of a vacuum for others.

The reality is that we don’t live in a vacuum and the framing of red vs blue is almost certainly not an accidental alignment with political colors. If you are in the US, voting blue is also highly correlated with broader empathy characteristics.

It’s telling that some folks think 100% voting one way is just as attainable as more than 50% voting a certain way. The strong irony here is that they themselves would likely not change their vote to help get to 100% no matter which direction that happened to be. This is also why we are roughly split in half with only a small percentage actually voting differently than their identity politics allow.

Some people seem to be convinced by logical reframings, like "if you jump into a woodchipper you die, but if 50% of people jump into the woodchipper they all survive"

A logical reframing is not equivalent though! We know everyone else gets the same frame, and most of the problem is predicting what other people will do when presented with this particular two-button frame.

The only reason to pick blue is to try to do the "morally correct" thing to "save" the other people who picked blue.

If you're the first person in line to vote, picking blue is neither logical nor moral. There are no other blue choosers who you need to support. "But there will be people who vote after me" well that's their decision to make. "People will vote randomly" okay well if they can't take living or dying seriously, that's kind of on them. Choosing the zero risk option when everyone else has the exact same zero risk option isn't selfish.

It's not selfish to choose red because everyone else has the choice to choose red. There's an unknowable risk with choosing blue. Choosing red only exposes blue choosers to the exact risk they decided to take.

Reframe it to eliminate the silly savior complex and it sounds ridiculous:

There's an infinitely long trolley track. You can let the trolley continue down the track, or you can divert it in your direction. You might get smooshed by the trolley by diverting it, but at least someone standing further down the track won't divert it and smoosh themselves.

I would push red, and advise my family, friends, and anyone who would listen to do the same. I would not try to force anyone's choice.

I believe some would choose blue: out of a desire to help others or as a mistake (they meant to push red but accidentally pushed blue).

I do not view those who would choose to press blue as bad people, or as "stupid".

Likewise, I do not view those who press red as selfish or immoral.

I am bothered by comments in this thread which say that choosing blue, or choosing red, is the only moral choice. I believe that is wrong; as stated, I don't believe choosing red or choosing blue is immoral. I do believe it is immoral to consider someone who pushes the color other than the one you choose to be immoral or stupid.

I am similarly concerned about those who claim that choosing blue would be "stupid". I think it is mean-spirited, if not outright wrong, to say someone choosing blue is "stupid".

Likewise, I am bothered by comments in this thread which claim that choosing red is choosing to kill someone. To my mind, this is objectively and demonstrably false. When I choose red, that alone does not kill someone. Someone is only killed if I choose red and that person chooses blue. If you think I killed someone by choosing red, I am curious (genuinely) why you think a person choosing blue, out of their own free will and being sound of mind, is any less guilty than I am? After all, they are potentially choosing to kill someone: themselves.

I like this framing:

> Every person in the world is provided a gun. If a person wants to, they can shoot themselves in the head. However, these guns are special so that if more than 50% people in the world shoot themselves in the head, the guns will all jam and everyone will survive. Or, the person can choose to set the gun down and walk away.

So a 100% presses red and everyone survives too.

That’s basically why dictatorships are so hard to overthrow. In real life the game is slightly different, if you choose red (don’t protest) you get a negative outcome. But if you choose blue (protest) you risk being jailed (a very negative outcome) unless enough people also choose blue, in which case the outcome can turn highly positive.

That’s why dictators try to limit protests, not just because of the protests themselves but because they don’t want people to know how many others are willing to protest.

These are so intensely annoying.

Besides the obvious choice of not pushing any button, so very rarely -- if at all -- are there only ever 2 options. The entire "thought experiment" leans into some fantastical unrealistic scenarios and plays on peoples "fast thinking" by saying here are 2 options I made up, tell me which of these 2 groups (us or them) shall I sort you into? Neither.

I honestly kind of hate these thought problems, because they attempt to distill a complex system into a single, momentary choice, and then maximize the outcome somehow.

As if it’s the decision that somehow matters, as opposed to the systemic dysfunction and incentives that mandated the decision in the first place.

I’m an increasingly reluctant blue pusher, because I am aware that societal incentives reward individual greed when traded against societal harms; that is, those who sacrifice others are rewarded proportionate to the amount of others they sacrificed. I want to cooperate, because historically that has been the source of our collective survival and growth as a species; however, at this specific moment in time, I would be greatly rewarded if I harmed as many people as possible, as thoroughly as possible, to enrich myself.

If all you’re looking at is the binary decision, red makes sense. Except taken in the context of the wider whole, red pushers should be rightly vilified and excommunicated for prioritizing their own survival over the survival of the whole.

These sorts of problems assume that actions have no consequences beyond the immediate decision. These tests, run in places which have higher long-term expectation of social connections, give different results than in the US.

In the world where <50% press blue, you know that everyone alive (the red pushers) would save themselves rather than take a risk helping you or those who aren't clever at game theory problems.

I don't want to live in that world, so blue for me. And it's the fault of everyone who pressed red should I die.

These types of analyses always treat voting red and ending up in the majority as preferable to voting blue and ending up in the minority. I don’t think that assumption is universally valid.

In the first case you contend with living in a world after a catastrophic population loss — likely including at least some of your loved ones — knowing that had some of you and your fellow survivors voted differently, nothing bad would have happened.

In the second case, you don’t care at all. Because you’re dead.

It’s an amusing thought experiment to share with friends, but I’m finding the sort of conversation here a bit tiresome; kind of judgmental and dogmatic.

I assume most people are aware there will be some blue voters. I also assume that greater than 50% of the population are more socially minded than not as if it was otherwise, in the long run the society would fail to stay cohesive.

It would be easy to self justify picking red as 'it's not unethical killing, it's self preservation' but I'd still bet on society being more socially minded than not, for betting otherwise would mean i think society as an idea of togetherness is a total illusion. If choosing red, after, it would be non existent.

Though also to me the experience of life is starkly temporary; dying early or not doesn't really matter to me so i'm not surprised other's emotional conflict varies here. But as a result personally, losing the existence of something unique to experience (togetherness) in preference of something otherwise fleeting, even the self, isn't very interesting to me.

If red pressers always survive then everyone should pick red. Its incredibly and obviously so and I'm concerned by the fact that so many commenters aren't aware of this.

I like this thought experiment, because it's not actually a dilemma, since the answer is obvious, but it creates the meta-thought-experiment conversation of trying to understand the reasoning of blue-pickers in the comments.

Whereas most thought experiments try to balance two things equally, which creates a lot of debate, this one pushes the options as far apart as possible without quite going fully black-and-white (which would sound like, "If you press the red button, you live; if you press the blue button, you die."). This creates less disagreement, but maximizes the size of the disagreement that remains.

The arguments made about wanting to protect the children/babies and those with cognitive impairments are well meaning, but I think misguided. The bottom line is that the world has been put in a shit situation and you can't fix it. Encouraging blue is encouraging an increase in the likelihood that all the truly nice and wonderful people that would would actually follow through on a blue vote for altruistic reasons wind up dead. And that doesn't seem like an altruistic position? It seems more like self-martyring. Well meaning, but actually making the likelihood of a bad outcome worse.

That would genetically remove altruists from the population (assuming altuism is heritable and assuming children also have to press button).

The world would be a more selfish place in a generation after the experiment.

Presumably parents press the button for their babies.

As a family you would have to agree to all push the same colour otherwise you run the risk of only some of you dying. As a group decision I would think everyone would agree on red as the safe bet. Also making altruistic choices for children has two edges - and many parents would put their children's interests first not some strangers.

I would describe it like this. We are all standing on the edge of a cliff. You can choose the 'Red' option. That option means you don't jump off the cliff. Or you can choose the 'Blue' option. You jump off the cliff. If 50% of individuals choose also the 'Blue' option then there will be a net to catch you so you don't all die.

So, now we agree? Red option it is every time.

One extra consideration I haven't seen flagged: if you pick Red and the blue pressers die then everyone who's left alive definitely pressed Red. Then there will be a society-wide tacit agreement that this was a fine thing to do, blue pressers were all dumb and had it coming, and no-one needs to feel bad about it. So you won't even need to feel guilty.

Another way to frame the question is "how much effort should society as a whole put into saving the lives of individuals who endanger no one but themselves through unnecessary dangerous choices?"

I feel like it's fine that wingsuiting off a mountain is legal. I don't feel a need to beg some stranger not to do it. Both myself and that stranger are perfectly aware there's a decent chance their choice will result in their death.

The divide between the "blue" and "red" sides lies in the conception of which button kills. The blues think that the red button kills the blues. The reds think that blue button kills the blues. I'm inclined to side with the latter

Is there actually a real-world version of this game, that the author is alluding to buy not explicitly mentioning?

Otherwise all I'm taking away from this article is that people don't think deeply about survey questions before answering them.

I feel like this is some sort of butchered metaphor because in a vacuum just picking a color that has no context or effect outside of the experiment framing is really easy. But it’s not that simple if there are some externalities. Say, red guarantees your survival but there’s 50% chance your pet will die. Or every red choice has a 10% flipping one red choice among your friends and family to blue. Now it’s not just a selfish choice but a choice with a known downside. This is a much more interesting game to play. Maybe even a more realistic one.

You might die if you press blue.

Ok.. don't press blue.

Is this repeated or one time?

Can you force people on red or not?

Seems difficult to guarantee you don't kill a bunch of kids each button press cycle...

Many people aren't old and developed enough to reason it out yet...

If this is repeated I'd certainly be on the team of trying to convince people to go blue... Otherwise the chance of someone randomly pressing red every time before they get to the age of 5 or whatever seems too low to guarantee the long term survival of the species... I guess it depends on how often it happens?

I don't like how the question is setup, both in wording and scenario. Saying "everyone will die unless >50% press blue" sounds more impactful. And pressing red is a free win in this scenario making it a nonchoice. Threshold not being announced or red having some condition would make it more interesting (and at the same time, boring).. unless the point of the question is not to make people discuss blue vs red, but why you should make an irrational decision.

Make it more balanced:

Blue: if >= 50% pressed, they survive, othervise die.

Red: random 50% survival chance, independent for every Red.

classic quasi paradoxical altruistic behavior and outcome.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism#Scientific_viewpoints

evolutionary game theory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_game_theory

If you push red, you will survive. If you push blue, you might die.

Just push red.

I would be more interesting if the vote was public.

The correct response is not to press any button, but to find whoever set up this game, and remove their capability to harm anyone.

Immediate reaction after cursory read through: A fake scenario against virtue signaling feels like virtue signaling itself.

You never press the button. Therefore, the game is never finished. Everyone goes on with their life as is.

This feels like some toxic-ass political subtweeting, though I can't definitively prove it.

Looking at this and the virality of Newcomb's Paradox, I have to wonder if Shari's Scissor[0] did in fact get invented.

0: https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/10/30/sort-by-controversial/

If everybody presses red button - everybody survives. Ez solution

if everyone were rational, and knew everyone else would act rationally, then obvious answer is to pick red, because everyone would pick red, and hence everyone would survive.

The language of this discussion is interesting.

For those arguing for red button pushing, the dominant register is intelligence and rationality. Terms such as "dumb", "idiots", "unintelligent", "naive", and "irrational", are used to describe the blue button pressers. White knight shows up more than once, as well, along side of "hero complex", "suicidal", "collective suicide", "suicidal empathy", "virtue signaling", and "gambling".

Then there are terms for the red side such as "safety", "rational", "dominant", and an appeal to game-theory.

Lastly, there is the accusatory angle, stating blue pressers brought it onto themselves, are psychotic, and "weaponized empathy".

For those arguing for blue button pushing, the overall register is complicity and harm. "Murder" occurs a lot, "genocide", "mass murder", and "kill". All accusatory terms.

Then we have "empathy", "mutual aid", "collective consciousness", "trust and cooperation". And end up with blues calling reds "sociopaths", "ultra-capitalists", "selfish", "violent", and "cynical".

Blues repeatedly invoke the vision of a world with no empathic people left and that red pressers should be "vilified and excommunicated".

There's also a strong hint of class and politics undertone in the red language that doesn't show up as much on the blue side. Religion, rural vs cosmopolitan, etc.

To me, the only heroic action possible is to be a red presser intellectually but empathy pulls them to risk it all for the blue pressers. Everyone else is just entrenched in finger pointing and identity politics.

Red pressers may be the majority. Are there enough of the heroic types of red pressers to save the blue? Who knows. But red pressers need to be keenly aware it is realistically impossible to get 100% of everyone to press the red button, so blue pressers will die without any aid.

Which would you press knowing that?

If everyone has to press a button and is not allowed help to do so, then there's various people who may not be able to properly choose and presumably, half of them will hit the blue button. There's blind and colour-blind people as well as young babies or even people in a coma, which raises the question of whether a button is pressed on their behalf.

One way round the dilemma is to make it optional as to whether to press a button and in that case, it would seem to be sociopathic to press the red button as that increases the chance that blue button pressers get killed. The best choice in that circumstance is to not play the game which is surely the moral choice too.

Silly.

Everyone will press the red button and everyone will survive.

it's a neat test to find out how many people around us are fine with genocide.

The number of people trying to use game theory here is frankly embarrassing.

This is about predicting real people!

People are not perfect rational actors.

Good luck explaining your Nash equilibrium theory to your 6 month old niece and nephew who are good pick blue because it's their favorite color.

You aren't gonna get an all red movement to succeed. There are a small minority who will vote red or blue regardless of the community sentiment - and some of those people will be kids who would probably grow up to be smarter than your game theorizing selves if they are given to opportunity to grow old enough to fully mature.

Full propaganda team blue.

Its frankly shocking just how many people here aren't Christian (or don't understand love thy neighbor) and are on the evil spectrum of DnD, and bragging about it.