Discussion Blue vs red button

[LilGhost]

for those who dont know:

Everyone on earth takes a private vote by pressing a red or blue button. If more than 50% of people press the blue button, everyone survives. If less than 50% of people press the blue button, only people who pressed the red button survive. Which button would you press? BE HONEST.

Also, if you want to ctb: if it wouldnt be for a quick way to die, would you still press blue?

My own opinion:
Blue. It is easier to convince 50% to cooperate then 100%. The question is about EVERYONE on earth. Which means infants, people with mental disabilities, children, very empathetic people and truly religious people - they all will vote. Infants will definitely "vote" by pressing random button. Not all people will read the question properly, Im pretty sure empathetic and truly religious people would not want to be someones reason of death, therefore will choose blue, so the chances 100% will choose red - are very very very slim. So it is easier to just press blue and coordinate with just 50%. I do not understand people who call those who choose blue "stupid" and saying "well thats natural selection". Like what kind of eugenics is that? People dying from diseases technically is "natural selection", but it is unhinged to justify people d eaths with that. I dunno. I just got so fu cking pissed by being called stupid on the internet, so i needed to write it here, cause Im to scared to write my opinion anywhere else and get bullied.
P.S. Im not pissed at people who chooses red, as i understand not all people are willing to risk their lives. Im pissed of at people who calls caring for other people is stupid

 

[jw_sisyphus97]

I appreciate the people who have done surveys to test what everyone believes. That allows us to guess at "correct" option based on everyone else's choices.

 

[Dejected 55]

Does everyone have to press a button? If so, how is that enforced? Is the voting invalid unless every person presses a button? IF there is no mechanism of control, then it isn't 50% of the people who can vote who need to press blue, but just 50% of the people who actually vote... which makes it a lower threshold than you might think because a lot of people will just not be bothered to vote at all.

But if you're playing the odds... pressing red makes more sense because as long as more people press red than blue then everyone who presses red lives... and you can't control what other people will do and a lot of contrarians will vote red.

 

[LilGhost]

In a case you don't have to vote, why would you press a red button?

Like…. You have 100% chance of survival if you don't press any button and you have 100% chance of survival BUT you might end up getting people killed (by adding red percentages) if you choose red. Red = no risk and survival.

Some people that don't have to vote, will still vote (just like a person with a cognitive dysfunction if tasked "press a button" might not understand why, but still will press a random button). Plus empaths wouldn't be able to survive knowing there decision killed people.

I do believe the question means you must choose. Like you are stuck in a room with two glowing buttons and you won't leave and just die out of thirst if you refuse to pick. Otherwise just not picking a button is much better option then red

pressing red makes more sense because as long as more people press red than blue then everyone who presses red lives.

If vote is mandatory. As long as everyone presses the blue, red still lives as well, so your argument above is not justifiable either. In other words we have those outcomes
For red:
1) 100% of people chooses red. No one dies
2) >50% chooses red = blue dies
3) <50% chooses red = everyone survived

Sure enough, red is the safest option for you, but imagine if someone you care for would pick blue. We know by votes that there will be a significant amount of people who's ready to pick blue (in original it was like 57%). If you choose red, you immediately agreed to sacrifice some part of the population for your own safety, because there is just no way in a gambling world 100% of the population (including people who will just vote at random) will choose red. It's much easier to coordinate with 50% by being kind to each other and empathetic

Does everyone have to press a button? If so, how is that enforced? Is the voting invalid unless every person presses a button? IF there is no mechanism of control, then it isn't 50% of the people who can vote who need to press blue, but just 50% of the people who actually vote... which makes it a lower threshold than you might think because a lot of people will just not be bothered to vote at all.

But if you're playing the odds... pressing red makes more sense because as long as more people press red than blue then everyone who presses red lives... and you can't control what other people will do and a lot of contrarians will vote red.

 

[Forever Sleep]

I'm probably being really stupid here.... What is the red button for? Is it for people who want to die? But- then- they only get to die if less than 50% of people press it? It seems likely that less than 50% would consciously press it anyway. I doubt it's as many as 50% of the world's population who want to die immediately.

Like you say though- children and the like may just hit the red button for colour preference.

What a weird set up though- that if too many people press it- they in fact- don't get their vote, have to survive and, those who chose to live- die.

Imagine if we ran political votes like that? Vote for the candidate you want but- if they receive more than 70% of the votes- the opposing person gets in. How weird.

If it's supposed to be a questionnaire to identify promortalists- shouldn't the question be: The blue button is for your death in isolation. The red button is for everyone's death.

But then- if the original questions stood, I probably wouldn't risk pressing the red button. Just in case the sadist who came up with this bizarre scenario did end up killing all the blue votes instead. Again though- I'd be kicking myself when the blue votes (mosy likely) won and those who chose red were released.

Can we get a third, yellow vote? We get to kill whoever is running this whole sadistic scheme?

 

[Dejected 55]

That's the thing. People read into things more than what they are given. The instructions say simply that if 50% of the people pick blue, then everyone lives, but if 50% of the people pick red then only the people who picked red live. That's it.

If you don't have to vote at all then a tiny amount of people will make the decision. IF only one person voted, then that person decides. If three people vote, it's a toss up how that turns out... and so forth. Do you feel confident that if most people vote that most people are benevolent enough that they'd vote blue for everyone to live? I don't have that confidence. Most people vote their own self-interest and don't give a fuck about anyone else. We see this all the time in real life.

I feel like in a real-world situation where people knew it was about life or death and not just a thought experiment... if people believed their vote actually mattered and determined whether they live or die... most folks will vote red.

Consider the prisoner's dilemma problem... You and your partner are both arrested and put into separate rooms for questioning. They have no evidence on either of you but you don't know that. All the police have to do is get one of you to turn on the other and then they get to convict both of you. But, if both you and your partner stay quiet and don't give up the other one then you will both go free. So... you have to be really confident that your partner is also going to be quiet. But are you? Because if he gives you up, then you might as well give him up too to make sure you don't go down alone. And yet, if you both just think of each other and stay quiet you'll walk. In that scenario the odds are in favor of you both being arrested because it's hard to get two people to trust that they will not give each other up when they aren't allowed to collude.

The button problem doesn't allow you to talk to others and agree to vote together... you have to decide what you think most other people will do before you cast your vote if you want to live. When the ship is sinking and people are scrambling to save their lives, you see how many people care for others and how many care only for themselves.

Meanwhile, this clearly is also a subtle left vs right thing too... intimating that the red side is the bad side and blue is the good side... but we also see how that plays int he real world too. Good doesn't always win, if one side even is good. Arguably if the powers that be conducted such a test with these buttons and planned to act on the results, could you say either side is good or bad? I mean, why even put such a thing up for.a vote unless a good number of people wanted others to die int he first place?

 

[itsgone2]

It seems you have to vote and only blue gives a chance of not surviving. So I went blue and most have, not sure if that's why

 

[Dejected 55]

So here's the thing... in game theory, which this very much is. You only control yourself and not others. So, you have to vote first according to your own survival and second according to if you can also be kind to others.

Multiple scenarios exist:

1. More than 50% of people have already voted blue.
2. More than 50% of people have already voted red.
3. Your vote will be the deciding vote.

In scenario #1, your vote doesn't matter because enough people have already voted blue to save everyone. So you can vote blue or red and you survive either way, and of course everyone else survives too.

In scenario #2, you only survive if you vote red because the reds have won the vote.

In scenario #3, you can vote red or blue and you survive either way. You can also save everyone else by voting blue.

Because you don't know how anyone else is voting... the only sure way for you to survive is to vote red. If you vote red, you always survive.

 

[noname223]

I think this thought experiment isn't working in a suicide forum. Lol. Where people don't actually want to live. Actually, who pressed the red button and why? For the sake of being selfish or for the sake of killing a lot of people?

Actually, I think this thought experiment can only work if the participants actually want to live. I would press the blue button. And I think many of my idealistic leftwing friends would only and always press the blue button with the same conditions. For me it is more about dying. Lol.

Personally, I think the outcome would be though that less than 50% press the blue button. I think the vast majority of people are very selfish.

I'm probably being really stupid here.... What is the red button for? Is it for people who want to die? But- then- they only get to die if less than 50% of people press it? It seems likely that less than 50% would consciously press it anyway. I doubt it's as many as 50% of the world's population who want to die immediately.

Like you say though- children and the like may just hit the red button for colour preference.

What a weird set up though- that if too many people press it- they in fact- don't get their vote, have to survive and, those who chose to live- die.

Imagine if we ran political votes like that? Vote for the candidate you want but- if they receive more than 70% of the votes- the opposing person gets in. How weird.

If it's supposed to be a questionnaire to identify promortalists- shouldn't the question be: The blue button is for your death in isolation. The red button is for everyone's death.

But then- if the original questions stood, I probably wouldn't risk pressing the red button. Just in case the sadist who came up with this bizarre scenario did end up killing all the blue votes instead. Again though- I'd be kicking myself when the blue votes (mosy likely) won and those who chose red were released.

Can we get a third, yellow vote? We get to kill whoever is running this whole sadistic scheme?

It assumes people want to live. Even if it means others have to die. Pressing the red button means you will survive no matter what. Even when the ones who pressed the blue button will die. It is more or less a test about selfishness.

 

[Dejected 55]

I should add to my earlier analysis... that for anyone arguing on the side that kind people would vote blue and selfish people would vote red... I posit to you this question... in what society would this test actually be conducted? Think about it for a minute. In a world where most people want to save everyone, you wouldn't pose this test at all... you'd just save everyone. Only in a world where most people aren't likely to vote that way would you even pose such a challenge that could result in a lot of people dying based on a vote. So... the society that would implement this scenario in the first place is one you'd better be voting red... and living in that society you'd know it and would vote red even if you want to save everyone because everyone who wants to live would vote red for the same reason.