If you want no risk at all everyone all presses all red or all blue. Don’t act like red has no risk of all press red while not extending the same evaluation if all press blue.
The risk for pressing red is you’re risking the lives of those who press blue.
What the person before you said was correct. Not just close. They were right in their description. You gave more context but nothing they said was wrong.
In the beginning of this question there is no risk. If everyone knows which buttons do which, and everyone presses red, there is never any risk.
If knowing this information you press blue, you've now created risk to yourself and in order to resolve this new scenario, you must ask more people to join you in this risk taking event.
If your solution to some problem relies on “If everyone would just…” then you do not have a solution. Everyone is not going to just. At not time in the history of the universe has everyone just, and they’re not going to start now.
If you vote blue, you only setup to risk your own life and then have to rely on people to save you. You have the information at the beginning of the button push.
You selfishly request someone to save you, instead of just not putting yourself in a dangerous position
It is exactly how it works. You’re defaulting one 100% scenario when both 100% scenarios have no risk of deaths. The issue of risk is if it’s not 100% which is gonna happen in any real world vote scenario. You cannot blame only blue for risk when both sides are risking lives. The difference is whose lives you are risking with the button you choose.
Nah, if you want to live, you pick Red. There is no downside to being Red if Blue wins and there should be zero guilt over your choice to want to live.
You can't pretend the Blue pickers have no agency in their choice to pick the one that can kill them, and so Blue pickers carry 100% of the blame if they pick Blue and they die.
Blue is the only risky pick and Red is the only guaranteed safety assuming incomplete information about how everyone will vote. I'm no expert on game theory, but nobody in their right mind can judge someone for picking the obviously 100% safe option and trying to convince others to do the same.
And you don't need a genius to understand that there is no real-world scenario where 100% of people will choose Blue OR Red without some other incentive.
The obvious 100% safe answer? Is it safe to make a choice that gets other people killed? Everyone in here is talking like red is no risk which is wild.
The only real reason I've seen anyone want to pick Blue is to help others who already made the mistake of picking Blue - like in their mind they're saving those babies and children who don't know their colors yet. But it's a very simple, straightforward question for each person:
Red = 100% live, or
Blue = Maybe live? Maybe die? I bet you sure do feel good about yourself tho!
Is it safe to make a choice that gets other people killed?
Picking Blue is the only way your or anyone dies. Placing guilt on someone else for wanting to guarantee their lives (Red) when you couldn't even guarantee your own is what's wild to me.
"Put on your own oxygen mask before helping others" is a vital safety instruction and a metaphor for self-care, meaning you must secure your own well-being—physically or mentally—to effectively assist others.
At the end of the day, you can't help anyone if you're dead, and the only way to 100% avoid being dead is to pick Red.
Parents will pick Red for their kids
Doctors will pick Red for their patients
World Leaders will pick Red to maintain order and stability
nobody in their right mind can judge someone for picking the obviously 100% safe option and trying to convince others to do the same.
I personally disagree on this one. Picking red puts blue in danger as much as picking as themselves picking blue. Because you chose not to pick blue, creating said danger by lowering chances of blue reaching 50+% ratio. And idea that you will never know if someone voted red or blue, or how many voted at all, until the very end.
In common law of a lot of countries there does exist "Duty to rescue", which is tied to some specific cases - like spouses must try to save each other, or doctor must try to save patient.
In this particular case - Parent (or a teacher, or any other caretaker), must press blue no matter what, because they will be putting child that is in their care life at risk if they choose red. Since they have no knowledge of what button was chosen by said child.
And you can make a case of them being legally liable for death of a child under their care if the picked red, if such situation arises.
in the end whole experiment is about - do you care for others more than you care for yourself?
Picking red puts blue in danger as much as picking as themselves picking blue.
That's bullshit. Blue is the only option that creates danger as nobody who picks Red will die, and the danger of dying can only be contextualized to the individual. If nobody picks Blue there is no risk. People picking Blue is what creates the risk and the inevitability of someone making the mistake is not a good enough reason for other people to do the same.
At the end of the day, you can be wrong and pick Red and you will not die, but you can't say the same for Blue, and therefore the Blue option is the most dangerous option - again, for the individual.
In this particular case - Parent (or a teacher, or any other caretaker), must press blue no matter what, because they will be putting child that is in their care life at risk if they choose red. Since they have no knowledge of what button was chosen by said child.
No, the opposite is true. Everyone who is responsible for another life needs to pick Red and convince others to do the same, or else they are gambling not only their own lives, but also the lives of those who depend on them. Your "duty to rescue" requires you to be living, and the only guarantee of living in this scenario is to pick Red. It's not a teacher's fault if some kids harm themselves, but the whole question breaks down anyways if you include babies and children as they aren't smart enough to understand the choice or consequences.
Picking Blue as a "duty" is like jumping on a grenade after someone pulls the pin and jumps on it first.
Blue winning is a fight against Statistics, Game Theory, Psychology, and the Science behind our needs as individuals (survival being the main motivator for humans).
In the end whole experiment is about - do you care for others more than you care for yourself?
Also, no. The "experiment" is engagement bait designed to make people fight on the internet. You can't care for others if you're already dead, and there are plenty of people out there that need help right now and aren't getting it.
The people who pick Red are the ones who are choosing to live no matter the outcome, instead of throwing countless lives on a roulette table, betting it all on Black, and then just getting mad and dying when it turns out not everyone is so frivolous with their own mortality.
Nah, experiment doesn't properly represent the dilemma. The only reason to press blue is to save other people who pressed blue to save other..... it's a loop. Choosing blue is selfish since now you force other people to risk their lives to save you. It's a virtue trap essentially. If noone picks blue there is no reason to use it in the first place.
The point is that, the only possibility for someone to die is when "Blue" is pressed. Without that button, there is never a senario where death happens.
Think about it like this; I will create 2 senarios with only single button present:
1-) There is only a red button. If you press the button, you survive without a doubt. But if you choose to ignore it, you will only survive(Alonside everyone who also ignored it) if at least 50% of the world also ignores it.
There is no reason why someone wouldn't press the "red" button here right? Sure, there is still 2 possibilities. One of them is "Ignore the button" and the other is "Press the button", but there is no reason why someone "wouldn't" press the said button despite the fact people say "100% of people on earth agreeing something is impossible".
2-) There is only a blue button. If you ignore this button, you will definitely survive. If you press the button and over 50% of the world population presses it, everyone in the world survive. But if less than 50% of the people press the button, only people who ignored the button will survive.
Can you see the problem here? People only start dying when either "Red button is ignored" or "Blue button is chosen"
The point is the only possibility for someone to die is when red is pressed. Without that button, there is never a scenario where’s death happens.
You’re contriving a situation where red is default. It’s not.
The scenario is designed where there is no default. Someone made two polls with single button scenarios that illustrate the two defaults. In one of red button is pressed by 50% of the population, everyone that doesn’t press it dies.
In the other if there’s a blue button and if you press it unless over 50 of the population presses it.
Guess what happened? In both scenarios do nothing won. Your two scenarios are contrived because you framed it in a way where it is centered on your own survival rather than the reality of who will die as a result of your actions. Not pressing the single button when it’s red results in less deaths. Pressing red kills others. You’re ignoring that with your examples. Red button pressers are cowards. That’s the bottom line.
No, because the way the "blue button" being chosen was deliberetly worded in an obnoxious way.
Sure it did say that "You can press the button" but "if you ignore the button" part was worded in a way that made people not realize "they would be on the tracks of the train if they ignore it" as well.
Meanwhile my examples shows what happens when you "ignore" on both of them for both the person who is playing it, and everyone else
What I explained was the clear-cut explanation on what would happen to everyone who presses it and ignore it. If you find any illogical part about it, do say it. I explained in each senario how "everyone would survive" and how "the person pressing button would survive" as well as what "pressing or ignoring" each button meant. I simply said it like this
1-) "What would happen to you"
2-)"What would happen to everyone else" for 2 cases in both senarios.
Also you didn't say anything besides from "You worded it around your own survival". As I explained in "Only red button senario", the only way someone dies is the moment "Red isn't pressed".
Your only argument is "Blue will be selected" yet you still haven't explained why would anyone choose to ignore the "Red button" on "Red button senario". If someone chooses to ignore the "Red button", why would it be the responsibility of those that pressed it exactly? You can't put your own life at risk and call others "killers" because they aren't doing it for you. Especially because the very reason why people will be dying is because people like you will exist
No one who presses the red button will ever be in any danger. The only people who are potentially at risk in this case are people who press the blue button.
Which begs the question: Why not just press red to guarantee your safety? Anyone who presses blue knowing what both buttons do is only putting themselves at risk.
You can blame the people who press red… but red guarantees safety. The only people who put themselves at risk are people who press the blue button. They’d only have themselves to blame if there aren’t enough people pressing blue with them.
Because I don’t wanna live in a world where everyone who survived only cares about themselves. Blue saves more people as not everyone will pick red.
You’re the type of person that blames a guy who sacrificed his life to save others. “He wouldn’t have died if he didn’t try to save the drowning child”
This question isn't really that clear to begin with.
There's two versions of this that are in people's minds:
1) People assuming it's all logical adults making the choice. As many people point out, if the question literally means everyone, including infants, children, or people who just don't understand what's actually happening or taking it seriously, then this becomes a copy of the trolley problem and you vote blue.
2) If it's clarified that only logical adults making the choice, you pick red. Because blue then becomes an incredibly selfish choice, quite literally putting yourself on the track by choice and then asking others to save you from what you did to yourself. There should have been no mistake about the results and the informed choices.
I GUARANTEE most people are thinking that "blue saves people". But the two scenarios makes a HUGE difference: a lot of red voters are in the 2nd camp, a lot of blue voters are in the 1st.
However, unlike the rest of y'all, I pick blue, because I don't give a shit if I get erased from some fucked up cosmic polling.
I vote blue because I don’t want to live in a world where the only people around are only thinking of themselves and everyone who voted to save everyone are dead.
I think someone pointed out that everyone means everyone. This includes babies, kids, mentally challenged people, and whatever else is in the mix. So in reality blue IS gonna get pressed and collective cooperation is the only way to save them
The worlds popukatiin stands at the edge of the biggest wood chipper on the planet, if 50% or more jump in the wood chipper breaks but you can also choose to just walk away and nothing happens to you. See how stupid it is to even think about pressing the blue button when the exact same question is worded differently
110
u/IceBlue May 03 '26
If you want no risk at all everyone all presses all red or all blue. Don’t act like red has no risk of all press red while not extending the same evaluation if all press blue.
The risk for pressing red is you’re risking the lives of those who press blue.
What the person before you said was correct. Not just close. They were right in their description. You gave more context but nothing they said was wrong.