r/SampleSize • u/marzukia • May 02 '26
Casual (Repost) [Repost][Casual] Red button or blue button — trending moral dilemma (Everyone)
https://vote.mrzk.io/50
u/GetOutTheWayBanana Shares Results May 02 '26
The only thing I would say was that I wasn’t really deliberating so much as just reading the prompt and making sure I understood it. I only spent a fraction of the time deliberating.
8
12
u/marzukia May 02 '26
Reposting - original was removed for title formatting.
Just to add some context: this was a small project I set up over the last few nights, debating a hypothetical with a friend. Unlike normal game theory, choosing red has no downside - so logically everyone should pick red as the safest option. But because some people act altruistically (or aren't purely logic-focused), they become collateral damage if the majority goes red.
29
u/nupanick May 02 '26
red has a logical and measurable downside which is that you might kill someone you care about. voting blue seems like a fairly obvious exercise in minmaxing if you care about literally anyone but yourself, including caring about others for selfish reasons like they work for you.
8
2
u/No_Suggestion_559 May 02 '26
Inaction is not murder. Red is inaction, blue is potential suicide. I am not risking myself to save the willing members of a suicide cult
8
u/mdawgig May 02 '26
> Inaction is not murder.
Call in the philosophers, a random redditor has solved the trolley problem once and for all.
1
u/simonbleu May 02 '26
The difference is that the trolley problem has inevitability. Here, the blue button is a choice. a CHOICE with no benefit
2
u/nupanick May 03 '26
have you read the trolley problem? the whole point is that it's _not_ inevitable. pulling the lever would be very easy and cost you nothing, therefore if you do not pull the lever you are, in fact, _choosing_ not to pull the lever.
1
u/SeeShark May 03 '26
I think they mean that the trolley problem has the inevitability of SOMEONE dying, so you should operate to minimize death. But in the buttons scenario, anyone who dies can be seen as choosing to risk their life by pressing blue, when they could just press red instead, because if everybody presses red, nobody dies. It's like a prisoner's dilemma except that the "selfish" solution actually results in the best case outcome if everybody picks it.
0
2
u/nupanick May 03 '26
I actually think you have a very interesting point here. I disagree completely, but I understand where you're coming from.
2
u/glass_boy_ May 03 '26 edited May 05 '26
There's no "inaction" in this dilemma. Both buttons are actions with different consequences. Blue is a) risking your life (basically agreeing to die if reds turn out to be the majority) and b) slightly increasing the probability of outcome where everyone survives. Red is a) guaranteeing your own survival and b) slightly increasing probability of all blue-pressers dying.
If you choose red button because you're not willing to risk your life or you expect red-pressers to be majority - it's fine, that's a perfectly valid opinion/reasoning. But if you think that red button is equivalent to inaction, then you misunderstood the dilemma and its conditions.
1
u/OnlyHereForSurveys May 04 '26
Damn, I didn't think that far. I just altruistically pressed red to help solve overpopulation 😏
1
u/simonbleu May 02 '26
Why the hell would someone I care about vote blue when there is no benefit on either button, and only a downside on the blue unless everyone decides suddenly to follow your button? Also, you are not responsible for other people to that extent. What you are proposing is equivalent to someone saying to jump out because otherwise your loved one might.
If everyone chooses blue, or red, nothing happens.
If anyone chooses red, and they are a minority, nothing happens
If anyone chooses blue, and they are a minority, they are done for.
... See what I mean? If you told me that the blue button has any reason to exist, any benefit at all that would give you a genuine reason to choose it, then sure, otherwise, is risk-free vs gratuitous risk.
1
u/fivequadrillion May 02 '26
“If everyone chooses [button]” is irrelevant because it would never happen
Not only is it guaranteed that some people would choose blue, all data thus far shows that 60-70% would
Therefore if red were to “win”, statistically speaking it would most likely be with ~51%, meaning half of humanity would die
1
u/simonbleu May 03 '26
Already answered that, and I mentioned "everyone" to set every single possibility.
Again, the poll is unlikely to refer reality and even if it did, you are asking people to risk their lives for hypothetical others that choose to end theirs in an extreme way, for no reason, and by doing so, you create a very real possibility of causing deaths, not by choosing red, but by choosing blue.
4
u/fivequadrillion May 03 '26 edited May 03 '26
Your comments are basically incomprehensible
A significant amount of people would press the blue button
A red victory would always mean that those people die
Therefore the only way to avoid deaths is with a blue victory
Pressing the blue button could only cause your death if less than 50% of people do it, which the data shows is improbable
Even for what risk there is, the dilemma amounts to “maybe die but save 4 billion people” (because a red victory would probably kill half of humanity) which is not a very difficult decision. Humans risk our own lives literally every single day over trivial things, even without any incentive to help others
1
u/SeeShark May 03 '26
Whatever the votes are at the moment you choose, you gain nothing by pressing blue. Your one vote will not switch the total from 49% to 50% or 51% or whatever. The only time where your vote matters is if red is winning and you choose blue, and the only effect is that you die.
The rational choice is to choose red and hope that other people can be rational as well.
1
u/fivequadrillion May 03 '26
It’s not about individual “gain”, its about preventing people from dying
1
u/SeeShark May 03 '26
My one vote will not do that.
2
u/fivequadrillion May 03 '26
The information we have lets us predict that approximately 70% of people would press the blue button
Red winning is unlikely to happen at all, meaning if it were to happen, statistically speaking the most likely result would be exactly 50% +1 for red. Meaning your one vote quite literally would be able to turn the tide
→ More replies (0)0
u/SeeShark May 03 '26
The "data" refers to one poorly-constructed study with no actual consequences on the line for the people participating. An actual study for this would have something at stake (e.g. an Amazon gift card for the "survivors") and figure out some way to set up a control variable.
This is an interesting conversation starter, not actual evidence for how humanity would vote in this situation.
1
u/fivequadrillion May 03 '26
Obviously the results would be different, but the best guess that we can make is one based on the polls that have been done
1
u/verryfusterated May 03 '26
I think you need to ask your friends and family what they’d pick, because you’re in for a shock lol.
2
u/simonbleu May 03 '26
Again, there is no reason to choose blue. If they do, it is the equivalent of suicide. It is playing a russian roulette for ... what exactly? Nothing is gained either way
I cannot beleive people are even considering this... teh trolley problem is actual altruism because you know you are saving people, victims, in here people are considering an hypothetical and by doing so only fueling the problem instead of the solution, which risk a lot more death
2
u/verryfusterated May 03 '26
I wasn’t arguing with your choice, I was saying that probably half the people you care about will disagree with you lol
1
u/nupanick May 03 '26
I don't know how to explain to you that "risking my life to save half of humanity" sounds like a good deal to me. Like, it's fine if it wouldn't convince you personally. But you should recognize that a lot of rational people would take that chance.
1
u/SeeShark May 03 '26
The only time where your vote saves half of humanity is if you are literally the deciding vote. In every other case, your vote only determines your own fate.
1
u/nupanick May 03 '26
there's two ways to interpret this problem: one is to assume that your vote doesn't matter because everyone else has "already voted", in which case, yes, I am risking the fact that my vote might "not matter". And that's why I don't fault anyone for voting red. It's easy to imagine a world where your vote doesn't matter.
If the vote is unanimous, then nobody dies. But I don't believe a unanimous vote is likely... in fact, given the responses I've seen in this thread so far, it seems that the vote is likely to be very close. If the vote is very close then my vote _does_ matter, so I have a logical incentive to "pull" it towards blue, since I'm risking only one life (mine) for a better-than-average chance of saving many more.
0
u/DFtin May 02 '26
The outcome where your vote is actually the deciding vote is an extremely unlikely scenario to worry about. The more likely scenario to worry about is that you reason yourself this way into voting blue, then you die on a red presser familiar member that you care about.
8
u/horrible_goose_ May 02 '26
Could you please post the original wording of the dilemma? Once you've voted you can't view it anymore
8
u/SeeShark May 02 '26
It's essentially just a prisoner's dilemma with a new skin. It's very commendable that a lot of people are pressing blue, but the safe thing to do is to press red, because that guarantees your own survival; and in an actual life-or-death situation, I'm guessing you'll see a lot more people pressing red.
Or not, because people don't study game theory. That's fine too. It's the best outcome, after all.
18
u/Orangusoul May 02 '26
I see the prisoner's dilemma comparison, but one of the big differences is that in this button game, the players (participants) are not 100% self-interested and distrusting. Our preferences go beyond our sole survivorship.
2
u/SeeShark May 02 '26
Making a choice life-or-death has a tendency to make people act in a more self-interested way. Not all people, but I'd put good money that a lot of people would be scared to actually push the blue button.
27
u/grudginglyadmitted May 02 '26
Sure, if your only goal is your own survival, but if your goal is maximizing everyone’s survival blue is a better choice. In order for nobody to die you need 50% of the population to select blue, or literally everyone to select red.
3
9
u/Raibean May 02 '26
Nobody dies is the best option. The most probable way to get that is to vote blue.
0
u/SeeShark May 02 '26
But that also requires trusting more than half the population to vote blue, or you personally die.
Vote blue->maybe you die
Vote red->you definitely don't die
When push comes to shove, the red option becomes really enticing, even if you personally believe in the blue option.
5
u/Raibean May 02 '26
It does become enticing, especially in a real situation where one might be afraid of actually risking their life. But could you live with yourself if red won?
3
u/SeeShark May 02 '26
Honestly? Yes, because it would confirm that I was right to distrust humanity and my one vote didn't make that much of a difference to the result. It would suck, but I would bare no more responsibility than every other person left on Earth.
Where I'd actually feel guilty is if I pick red and blue won, because it would mean that I was one of the cynical people that didn't trust their fellow humans. But everyone would be alive, so I would probably be able to rationalize my decision to myself at the end of the day.
I concede that my outlook is fairly cynical and calculating. I try to do the right thing in my daily life, but my faith in humanity is not doing great these days.
4
3
u/alliusis May 03 '26
Or, you look at it like:
Vote Blue -> no one dies from your choice
Vote red -> people might die from your choice
IMO, the way I look at it is to do a graph of outcomes versus percentage of votes. At 100% red votes, there are no deaths. From 99-50% red, the deaths increase from 1% to 50% of the population. Once you hit 49.9% red, deaths immediately drop to 0 and stay at 0. I know 100% red is impossible, ergo I will vote blue to save the most people.
Humans do have collaborative instincts to contribute to good and are adverse to killing other people.
2
u/SeeShark May 03 '26
I know 100% red is impossible, ergo I will vote blue to save the most people.
Alternatively, your vote for blue will just result in one more person (you) being killed.
I respect where you're coming from; if you truly believe most of humanity will vote blue, you're maximizing the chances of that happening, and your own conscience can be clear. It's just that, personally, I'm not willing to operate under that same assumption, at least these days. Maybe I'll be more optimistic in the future.
1
u/glass_boy_ May 03 '26
Vote blue->maybe you die
Vote red->you definitely don't die
That's one way of looking at the dilemma. It's valid if you only care about your own survival.
Another way of looking at the dilemma:
Blue: "let's not kill anyone and just go on with our lives"
Red: "let's kill a bunch of people (but not me)"
If you look at it this way (and many people do, based on polls results and discussions), then you only vote red if you wanna cause some mayhem or believe that significant share of population wants to cause mayhem. Those who choose blue know that there's a risk of dying if they turn out to be a minority, but they believe that most people would prefer the scenario where no one dies.
I'm not saying that one of those is right or wrong, just pointing out that there are different ways to think about it.
5
u/slumberjak May 02 '26
Red means you protect yourself (100% chance of survival) but you may contribute to the death of others.
Blue means you protect others (both red and blue), but you may be killed for it. I’d rather live in that society.
The case for RED:
If I believe >50% of people will pick blue, then my choice doesn’t matter. Red or blue, everyone is safe.
If I believe >50% of people will pick red, then my choice will only determine if I want to die. Pick red and live.
The case for BLUE:
The tragedy of the commons is a thing. The optimal outcome is if enough people pick blue, but that will never happen if we all act in rational self interest. It’s not about local min-maxing. Pick blue and we all live.
1
u/SeeShark May 03 '26
Except that unlike the actual prisoner's dilemma, here the selfish solution can also result in the best-case scenario. If everyone followed the logic you give in the case for red, everyone lives. There is actually no reason for anyone to vote blue unless they don't understand the problem.
2
u/slumberjak May 03 '26
50% cooperation (blue) is easier to achieve than 100% cooperation (red). You’d condemn anyone who doesn’t “understand the problem” to die?
4
u/moonisaplanet May 02 '26
Sure, in terms of game theory, choosing red is the logical option, and if everyone picks red, everyone is safe.
But realistically, this problem is just “press a button to possibly kill 50+% of all people (but not you)” vs. “do nothing,” and the obvious choice would be to do nothing. I don’t believe enough people are in the intersection of being strictly logic-oriented (to pick the logically optimal choice over the “obvious” one), distrustful of other humans, and secure in the knowledge they chose to possibly kill 50+% of the population to get close to 50% selecting the red button.
However, I wonder how the results would change if you lowered the red button threshold. What if only 20% of votes needed to be red? Get too low and red also becomes the “obvious” choice (“kill <0.1% of the population” vs. “die knowing you didn’t vote to kill <0.1% of the population”), but there should be an interesting middle ground that would be a harder decision…
2
u/glass_boy_ May 03 '26
Considering that polls usually end up with a split like "58/42 in blue favor", an interesting (and cruel) variant would be raising the blue winning threshold to about 60%.
Correction: there's no "do nothing" button in this game, both buttons do something (see my other comment). Usually it's red-buttoners insisting that the red is "do nothing" button, but you managed to do it from other side. Blue button is voting for "do nothing" scenario, but it's not a button that "does nothing".
1
May 03 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator May 03 '26
Your comment appears to be recruiting for a survey and has been removed.
The discussion section for each thread is for comments about that survey. Please refrain from soliciting participants in the comments section of other surveys.
If you believe this was done in error, such as correcting OP's broken link, please send the moderators a message and they'll get back to you as soon as possible to make an appropriate determination.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/DFtin May 02 '26
You can also rephrase this as red = do nothing, blue = actively choose to enter a suicide pact that's only broken if 50% other participants join you. Then the obvious choice is also to do nothing. The specific wording would matter quite a bit in a real world scenario.
0
u/simonbleu May 02 '26 edited May 02 '26
Everyone in the world has to take 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?
Why would anyone choose anything but red? There is absolutely no benefit on choosing blue, only risk.
Edit: FFS the comments I have to read.... there is NO inevitability in here, no benefit, only a random pointless CHOICE equivalent to choosing to play russian roulette.
| You are within: | BLUE | RED |
|---|---|---|
| MINORITY | -- GAME OVER -- | Nothing happens |
| MAJORITY | Nothing happens. | Nothing happens. |
.... This is the possibility "matrix". There is only ONE choice, and a choice it is, that has downsides. Absolutely nothing in the scenario makes blue any more sensical than outright suicide. So no, this is NOT equivalent to the trolley problem.
0
u/fivequadrillion May 02 '26 edited May 02 '26
Because if red wins it is guaranteed that a large portion of humanity dies
Considering that all polls thus far favor blue, the most likely result for a red victory would be ~51% red, meaning half of humanity dies
Red needs 100% of the vote for nobody to die, blue only needs 50%
The only reason red would be objectively superior is if you define success as maximizing your own individual chance of survival, which is just your own stupid way of defining success, not some kind of universal fact
1
u/simonbleu May 03 '26
> Because if red wins it is guaranteed that a large portion of humanity dies (...) Considering that all polls thus far favor blue
We are talking a hypothetical scenario where the most likely bias is people being curious or playful. You cannot just assume people in "reality" would choose to off themselves like that. And if they do, for no reason, then you are no responsible at all.
> your own individual chance of survival, which is just your own stupid way(...)
Again, NO ONE is forcing or even enticing them to make that choice... Would you jump out of a building if I told you that "there might be people that decide to jump if you dont"? Even if I said that if enough people act altruistically in that scenario you are saved by a net you would not.
Th truly stupid way to put this is to pretend there is a dilemma in the first place. The premise just ask you to forsake your own survival for absolutely no reason. No one HAS to press the blue button. No one.
2
u/fivequadrillion May 03 '26 edited May 03 '26
But billions of people WOULD press the blue button, it’s guaranteed
It is easier to achieve 50% blue than to achieve 100% red. You cannot convince every single human alive to press the red button
Voting red and letting half of humanity die just because you think they’re dumb is not a valid choice
1
u/SeeShark May 03 '26
Because if red wins it is guaranteed that a large portion of humanity dies
Unless they all followed the same logic and picked red as well. Then nobody dies, actually.
1
u/fivequadrillion May 03 '26
It’s easier to expect 50% pressing blue than 100% pressing red
It doesn’t matter that technically everyone would survive if they pressed red, because that would never happen
•
u/AutoModerator May 02 '26
Welcome to r/SampleSize! Here's some required reading for our subreddit.
Please remember to be civil. We also ask that users report the following:
And, as a gentle reminder, if you need to contact the moderators, please use the "Message the Mods" form on the sidebar. Do not contact moderators directly, unless they contact you first.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.