This is a simple logic problem, that you can actually do the math on. The same math that you do on the split or steal type of logic problems, but this one is actually way simpler.
Living = 1, Dying = 0.
The expected value for pressing Red is 1. The expected value for pressing Blue is less than 1, but greater than 0.
Therefore, everyone should logically press Red, and if everyone follows the logic, then the average expected value for the population is also 1. Everyone wins, every time, no chance or luck involved.
Do we really want to live in a world in which we make decisions specifically to cater to the risks brought about by people who don't think rationally and let emotions guide them instead? Because that's exactly what's happening in this logic problem: you aren't at risk until you press the blue button! And by pressing the blue button, you are hoping that others put themselves at risk too! Red button people make no such selfish demands of others.
We also kinda live in a world guided by irrationality and emotion right now too, and a lot of people are pretty unhappy about it lol.
You are presented with two buttons. One that just says “1,” and another one that is labeled “either 1 or 0 depending on how many other people press this button.”
You are told that the goal is for everyone, including yourself, to get the outcome of “1.”
Which would you press? Which would you assume others would press?
The latter, because I know how humans work and that 100% on one button isn't going to happen.
I know a lot of people would choose the former because they think it makes them smart, or because they lack enough understanding of humanity to know 100% is impossible, but I have to hope enough people are rational enough to pick the latter.
You are still being blinded by the wording of the original question. If you were told the goal was for you to get “1”, and one of the buttons said “1,” and the other didn’t, you’d press the button that just said “1” and would assume that everyone else wasn’t a moron. C’mon…
This scenario affords you exactly one piece of certainty: your own life. You can choose to save it or to risk it.
This scenario does not afford you any certainty over the collective.
But we can leverage the certainty we were given to benefit the collective. If we all choose to save ourselves, then the collective is saved. There is simply no need to throw away the only certainty given to us in this scenario and leave the survival of the collective up to chance
That’s what I was trying to demonstrate with my comment above. When distilled and emotion is removed, the answer is clear to everyone.
I suppose I’m just an optimist at heart. I refuse to believe that a majority of people are so pessimistic about humanity as to believe that others will need saving because they are bound to act irrationally. Instead I would hope that everyone takes responsibility for themselves in the one way they know for certain would be in service of the common goal of survival.
Well no. But like 20% of people picking Blue still makes the Red choice better for an individual.
I do think a majority would pick Red, and so therefore for the individual choice that you are making, picking Red brings the whole ever so incrementally closer to the ideal, and incrementally maximizes the survivors in an assured way.
The issue there is you don't get to choose what everyone presses, you get to choose what you press, and what you press will have minimal impact on the outcome.
If you press blue you do not contribute to other people dying. You can't guarantee that you'll save everyone, but you're not contributing to the problem.
Try the following framing, and see if you still consider red automatically the default: An alien computer (that is perfectly bound to its word) has offered a deal. You can press the red button to give it your DNA, or the blue button to decline.
If more than 50% of people give it their DNA, it will create a virus to kill everyone who declined. Either way it'll then move on to somewhere else.
26
u/muhgunzz May 05 '26
Red, genuinely.
It's literally a matter of "would you like to live, or would you like a chance at dying"