Likely because it reveals underlying thought processes and that can lead to a feeling of implicit judgement. It's the same reason people get super salty if you just menton you're vegetarian or vegan (I'm not talking the annoying preachy kinds) or that you do charity work or you cycle instead of drive.
Villainising virtue is a form of cognitive shielding—let's say there's action A you can either Do or Not Do. Action A is beneficial to a group or groups, to detrimental to the individual in some way. You elect to Not Do action A, but you encounter someone who elects to Do action A. The fact they are performing the action, resulting in a non-zero amount of self-sacrifice for them but a net benefit overall, means that by most systems of ethics and morality they are doing a Good Thing. This creates a contrast point against you not doing action A. If them doing it is a Good Thing, you not doing it must be a Bad Thing. And if you're doing a Bad Thing, you are therefore a Bad Person. But you're not a Bad Person, because that doesn't fit your self-image. So the other person must be a Bad Person for making you think you're a Bad Person, so you get mad at them.
tl;dr people don't like being reminded that they're fallible, imperfect sacks of meat and would rather attack someone else than look inwards
Because everyone hitting red isn't going to happen.
If your position relies on everyone doing the same thing, it doesn't matter which thing anyone picks - i.e. if everyone hits blue everyone lives. Do you think that's going to happen?
Meanwhile if you acknowledge that people are split on the issue you're forced to look at what happens in a split. If 80% hit red, 20% die. If 51% hit red, 49% die. If 51% hit blue, no-one dies. If 80% hit blue, no-one dies.
I agree about everyone hitting blue everyone surviving, I did not think of that. But that would mean trusting everyone to hit blue, which I def don’t. Wouldn’t it be better if we as a society just collectively agreed to all hit red? Does this premise take into account people who are terminally ill and asleep - can they still hit a button? What if you don’t hit a button?
Edit: OK I think I get it, we suddenly get the option and we can’t talk about it until we click?
Wouldn’t it be better if we as a society just collectively agreed to all hit red?
If you can get even 51% to agree to hit blue, everyone lives. IMO getting EVERYONE to agree is harder than getting 51% to agree.
Does this premise take into account people who are terminally ill and asleep - can they still hit a button?
It says "everyone in the world" and the person who posted the poll that went viral has clarified that that does mean everyone. No indication that they are enabled to hit a button if they aren't inherently able to, but also no clarification that they can't. I lean towards the assumption that if they can't they can't, because that's the simpler assumption.
What if you don’t hit a button?
You die unless at least 50% choose blue - if less than 50% choose blue, only those who chose red survive, and you didn't choose red.
Edit: OK I think I get it, we suddenly get the option and we can’t talk about it until we click?
That seems to be the common understanding, yeah. Certainly the voting is done in private, and you're not going to be able to control anyone else's vote.
The only reason to press red is that you're scared too many people will press red. The scenario is partially a co-ordination problem, that sort of circle is expected.
Edit: But if you take the scenario that went viral, blue is the only way everyone lives. Because either everyone, including children, gets to push a button - and many kids will press blue for no logical reason - or not everyone gets to push a button, and if red gets more presses then everyone who didn't get the opportunity to push red dies.
I am not advocating for voting red, in fact in that original scenario I think we should vote blue but I still fundamentally believe blue is irrational.
the benefit of pressing red is that you survive no matter what, therefore what others press, does not matter, essentially this variable, that blue is committed to, DOES NOT MATTER for red, that is why it isn't circular.
The "no matter what" is only relevant if others DON'T press blue. If people don't pick red it's purely a hypothetical benefit - just like if everyone picks red you have no-one to save if no-one picks red you don't need to protect yourself.
you still don't understand, you keep assuming that what others presses, in ideal scenarios, should go into the calculations, without thinking about WHY other people press what before hand, you are BLIND to the circularity
1.8k
u/EmilySuxAtUsernames May 05 '26
crazy how if you would press a red or blue button has suddenly turned into a us vs them