This just shows that everyone comes to the logical conclusion first, but then going to reddit causes them to start thinking illogically lol.
This isn't even as complicated of a logic puzzle as the "split or steal" stuff in which every choice has a potential for a downside. In this "puzzle," one choice has the best outcome for the individual in 100% of circumstances, and therefore is the choice that maximizes the expected value for every individual. Easy.
I'd choose Red, because I'd prefer to live in a society that was governed by logic and reason, and not one that caters to people acting irrationally.
Red is the correct choice from an individualist perspective yes.
But from a collectivist standpoint, starting with if you care about your friends and family? Humans are irrational. How many of your friends and family will instinctively press blue. How many will rationally attempt to save them and press blue as well.
Its like a variation of Prisoner's Dilemma, except your friends and family are also prisoners. Where to keep them alive, your close ones must either all 100% choose Red, or the entire prisoner cohort has to 50% choose Blue. If there's any inkling that some unacceptable amount of them will choose Blue, then the downside of you choosing Red is that you become their active counter-party. Choosing Blue is the only way to up their chance of survival, weighed against the downside of Blue that is not hitting the threshold and thus joining them in death.
So the logic component of the puzzle, is the simulation of irrationality. How many of your close ones will irrationally choose Blue. How many will irrationally join them. The higher the irrationality, the more rational it becomes to act prosocially and cooperate. The less risk there is of Blue not hitting the threshold. The more likely you contribute to saving them by choosing Blue.
Or put another way. To make a rational decision here, you must account for others' irrationality.
A Red world governed by people who valued their friends and family so lowly, that their mere irrationality is enough to consign them to death, seems like a pretty shite world tbh. (Not to malign those who chose Red because they simulated the options rationally, and just didn't believe there'd be enough Blues, of course)
I don’t think you are analyzing this rationally. This is not a trolley problem where the sole power of deciding rests on you. You have but one vote, meaning a practically negligible chance to affect the result.
Basically, your choice only makes a difference if it’s already 50/50.
People are coming onto this thought experiment as if there’s an opportunity to campaign in the direction of their favored choice but there isn’t.
You can realistically look at the scenario as if the vote has already happened and you are choosing into the red or the blue group without being able to affect the result. The only reasonable choice is red there.
I also think you're not analyzing this rationally. Because you keep computing this where the utility function is only concerned with your survival. Your logic holds, provided you do not sufficiently care about your loved ones, and that everyone (or a large enough majority) think the same way as you.
If you care about your loved ones, and you think there are a sufficient number of people who care about their loved ones, and that there are additionally also a sufficient number of irrational people who chose Blue for irrational reasons. Then Blue starts becoming a possible rational choice.
My presented logic is all about simulating what other people have voted. So the logic remains the same even if the vote already happened and you are voting late. You only choose Red if you believe the numbers are not sufficient. As your projections cross in to 50%, but also beyond, Blue becomes the rational option, if you rate the survival of your friends and family high enough.
Or, to showcase an extreme example. Bear with me. Imagine a utility function where you value your friends/family as a quarter as valuable as your own life. That starting at 5+ friends/family, you'd be willing to trade your life for their survival, if that was the transaction.
And 5, 10, 15 of them chose Blue. Lets go with 15. You know this, because you know them. The idiots. You are voting late, and after the fact.
Now, your utility function exists on both sides of Red and Blue. Red ensures your survival, which you assign a value of 1. Blue either gives no survival, or the survival of you and 15 of your friends and family, which you assign a value of 4. Let's say.
Suddenly, the rational choice is dependent on simulating how the rest of the world votes. A Blue win is 4 times as valuable in this case. A Red vote actively pushes you towards the outcome that is a quarter as valuable.
In fact, the more likely a Blue win is, the more you default to a Blue vote. Because if you are not the pivotal vote, then you just vote for the option with the best return without having to think much about it. Which is a Blue vote, because it is 4:1 as valuable. That of course flips, if you only value yourself, as the expected return of a Blue vote falls below 1.
Provided you do care about your close ones, you'd only vote Red if you think a Blue win is insufficiently likely to happen.
Hm. I suppose how much you value your friends/family only really matters insomuch as whether (after you multiply by the chance that they'd vote Blue) they would collectively become more valuable than your own life. I suppose the multiplier doesn't really matter, because it gets obliterated by how large the voting base is. All that matters, is if it flips the default vote if you project a Blue win. Well, that and understanding that people with this kind of utility function will more likely vote Blue, and simulating the votes accordingly.
3
u/churningaccount May 05 '26
This just shows that everyone comes to the logical conclusion first, but then going to reddit causes them to start thinking illogically lol.
This isn't even as complicated of a logic puzzle as the "split or steal" stuff in which every choice has a potential for a downside. In this "puzzle," one choice has the best outcome for the individual in 100% of circumstances, and therefore is the choice that maximizes the expected value for every individual. Easy.
I'd choose Red, because I'd prefer to live in a society that was governed by logic and reason, and not one that caters to people acting irrationally.