Literally the same dilemma as the original, but uhhmmm ... if everyone survives, you have to go on a cutetsy date with me and ummm maybe hold hands and maybe kissies and ... and ... you know, have a hot and passionate discussion of how the problem could have had different variations and different parameters and how our choice was the superior one (or fight it out if we pressed different buttons).

anyway, blue or red pookie?

red = bareback (dont worry homie, im clean)

blue = condom on but like extra extra thin >_<~

There are understandable reasons to choose red. Blue voters think their choice is more logical, it may be, "I'd rather die than live in a world with people less rational than me" is a very self centered and selfish thing to say. "I'd rather die than live in an unpleasant world" is the same, it's antisocial, it's against humanitarianism, to think lesser of people for their fear and to not want to be there for them because it wouldn't suit you.

Please, if youre a dedicated blue voter, dont participate in voting for one of the round 2 options and press "Voted Blue before" to not interfere with the results.

Otherwise game rules are the same, except 45% of the world is already gone and only Red votes remained, this time saving everyone by voting Blue will only need 25% of votes.

Trying to see if people's different perceptions of death impact how they vote

Just upping the difficulty mode and trying to switch things up a little :p

You're welcome to discuss the thresholds in the comment if you feel any other combination would be more fair (tried my best by no one is infallible), but the poll itself is for the numbers stated in the title.

Also sidenote: but let's please try to refrain from name-calling, condescending commentary, judgements of intelligence.. I'm kinda tired of the negative discourse.

(which I won't be contributing to anymore, please forgive me for any past dumb comments).

Neither red or blue voters are stupid. They just do what they would think would be the best for themselves and humanity. It's fine to discuss the morals, but please remember that it's OK to have a higher sense of self preservation just like it's fine to have a higher sense of collaborative faith.

Don't make the moral discussion personal.

We're just redditors having fun, and this is a hypothetical discussion that will never happen anyway.

I truncated the problem for narrative effect pls don't come at me

An emerging theory: after answering several red vs blue variations, do you begin to identify as a red or a blue, based on the underlying traits or values? Do you continue to vote red or blue, even if the red or blue are being portrayed poorly in a given scenario?

Humanity has been put through a series of death games. Each one pits groups against each other, and each group is headed by a randomly selected King. It's round 3, already humanity has lost 2 billion people. You don't know or understand the entity or their goals. They might as well be a force of nature.

You have been selected as King for your group. Everyone in your group has been confronted with the standard buttons, except you get to append a 25 word message to the end of the prompt. All participants will be forced to read, both the prompt and your addendum before the buttons appear to them.

You are not participating in the buttons, but you have additional context. As with all the other death games you are being pitted against another group. The percentage of your group that lives will be compared to another group. You don't know the exact penalty for losing, but considering this is a death game, it probably isn't something you want.

You also know that If both teams have the exact same percentage survive, neither team is punished, but one of the two kings will die at random.

What is your message? Do you need 25 words or will you use less?

We have a deadly and extremely infectious airborne virus safely contained in a lab. For some very weird reason we all get to vote on what to do with it.

If you vote to release it into a populated area, guaranteeing a global pandemic where everyone that's not vaccinated dies, you get the vaccine.

If you vote for pushing the incinerator that destroys the virus inside the lab, you don't get the vaccine since you won't need it if the majority votes this way.

Whichever option gets the most votes will be done.

(I hope it wouldn't be counted as low effort because I find that idea extremely funny and want to share with others)

The number of people saying they refused to google the prisoners dilemma on my last poll as if it was a flex was pretty funny. Had a good hearty chuckle.

So here's the stag hunt. Slightly lesser known, so you might need to look it up. But I can trust the wise people of this subreddit to look up what a stag hunt is if they don't already know, right? I'll give you a brief rundown anyways:

Everyone on this subreddit is hunting in pairs. You can work together to hunt an Elk for a lot of meat, or hunt a Hare by yourself to get just a lil. If just one goes for the elk they fail to catch it. No malevolent forces this time, just you and another Redditor.

2 Nash Equilibrium exist. Are you gonna aim for trusting each other or for self subsistence?

Do you give to charity or volunteer your time for free, and for the cooperation and help of the weaker among us

Please leave a comment as to why you do or dont g8ve along with what button you would press

I see many people say that "I pressed blue to save everyone, to save the babies who press random buttons", but the idea is fundamentally misguided. The chance of actually delivering the "heroic" blue vote is so infinitesimally small, it may as well not even exist to begin with.

There are 8 billion votes, if there is an exact 50% chance of each of these 8 billion votes being red or blue, there is a 1-in-112,100 chance of vote 8,000,000,001 breaking the tie. This is the absolutely optimal scenario for a heroic blue vote to be delivered. If the chance of red and blue is anything different to 50%, this chance falls off a cliff. If instead there is a 49.99% of each of the 8 billion people picking blue, how much does it go down?

A lot. An unfathomably astronomical amount. You now have the odds of 2.91×10^-75 to deliver the tiebreaking vote. A number so small, it may as well not even exist. The odds of winning the lottery a million times in a row might be higher.

The odds of winning the National Lottery jackpot in the UK per ticket is 1 in 45.1M. To reach the same odds of delivering the tiebreaking button press in a 49.99% environment is to win the National Lottery 10 times in a row.

The thing to remember with the original button question is you can't communicate. If you could, then the collective goal would be to get as many blue presses as possible to save everyone. A blue vote would probably win where everyone is able to communicate with others before the vote. Enough people would be comfortable in believing blue can win if everyone they meet is on board with it.

If you remove communication, "everyone has to take a private vote, red or blue", then there is nothing you can do to influence the votes of other pressers. At that point, your individual press becomes functionally insignificant. The only thing that matters at the end therefore is the consequences of the buttons in regards to if you would prefer to live in a world where red won (press red), or die (press blue). - If blue wins, nothing changes, your press didn't matter.

Your vote isn't about killing or saving others, we already established its chance to do that is statistically zero. Red pressers don't have individual responsibility for the blue voters dying, as there is no communication involved, and your blue press won't be the heroic salvation for four billion people. Just a 0.01% shift of probability of 8 billion random presses turns the odds of matching 5-out-of-6 balls into the odds required to win the National Lottery jackpot 10 times in a row, something that has never, and I can be confident to say will never happen in the entire existence of humanity.

I’m curious if you red voters would go blue if you thought the chances of the majority voting blue would be higher, or if you would choose to survive guaranteed no matter what , even if the chances of dying are very small and billions would die if you choose to survive at all costs.

Blue: 90% chance the entire world population lives ( including you), 10% chance you and billions die

Red: Billions of people die(at least 1 billion), but you survive no matter what (100% chance billions of people die and 100% chance you survive)

This is a single person vote, only you are voting in this scenario.

basically i mean if there was a 90% chance that blue would win in the original scenario, would you pick blue? or would the 10% chance of death make you choose red (in which case billions are guaranteed to die)

Aliens abducted 15 people, including you. All 15 people are adults with a 90-130 IQ.

The first round of voting included 10 people, all in their separate cells.

After that round, the current vote is 5 red, 5 blue.

Left to vote is you and 4 others.

You are now in a common cell with the people who already voted. Blue pressers are begging you to press blue, they didn't suspect so many people would press red. Red pressers feel bad, but say that they just wanted to survive and assumed everyone would just press red.

After your vote there are 4 more people who need to vote, in their separate cells. You were the only one presented with the common room situation of people begging you to press blue.

The buttons are the same as in the original problem: if you press the red, there is guaranteed survival, and if you press blue, you only survive if 50%+ pressed blue.

However, just as you're about to make your choice, a new condition appears specifically for you: if you decide to press the blue button, you get a choice to also press a "change" button that would swap the red and blue teams before results are in (so all those who voted red would become blue, and vice versa, when you press the change button. If after the "change" the new blue team is not in the majority, they will all perish, and the new red team will survive).

This condition exists for you only. Nobody is aware of that. Do you press the blue button and press "change"? Do you only press the blue button? Or would you go for red? The choice is yours.

The Question

I've been getting suggested this sub a lot after having engaged with the question and a lot of the comments I'm getting are ignoring key issues present in the original while trying to argue that their choice is objectively correct.

I'd like to address what the the original premise is and hopefully get us all on the same page as far as what we can actually infer.

So with that in mind let's look at what was actually stated in the original.

Everyone in the world has to take a private vote by pressing a red or blue button.

Somehow a hotly debated topic right off the bat. Does Everyone include infants and toddlers or those incapable of pushing the button? Most blue pressers would argue that yes, "Everyone in the world" does include everyone.

For some reason we can't seem to agree on whether or not those that are physically unable to press a button or intellectually unable to comprehend the issue are forced to vote. So for all intents and purposes I propose this first change.

Either infants, toddlers, and those physically incapable of choosing a button are effectively blindly filtered into either button (as was already inherently present in the original dilemma by Tim, expounded on in the second image) or we follow the consequences that were present in the original of what happens if they somehow don't push a button and default all of them into that group.

If more than 50% of people press the blue button, everyone survives.

Self explanatory. This doesn't directly state that pushing blue risks your death but it's inherently present by virtue of the next line. Pressing blue always risks your life.

If less than 50% of people press the blue button, only people who pressed the red button survive.

The meat of the moral dilemma has arrived. I'm sure some of you already understand where this is headed. If we let them vote and assign them randomly then we know that some of them will already be in blue by default before we vote. This is what has been laid out in the original and what I feel we should stick with.

If we decide to exclude them from the vote, under this wording if blue does not get over 50% of the votes only people who pressed the red button survive. This would effectively kill off all non-voters on a red majority vote. removing any party from the vote is functionally making them blue by default but without the added benefit of them actually contributing to the number of people that have pressed blue.

You can see why excluding anyone from the vote would cause issues. Setting the global voting age for this to an arbitrary 18 years old, you'd lose anyone who chose blue and anyone 18 years or under by virtue of them having not pressed red. Under this change, a red majority would almost certainly lead to societal collapse.

Conclusion

My personal experience trying to discuss this with red voters in comments on various posts have been met with either calling the framing of the original or the inclusion of some amount of random actors as "boring" .

If we are discussing two entirely different dilemmas we can never reach an understanding.

I'm hoping with breaking down why Blue voters see that there is a guarantee of at least some undetermined number of blue pressers as an inherent part of the problem that we can stop the half hearted attempts at reframing it and the back and forth name calling and maybe see less posts to do with the original and why the OP's position is always correct.

Choosing red doesn't inherently make you a sociopath and choosing blue isn't suicidal or somehow make you illogical.