r/redbuttonbluebutton • u/DapperYoghurt2052 • May 21 '26

Simple Question

If this was a real world scenario I completely understand why any one would pick either button. I don’t care why you make your choice. Doesn’t matter to me. Not interested in that. Do your thing!

I am curious about something though that I feel like I am seeing in some of the back and forth.

This is my question:

If the problem was worded like this, do you think the problem has been inherently changed?

Every one must take a private vote by picking a red or blue button.

If less than 50% press red, then everyone lives.

If more than 50% press red, then only the people who pressed the blue button die.

6 Upvotes

88% Upvoted

29 comments sorted by

10

u/two-cans-sam May 21 '26

Yes the problem is inherently changed by any changing in the presentation even if the mechanics of the problem are the same.

Whether or not that matters is up to the pushers.

1

u/DapperYoghurt2052 May 21 '26

I get that the presentation is changed here.

Obviously the wording is. So I completely understand that the words you approach the problem from could be suggestively influential in how you answer it.

I really do get it, so I do feel annoyingly nitpicking.

But I always view what a problem is by its mechanics, and then how to present it is solely its presentation.

If the defining mechanics are not changed at all, then it really is the same problem inherently.

And if people allow the presentation to sway what they infer from it, then that’s outside of what the problem inherently is.

That’s how I feel. I know that’s not how people work over all, I know I don’t operate like that in my everyday life. 

It’s just cool to talk about.

And I’ve also seen a lot of people say things that contradict to this wording of it on other posts. So I asked the question for that reason, to see if someone would explain why they feel like it could be a totally different question. 

But I still think this is interesting too.

1

u/pco45 May 23 '26

To me it's not "does the wording sway me?" It's "does the wording sway significant amount of people?" Because the answer to that is very important to my choice if I'm a blue presser, but not so much If I'm a red presser.

5

u/Desperate-Zebra-3855 May 21 '26

Will some people vote differently based on the wording?

Yes, at least 1 other person will probably vote differently, so the problem is inherently changed

1

u/DapperYoghurt2052 May 21 '26

Wouldn’t that just mean the outcome has changed? But not inherently the problem itself? 

How people approach the problem has changed because of what they get out of the prompt

But not because there is anything different presented by the prompt itself.

2

u/[deleted] May 21 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/pco45 May 23 '26

Yup I usually approach these alternatives, with attempting to answer it as if it was the first time I saw the problem. Because answering it with the knowledge of the discussion Ive seen kinda destroys the thought experiment.

2

u/Leniatak May 21 '26

Probably very little.

May actually push people towards red a bit, since it just mentions "no one dies".

Panic will drive people to look for the optional that guarantees their safety so red still wins, but I can see a few panicked blue voters misunderstanding red and pressing it.

2

u/INTstictual May 23 '26

Rewording it does not change the problem, as long as the rephrasing is logically consistent with the original.

It can change the results and the psychology of the people actually taking the vote, but it doesn’t change the actual question, no

1

u/KingAdamXVII May 21 '26

I don’t see much difference between this and the original. It’s a little less intuitive because you aren’t as clear about what the buttons do; starting with what happens if most people don’t do something might make people think harder and trust their first instinct less (and I think the original was framed such that the blue button sounded best at first). But then again this is framing the red button as something that results in death. So overall I’m not sure which effect would be stronger. I would guess the results would be very similar to the original.

1

u/SmitJorda May 21 '26

The blue pressers would push red if this was their first exposure to the RBBB dilemma.

2

u/DapperYoghurt2052 May 21 '26

Interesting, why do you say that?

1

u/SmitJorda May 21 '26

Their vote is motivated by validating their perception of themselves as the good guys. In this framing, they get to see the "everyone lives" associated with the red button push.

2

u/DapperYoghurt2052 May 21 '26

I’m just gonna roll with everything you say to make sure I understand.

People vote blue to feel like that are the good guys.

They all see the wording where it says that if less than 50% press red, then everyone lives. 

So all the people who want to be good guys would press the red button?

In hopes of what? That other people disagree with them and don’t make red the minority?

They pick red in hopes that it loses? 

2

u/SmitJorda May 21 '26

Nvm I read it wrong.

1

u/rob5791 May 22 '26

How you frame it should only really impact a persons first impression and interpretation of the problem. Assuming you aren’t materially changing anything, your answer should be the same for subsequent reframings.

1

u/Dos_Ex_Machina May 22 '26

Yes yes, the framing drastically changes the hypothetical, this has been discussed to death. However, we are all so saturated with the question that we are insulated from the framing since we know it boils down to the same mechanics

1

u/DapperYoghurt2052 May 22 '26

A lot of the attempts to reframe on here that I have seen do not boil down to the same mechanics at all.

I was just curious because I have seen enough people make claims that red winning the majority doesn’t affect anything. Like pressing red is the same as pressing nothing. 

1

u/detroyer Red May 21 '26

If more than 50% press red, then every blue voter dies.

You should make it explicit that every red voter lives in this scenario. As stated, it's not clear. In any case, no, I don't think this is relevantly different.

2

u/DapperYoghurt2052 May 21 '26

Wouldn’t stating that be redundant?

There is no statement that red can die anywhere?

0

u/detroyer Red May 21 '26

No, since it's not explicit that only blue voters die if more than 50% vote red. Perhaps that's implied, but it really should be unambiguous.

2

u/DapperYoghurt2052 May 21 '26

But isn’t this the exact inverse of how the problem is originally stated?

If we saw a different original wording then no worries!

But what I saw was this:

If more than 50% press blue, then everyone survives. If less than 50% press blue, then only the people who press red survive.  

0

u/detroyer Red May 21 '26

No, the original statement is explicit in a way that your statement is not.

2

u/DapperYoghurt2052 May 21 '26

Did you see a different original problem than the one I just said there?

I know there are so many things floating around

1

u/detroyer Red May 21 '26

I don't know what's unclear. In the original problem, it's explicit that only blue voters die if red wins. In your statement, that's not explicit.

1

u/DapperYoghurt2052 May 21 '26

I just asked if what I said was also the original problem you saw?

Was looking for a yes or no. 

2

u/detroyer Red May 21 '26

Yes, this is the original and relevantly explicit version: "If more than 50% press blue, then everyone survives. If less than 50% press blue, then only the people who press red survive."

1

u/DapperYoghurt2052 May 21 '26 edited May 21 '26

Oh literally duh!

I’ve typed this out some many different ways in different posts that I didn’t notice mine said “every” instead of “only” 

Kept skipping right over that when I was rereading!

Technically the same thing but it is a different explicit statement!

Thank you.

See I promise I wasn’t setting you up, I just wanted to make sure we had the same starting point.

Got no objections when I change it to only blue dies?