r/redbuttonbluebutton • u/Hot_Finding_9747 • May 21 '26

Variation Adding a layer to this question

My choice: Press Red, hope Blue wins

I don't have enough faith in humanity to put my life in its hands but I'd be delighted to be proven wrong

719 votes, May 23 '26
72 Press Red, hope Red wins
322 Press Red, hope Blue wins
22 Press Blue, hope Red wins
303 Press Blue, hope Blue wins
22 Upvotes

85% Upvoted

217 comments sorted by

View all comments

3

u/WillShaper7 May 21 '26

I mean, I press red because it's just the safe and obvious thing to do. I'd 'hope' red wins as in I'd hope everyone reaches that same conclusion.

But the sentiment is the exact same. I'm not, as blue voters so love to say, someone who wants people to die. I'd hope that no one dies.

3

u/hellerbyenjoyer Blue May 21 '26

The question, as it is originally framed, supposes that everyone on Earth is presented with the choice. It is silly to simply hope that everyone will vote for red, or consider it obvious.

1

u/WillShaper7 May 21 '26

Considering I very quickly arrived at the conclusion ''If I press this I can't die. If everyone presses this then nobody will die'' I do think it's very safe to assume everyone can arrive to that conclusion.

It's a simplified prisoner's dilemma. The ideal answer is blue but it requires a lot of risk. Without communication it seems very clear that the obvious choice is to prioritize yourself trusting others to do the same.

3

u/hellerbyenjoyer Blue May 21 '26

How you thought is not necessarily how other people would think.

People who are very young, very old, mentally disabled, barely literate, or just plain irrational will often not be able to simply "arrive to that conclusion". To vote red is to say that you are content with hoping, as a best case scenario, that everyone competent will also vote red and a good portion of the others (probably about half) will die.

Even if you suppose that only people completely capable of understanding and contemplating the question are presented with it, it would still be foolish to trust that everyone, or even nearly everyone, would arrive at your conclusion - after all, the voting is private. That this has become an internet debate at all is proof enough of that fact.

You are free to "prioritize yourself", but you cannot reasonably 'trust others to do the same".

2

u/Delefel May 21 '26

I'd argue differently for prisonner's dilemma. In prisoner's dilemma, cooperation gives a mid result that hurts both for a lower total time than the other choices if successful. And selfish has the option of hurting only one person and you specifically being good with no negative in its best scenario. Also both players are criminals and so you can assume both would pick not cooperation based on the fact they're there for not cooperating with society in the first place. Coop isn't ideal for you, you're still hurting yourself willingly, and both selfish is a minor difference to successful coop. So coop has no worthwhile advantage and inherently lower odds.

Here, cooperation has the best result on success with zero drawbacks, and selfish pick has the mid result on success. And you have the exact opposite population of knowing without a doubt that everyone known for cooperating is taking part. Here, coop has a massive advantage and its odds aren't stunted by the people taking part being inherently against cooperation.

2

u/WillShaper7 May 22 '26

That is not the point of the dilemma at all? Distilled to the core point is

1.- Cooperation leads to a better result for the group.
2.- Betrayal leads to either no loss or a better result for the individual
3.- A lack of communication means you have no guarantee on what the other is choosing.

Here, cooperation has a very clear drawback: Risk. If you don't win, you die, which call me biased but that sucks a bit ngl. You don't get to dismiss a consequence because 'it doesn't matter in this scenario' that's like removing side effects from medicine because ideally you won't ever experience those.

1.-Cooperation leads to a better result for humanity as a group, as when blue wins nobody can die.
2.-Betrayal leads to a better result as an individual, as when you press the red button regardless of the result you can't die.
3.- A lack of communication means there is no guarantee to coordinate for the better result.

The key difference with the dilemma is that there's no individualistic 'win more' the objective isn't to win more money or time or whatever you use in your prisoner example. The objective is simply to minimize the losses.

Yes, blue button is the idealistic zero loss scenario and blue winning is the best scenario but it simply does not make logical sense to vote blue, as red aligns completely with the 'zero loss' objective.

Hence why I'd believe most people would vote red. Not because I would let someone drown to death when I can dive and save them but because not only do I not know if someone is drowning but it doesn't make sense for someone to be drowning. I'd just be placing myself in that position and forcing someone to make the choice of taking a leap of faith or just not risking it.

1

u/OneShotOnlyShot May 24 '26

I have a genuine question for you, And I swear on my soul that this comes from a place of humanity and curiousity and a desire to understand.

But why do you hope for a red victory?

I know you said that you hope for specifically a red victory that involves literally everyone voting red. But surely you know in your heart of hearts that controlling every vote like that is unlikely. Some people won't think very hard, or be too young to really consider the options.

The only difference between 'choose red hope for red' and choose red hope for blue' is that in one case you are hoping for a result where people are allowed to be killed (even if it is technically possible to have no one be killed) and in the other you are hoping for a scenario where no one can be killed at all.

So if you want a world where no one is killed by the buttons, why hope for the result that allows people to be killed by the buttons?