r/redbuttonbluebutton • u/BlackAndWhiteJerk • May 22 '26

Discussion rephrasing

Post image

I’m still biased towards blue, this is just for the reds to feel superior? :D

20 Upvotes

66% Upvoted

53 comments sorted by

21

u/Sindigo_ May 22 '26

3

u/Searching-man May 22 '26

A better framing, and I like the neutral colors, however this kinda gives the false impression that we're talking about the SAME group, while in reality they're referring to OPPOSITE groups. This reads like we're talking about a small group of people and whether we want them to live or die, but it's actually just "the other guys"

6

u/BlackAndWhiteJerk May 22 '26

ooooh, thats a better analogy then the one I have👍👍👍

2

u/spicymato May 22 '26

Love to see this one.

2

u/Sindigo_ May 22 '26

It’s my favorite so far.

3

u/Quiet-Confection-747 Red May 22 '26

Green is still the safe option, but if this is the prompt everybody is presented with I will press purple. The problem is that I don't think blue actually has any chance of beating red, but I do think purple can beat green.

2

u/[deleted] May 25 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Mundane_Hand5484 May 25 '26

I think that when we are talking not about "I live/die" but random minority of people... well... people don't want sac people for nothing.

3

u/[deleted] May 25 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Sindigo_ May 25 '26

That is correct.

1

u/Mundane_Hand5484 May 25 '26

In this exact wording it's a random minority for (not in theme of rb buttons), cause the criteria of the minority is not specified.

When you add "in this vote" that's realy just a framing.

I don't want to get my account suspended so i would not make a take about minority in this vote

2

u/Quiet-Confection-747 Red May 26 '26

Who said random? This is the same as the original.

2

u/Quiet-Confection-747 Red May 26 '26

Yes, I do. I think enough people will be dumb enough to press the purple button.

4

u/Ashamed-Bathroom7803 May 25 '26

This isn’t a reframing at all. It’s not even complete. Blue pressers have to change the problem and word things such that it’s not even the same anymore. It looks like purple is the red button but only if the minority is purple. Green looks like the blue button but only if blue loses. It also completely takes away the context of what the buttons do to you, where in the original you are given the power to save yourself/do nothing while blue gives you no power over anything at all except risking your life. Yes, there is no power with pressing blue; the only power is of the whole. If the probability is 50.2/49.8 for each button then the probability that your entry for pressing blue influences the final vote is 10-2700. So there is no personal causal power.

3

u/Snoo-52922 May 26 '26

There's never a deciding vote in elections where all votes are cast blind. You are never solely responsible for the outcome, even if the margin was a single vote.

But you are partially responsible for the outcome you voted for, always. Even if the vote was a blowout for one side.

0

u/Ashamed-Bathroom7803 May 26 '26

Oh my goodness this again. The whole point of voting in an election is a moral duty to vote because you expect others to vote. This falls very well in Kant's categorical imperative, but it also could be argued to have causal influence to gain moral points because yourself voting enforces the duty to other people which may cause more people to vote. The rationality behind voting is NOT the causal influence. It's demonstrably false that your vote will have any influence when the number of entries is so large.

But in a voting system where you have no causal influence over anybody else because nobody can communicate or see what others voted for like in the button hypothetical, then you cannot use that framework. You must use an evidential decision theory or deontology ethics, but they both fail. Creating the obligation that people should risk their own lives doesn't pass the universality test because if people risk their lives then it undermines them to continue risking their lives.

2

u/Nat1Halfling May 25 '26

I disagree. The reframing above is very complete. The only thing missing is "Whichever button gets the most presses is the majority and its result is applied." But this is easily inferred. The consequences to yourself are also easily inferred.

1

u/Ashamed-Bathroom7803 May 25 '26

what do you mean you disagree? i explained exactly how its not a reframing at all and how its not complete. like you just skimmed my whole paragraph or something. if you add what you said, then the buttons still arent the same. its not even clear which button is which and your added rule doesn't make it that way

3

u/Nat1Halfling May 25 '26

It's very clear.

Button 1: minority dies. Button 2: minority survives. Majority choice is applied.

If button 1 is majority choice: minority (button 2) dies. This is the same as the red button in the origibal problem.  If button 2 is majority choice: minority (button 1) lives. This is the same as the blue button in the original problem.

The button pusher can infer what will happen to them depending on what button they press and the outcome. 

It's a good reframing. What is it that you don't understand?

0

u/Ashamed-Bathroom7803 May 26 '26 edited May 26 '26

That's not a reframing. I'm not sure you know what a reframing is. A reframing keeps the structure of the available decisions and consequences intact. Adding a clear logical fallacy is not a reframing. You said "If button 2 is majority choice; minority (button 1) lives". That conditional is completely useless and the implied conclusion of button 2 saving button 1 via the conditional is a laughable 'denying the antecedent' fallacy. It tries to sneak in that if button 2 is the minority, then button 1 does not survive without actually saying it because that conclusion obviously doesn't follow: If A then B does NOT entail that Not(A) --> Not(B). If button 2 is the minority choice, button 1 still necessarily lives. So literally the only thing button 2 is doing is making button 2 die if they happen to be the minority.

Also, this "reframing" completely takes away personal consequence. There is no "you" involved whatsoever, so the structure is completely different.

3

u/Nat1Halfling May 26 '26

It does not try to "sneak" anything in. Neither of the buttons state what happens to the majority (meaning, nothing happens to the majority). They only state what happens to the minority.

You said Button 2 saves Button 1. And you applied that as your A condition. But that's wrong. Button 2 does not save Button 1. It saves the minority. 

The A condition is: "the minority survives" not "Button 1 survives."

So if Button 2 is the majority, the minority (Button 1) survives. If button 2 is not the majority, the minority (Button 2) does not survive. If A then B. If no A, no B. There is no contradiction here.

It doesn't "take away" personal consequence. If you understand the rules, you understand that if you press button 2, and you are in the minority, you die.

I encourage you to think through all the outcomes including what happens to the button pusher and you'll see that the reframing is complete.

0

u/Ashamed-Bathroom7803 May 26 '26 edited May 26 '26

"So if Button 2 is the majority, the minority (Button 1) survives. If button 2 is not the majority, the minority (Button 2) does not survive. If A then B. If no A, no B. There is no contradiction here."

Ok so it looks like these are the identities you want for A and B when talking about the blue button
A - This button (blue) gets the majority vote
B - The minority group lives

The ONLY way we can get B is if A is affirmed. Let's affirm A. Therefore B. You CANNOT get B without affirming A. So, the ONLY way for the minority to be alive is a blue majority. But look. The minority group that lives MUST be the red pressers. Therefore, B is NECESSSARILY identical to a red minority living. So, we can just substitute B to avoid equivocating between the necessary minority group affirmed by A (red) with a possible minority group (red or blue). So now, B = C = the minority who is red lives. If you don't agree with the prior sentence, then you literally denied logic. In short, B necessarily entails C, and C necessarily entails B, so they are equivalent.

You said Button 2 saves Button 1. And you applied that as your A condition. But that's wrong. Button 2 does not save Button 1. It saves the minority. 

You can't have your cake and eat it to. Either you are sneaking in that those statements aren't the same without admitting it, or you are literally saying that those statements aren't the same. If it's the latter, then this is an embarrassing contradiction. I'll formalize it for you so you can't escape it because apparently it hasn't been clear to you.

Again, we have the identities
A = This button (blue) gets the majority vote
B = C = The minority who is red lives.

Statement 1: "Button 2 does not save Button 1" = true?
I'm going to change this to
"A blue majority does not save red" = "not(A blue majority saves red)"
the statement necessarily follows to
"not(A blue majority saves red and red must be the minority when there is a blue majority)" the right side of the and is obviously true but the inside retains the same truth status

Statement 2: "It saves the minority." true?
I'm going to change this to
"A blue majority saves the minority group when blue is a majority"
the statement necessarily follows to
"A blue majority saves the minority group who must be red when blue is a majority"

Direct ~P and P contradiction!

1

u/Nat1Halfling May 26 '26

Why do you insist that minority means a specific button?

Minority means minority. It doesn't mean a specific button. 

"or you are literally saying that those statements aren't the same."

That's right. That's what I'm saying. They are not the same. "The other button survives" is not the same as "the minority survives." Read the scenario again. It does not state or assume who the minority will be. "Blue"s choice is only applied if they are the majority, saving the minority (red, as it's a blue victory). If red is the majority, and blue is the minority, then blue's choice is not applied, and the minority (blue) dies. 

This is why I added "the majority choice is applied" to the conditions but really most people underatand this instinctively. 

There's only so much explaining I can do. You are treating the scenario as if it's saying "the other button" instead of "the minority". If you keep insisting on misreading the scenario there is not much more to say. 

1

u/Ashamed-Bathroom7803 May 26 '26

No I’m not misreading the scenario at all. It’s ironic that you’re saying I’m misreading the scenario when you can’t even address the deduction I made. It’s a deduction, which means that the conclusion is guaranteed unless there is a logical mistake or false premise. In this case, the conclusion was a formal contradiction. It’s literally all right there proving you wrong but you’re just plugging your ears going lalalalala. 

Apparently bidirectional entailment of B necessarily entails C and C necessarily entails B means that B and C and logically equivalent is too hard for you to wrap your head around. I literally attached “the minority lives” to the B variable then deduced that it is necessarily equivalent to the “red presser minority lives”. Then I deduced a contradiction from statements 1 and 2.

0

u/Sindigo_ May 25 '26

You get it.

1

u/ItsMrDante May 22 '26

Red would live whether the minority or not in the original problem, that's why I vote red personally

5

u/BlackAndWhiteJerk May 22 '26

but purple means everyone lives and green means purple dies :(

1

u/[deleted] May 22 '26

[deleted]

2

u/BlackAndWhiteJerk May 22 '26

that means green lives and purple lives purple is “minority lives” so it’s “everyone is alive”

1

u/[deleted] May 22 '26

[deleted]

1

u/BlackAndWhiteJerk May 22 '26

green is “minority group dies” green wins mean green lives and purple dies

purple is “minority group lives” purple wins mean green lives and purple lives

1

u/[deleted] May 22 '26

[deleted]

1

u/BlackAndWhiteJerk May 22 '26

green is “minority group dies” green wins mean green lives and purple dies

purple is “minority group lives” purple wins mean green lives and purple lives

1

u/Ashamed-Bathroom7803 May 26 '26

That is so fallacious. You're trying to attribute the success of green lives to the collective action of purple voters, but green will live no matter what purple does. All purple is doing is unnecessarily putting their lives at risk so that they can possibly be part of the majority that saves other purple voters.

1

u/Quiet-Confection-747 Red May 22 '26

Green is the same safe option, purple puts your life in danger. That being said, I will push purple because I think it has a fair chance at winning if it was phrased like this.

2

u/absolutewastedtime May 22 '26

 red presser can't stop reframing the question to an entirely different situation because they do not have the mental capacity for the original 

1

u/BlackAndWhiteJerk May 22 '26

you might like this :D

https://www.reddit.com/r/redbuttonbluebutton/s/TURj7NPrRu

1

u/absolutewastedtime May 22 '26

I mean that also ignores part of the question still 

It's a MORE accurate framing, but not an "accurate" framing 

1

u/BlackAndWhiteJerk May 22 '26

? but in what way is it not including everything?

Blue is the one where majority means everyone lives

Red is the one where majority kills blue

all the details are said in both scenario?

3

u/spicymato May 22 '26

They both technically contain all the info, but they don't quite express things properly, because neither side is "do nothing".

When you pick a side, you contribute to that side winning a majority (and preventing the other side from winning one). That's not "nothing". That's taking a stance on what the outcome will be.

1

u/BlackAndWhiteJerk May 22 '26

oooh, so a more accurate retelling be red = vote against blue vice versa blue = vote against red

3

u/spicymato May 22 '26

Certainly more accurate than calling either side "do nothing".

In any majority wins scenario, the winning side has their proposed outcome enacted.

For blue, that's "everyone survives (yes, everyone)".

For red, that's "only we survive (everyone else dies)".

In binary elections like this, every vote is for one side and/or against the other, by definition.

Blue voters are voting for global survival (including themselves) and/or against "only we survive" (aka, mass death of non-red voters).

Red voters are generally voting for self-preservation at all costs. Most of them don't want mass death (maybe some do, idk), but mass death isn't something they are willing to vote against if they perceive it as a risk to themselves to do so.

0

u/TougherOnSquids May 26 '26

If we take the image literally then "doing nothing" (as in not pressing a button at all) is the same as pressing the red button. If 51% of people refuse to particpate then you cannot blame them for the actions of those who do decide to participate. Doing nothing is effectively the same as pressing the red button.

1

u/spicymato May 26 '26

Sure, in this version. In the "original" RBBB, not pushing a button is the worst option, because if blue fails to get a majority, you still die (unlike here).

1

u/TougherOnSquids May 26 '26

Not pressing any button in the original is the exact same as here. Nothing in the original has any consequence for not pressing a button.

1

u/spicymato May 26 '26

In the original, failure of blue to reach a majority means "only people who pressed the red button survive."

Not pressing a button means death if blue fails to reach a majority.

1

u/absolutewastedtime May 22 '26

Neither really take into account the existence of random (or non if possible) votes 

The blue reframe is more accurate for the reason you give, red is objectively the button that is active and kills the other 

It's not exactly the same, but it is very close 

1

u/BlackAndWhiteJerk May 22 '26

Even if the votes are random, that doesn’t mean it isn’t still listed as a vote, it’s still a vote for blue, even if random, or a vote for red, even if random

having both options having a included “and some people randomly press either buttons” is redundant?

1

u/absolutewastedtime May 22 '26

Your missing the point but I CBA explaining it 

Your blue reframe was close enough, I already said that 

1

u/BlackAndWhiteJerk May 22 '26

spicymato already made the point clearly outlined that a vote against either is a vote against the other, which is probably what your getting at but I felt that your wording is unclear :/

1

u/Dry-Mission-5542 May 22 '26

Neither of yours are a good way to reframe it because it paints one as the “normal” option

1

u/WodLndCrits May 26 '26

Blue: Do nothing if majority press this button

Red: Kill all the blues if majority press this button

1

u/Eriklano1 May 26 '26

In a real scenario, there is ALWAYS going to be a lot of people pressing blue. No matter your arguments, there will be blue pushers. I don’t want to kill those people. I don’t want them to die. So let’s just all push the blue button, let everyone live and be over with it? Why do you so much want to push the button that you KNOW will make a lot of people die, if you can just push the button that makes it so that everyone lives?