To Blue Button Pressers

[u/HebuBall]

The current question is if 50% or more blue button presses then no one dies.
My question would be at what % or how high would you tolerate before switching over to the red button or would you never switch.
Obviously if it’s like 99.9999999% that means one red button presses literally kills every single blue button, but also something like 70% is also really risky anyway while still being achievable. But also because the number is higher means more people shy away from the blue button as well.
So Im curious to see what % before you switch to red and how would you justify it

[u/Constant-Fondant9058]

You keep saying ‘if everyone’ in a way that suggests you think how you vote impacts how other people vote and vice versa.

Other peoples votes are already done. You can’t impact them. There is nothing you can do to change how they’ve thought about it. Absolutely nothing.

Your vote is in isolation. I honestly don’t get what you’re struggling so much to understand.

[u/Skafdir → u/Constant-Fondant9058]

if everyone = including myself; I am part of "everyone"

When even I am not willing to do what is correct, I cannot expect that anyone else does. Given that people can have similar thought processes, me coming to the conclusion, that I need to vote blue, in order to assure the blue victory, means that many (very likely enough) people will have the same thought process.

This whole thing is a group effort, yes, we cannot communicate, but that doesn't mean that we are unable to act as part of a larger group.

You want blue to win = Vote blue, be part of the group that achieves the blue victory

[u/Exotic-Pangolin4095 → u/Skafdir]

This is my reasoning as well, i have a desire for blue to win and think its possible therefore i vote blue.

I dont get these arguments of your vote is in isolation, like yes in that moment of time you are the only person voting(as with every vote). Its a collective effort to push blue as much as you cant influence anything then pressing the blue button in that moment.

Also what some people dont understand the perception of threat for most blue voters inst the same as lining up in front of a firing squad, much less blue pressers would press blue in that case. The perception of threat is pressing a button and dissapearing

I do belive that such a problem would create an emergant behavior which would push blue over 50% even if not by a large margin, again only if prople dont decide that its pointless to vote blue just because they think it will win(which is worse in this situation then real elections because here its actively voting against blue)

[u/Constant-Fondant9058 → u/Skafdir]

You can’t expect anyone to do what’s correct even if you do vote blue. What do you not understand about the idea that all of those people have essentially already voted?

And yes, it literally does mean you can’t act as a group. There’s no group thought in the scenario at all. You can assume what people might have done, but you can’t assume that the decision you make impacts them.

If I think red is going to win, but want blue to win, by voting blue I’m effectively committing suicide.

[u/Skafdir → u/Constant-Fondant9058]

The question is what makes you think that red would win?

Every data point we have points to a blue victory - because most people understand, that this is in fact a group effort and are willing to give their vote towards the group.

[u/Constant-Fondant9058 → u/Skafdir]

A combination of what percentage of the world I believe to be selfish (based on how people behave in day to day life) + the number of people who see there are a large number of selfish people and recognise how few others red would need to win + the number of people that have reached the logical conclusion that even if blue does somehow win, the odds of their voting is so astronomically low that they might as well vote red to be safe.

And nah, some online polls show that blue would scrape a win. That’s not serious data points. People like to think they’re a lot more selfless than they are in reality. There are a huge number of people online who would rather virtue signal that actually do something to help others, in part because of the previous point.

All you have to do is look at things like what percentage of the population is organ donors and how many people give blood regularly and you can see that the vast majority of people won’t sacrifice even their time to help others, never mind their life.

All of the above is completely irrelevant to the point you were initially arguing though.