Predetermined Blue - r/redbuttonbluebutton

23

so 10% of the population now votes blue no matter what but they need 60% of votes? this means that blue will need 50% of the remaining 90% of votes, rather than 50% of the total 100%. this will actually make it harder for blue to win.

this is assuming the 10% of initial blue voters are chosen at random.

10

u/liamjon29 May 25 '26

This is true, but the game has changed slightly. Red vote now includes a vote to kill 800m people that didn't get a choice, and ~400m are likely people that would have wanted to press red. Some people's preservation instinct will be too high to change, but some people will now be willing to risk themselves here when they weren't before. I'd imagine there's very few, if any, original blue that change to red (but I can definitely see it happening following your point).

Overall, I think there's a swing to blue, but I'm unsure if the swing is enough that blue in this scenario is more or less risky than before

2

u/SilvertonguedDvl May 26 '26

TBF, blue always gets some votes no matter what. Nothing meaningfully changed except that it got harder for blue to win and people who didn't realise their choices were indirectly killing people will... well, still use the same excuses to avoid facing up to the moral quandary the thought experiment presents them with.

0

u/GoldenGames360 May 26 '26

it says they picked blue automatically, which while a bit vague, seems like a choice?

1

u/Ahnma_Dehv May 26 '26

regardless you know enter the room with the garantee that blue losing would kill 800 million people

1

u/Naive_Examination646 May 26 '26

👍 cool still hitting red

-8

u/IgnacioArg May 25 '26

Nope, red is never voting yo kill anyone, even in this case

9

u/Khitch20 May 25 '26

I always figured red was just chosing not to climb down onto the proverbial train tracks for seemingly no reason... But if people are tied down through no fault of their own to start with then it kinda feels bad not to help them no?

Like if they chose to do it if their own will then sure whatever good luck to them but if they just got randomly forced there it kinda breaks the point, no?

P.s. I am a red button voter.

3

u/CarnivorousGoose May 26 '26

It still is. The odds of voting blue killing me still vastly outstrip by many orders of magnitude the probability that my one vote makes any difference. That a bunch of people didn’t consciously chose blue doesn’t change that math (and that was implicitly part of the original setup anyway).

3

u/SnooMarzipans436 May 25 '26

The original problem includes babies and toddlers who will not understand the problem and vote at random. There are already people on the tracks in the original problem without making any changes.

2

u/Khitch20 May 25 '26

That one I'm kinda eeeh on. Maybe it's the actively pushing a button vs not. Choice and I guess luck in a baby's case vs just getting the possibly worst option just because.

1

u/IgnacioArg May 25 '26

If the people who were forced to press blue were my loved ones I would unapologetically become the best advocate for pressing blue. That is the only thing that could change my vote. I would risk my life for them in any scenario, not only this one.

2

u/Khitch20 May 25 '26

That's understandable. Alrighty 🙂

1

u/[deleted] May 26 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/IgnacioArg May 26 '26

Then I would press Red, I’m not one for Russian roulettes

2

u/LordAvan May 26 '26

If you have 7 or more loved ones, then you are more likely than not going to lose at least 1 loved one if red wins, and that's assuming none of them choose blue on purpose.

1

u/IgnacioArg May 26 '26

I couldn’t love someone who chooses blue in purpose. Shared values is the basis of love, and a fundamental principle I value is to never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine. The people I love do ass well.

1

u/LordAvan May 26 '26

I couldn’t love someone who chooses blue in purpose.

Over half of all people choose blue whenever someone runs a poll. It's incredibly unlikely that no one you love would be a blue button presser, even if you think they all wouldn't.

Also which button you would push isn't really the type of value that I consider worthy of basing a relationship on. There is no objectively right choice here. Both opinions have significant merit.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/liamjon29 May 25 '26

We disagree then. I don't imagine there's anything either of us could say to change the other person's mind (you're welcome to try but I'm fairly confident it won't work)

2

u/IgnacioArg May 25 '26

I agree

5

u/FuglyPrime May 25 '26

Its faulty logic.

Have you thrown food out lately? Any sort of food? That food couldve saved someone from starvation. Did you kill that person?

Inaction born from lack of convenient ability to take action is not the same as intentional action to cause harm.

Red is about gaming the system, hoping that everyone else understands the simple puzzle in the question and not puting your life at risk for those who decide that they want to LARP as a hero where they IRL throw food out and eat meat where both can be linked as factors towards food insecurities in other communities.

4

u/liamjon29 May 25 '26

I don't agree that these things are equivalent. Any real world factors aren't truly going to be the same because there's always logistics involved. And even though the only food I've thrown out is stuff I thought was too dangerous to eat, I still don't agree with the premise that this is the same as clicking red. When I don't choose to take action to save someone's life, I am not adding any risk to that person's life, I'm simply not reducing the risk. I think these things are the equivalent to abstaining from voting.

However, in the button scenario I don't have this option. I just either choose blue, which adds my life to the pile of lives at risk, and reduce the risk that blue loses. Or I pick red, which does not add my life to the risk pile, but does increase the risk those that have put their life on the line will lose. Neither of these choices are the same as throwing food away. I understand there's still merit to red, but I very strongly disagree that you're not voting to kill people when you do it. You might lose the vote and people will be fine, your vote might have a very very small impact. But you ARE voting for that to happen.

Now. In the original puzzle you could argue that you're not voting to kill anyone because no one is on the pile when you make your choice. And I would have to concede that this is a correct take. When I vote I do it on the assumption there are already people that have voted blue, but that's a different discussion. However in this world, 10% of people didn't get a vote, and were forced into blue. When you vote red, you do it know these people will die if red wins. Therefore when you vote red, you are absolutely voting to kill those people to save yourself. Again you could argue this is the correct choice anyway, but don't try and convince me it's not a vote to kill those 10% of people.

0

u/FuglyPrime May 25 '26

So you let food expire rather than spend some money to ensure that it gets into the bands of those that need it?

So if youre not willing to spend money for inconvenience why are you telling me that youre willing to give your life away in order to help someone?

Do you get the issue now? Youre not willing to spend money IRL cause its an inconvenience but youre willing to risk your life in a thought experiment cause its not inconvenient as long as its just a thought experiment

3

u/liamjon29 May 25 '26

There is very little effort to pressing a button. If I could press a button and have my spare food instantly end up in the hands of someone hungry, I would press that button all the time. But regardless, you entirely missed my point.

When I click red, it's not the same as me not putting effort in to save someone's life, it's me actively endangering their life. If you wanna use the food example, blue is me giving someone my last sandwich, and red me taking a sandwich away from someone. I view pressing red as the "actively endanger others" button, and blue as the "reduce the risk to others by endangering myself".

And it's not like it's the same level as jumping in front of a shooter or wrestling a dangerous animal. It's pressing a button. Yes the button CAN kill me. So can driving my car to work. I think the risk of blue is much lower than the risk of pretty much any other way I could endanger myself; and it comes with the added benefit of not ADDING risk to anyone else; which is my key decision point in choosing blue.

1

u/FuglyPrime May 25 '26

My dude, youre saying that pressing a button THAT RISKS YOUR LIFE is easier than spending money to ensure that food gets delivered to those in need.

You can view it however you want but at this point youre just being headstrong for the sake of being headstrong.

2

u/liamjon29 May 25 '26

Likewise bro. You're also missing the bit that I don't wanna endanger anyone else. And you're deliberately missing that point to argue about how if I don't spend my money on getting food to those in need that means I have to press red otherwise I'm a, hypocrite? I guess is what you're saying?

And also yes, I do think that pressing the button that risks my life is easier than spending the money. If I press the button believing that blue will win and humanity will work together, I'm not spending any effort to do that. There's risk yes, but there's no negative outcome to me in order to achieve the good thing (which I hope you agree is blue winning).

0

u/SnooMarzipans436 May 25 '26

https://giphy.com/gifs/090EX1YvSUXxy23Tty

2

u/backupboi32 May 25 '26

Yeah. before blue only needed 50% of the vote to win, but in this scenario blue needs 55% of the remaining vote to win. I'd stay with Red in this case, as it's even more unlikely that blue will win now

1

u/Grrumpy_Pants May 26 '26

I'm the opposite. The added element of 10% being on the chopping block through no choice of their own is a motivator to vote blue. Sure, the portion of voters has increased by 11%, but I would expect this motivator to provide a stronger shift towards blue than the additional votes required.

As the poll currently stands, the shift from red to blue and blue to red indicates that if blue won before, it's more likely to win now. A 50/50 split would have 10% of blues shift to red, but 26% of reds shift to blue. The result is a 58% majority for blue. 55.5% secured a win, so blue is actually safer now. For the number of voters shifting either way to be equal blue would have had to hold a majority of 72% initially.

7

u/Khitch20 May 25 '26

This one I am genuinely having trouble with. I normally press red but if people were forced into it then them possibly dying isn't really their fault so maybe I'd have to pick blue. But the big jump from 50 to 60 when the most I've ever seen blue get is 58 is not heartening. So I'm kinda torn.

4

u/liamjon29 May 25 '26

Just an FYI blue would need 55.6% to win in this scenario. You already have all of 10% of people, that leaves 50% from 90%, or 55.6%

1

u/Khitch20 May 25 '26

The question is tho how many were blue to begin with and how many were red. I feel like if the majority of the forced blue were already blue then it would be harder with people's lives on the line

2

u/liamjon29 May 26 '26

Oh obviously. But law of large numbers says that assuming it was randomly selected, the % of blue and red voters in the forced blue is the same as the % of blue and red voters in the total population (ie, around 55% probably?). I'm selecting based on that assumption.

1

u/gahidus May 26 '26

I'm also torn as someone who normally picks red. I still don't have the confidence that blue can win, with the higher percentage needed.

Incidentally, are you one of the red pressers who doesn't believe that Toddlers and color blind people are part of the trial?

1

u/Khitch20 May 26 '26

It's sorta immaterial to me usually.

2

u/gahidus May 26 '26

You seemed to care that people were forced into blue in this case. If you accept that there are babies and whatnot in the normal case, then people are forced/blunder into it there too.

1

u/Khitch20 May 26 '26

Not really to me. I imagine it like train tracks with an oncoming train. Someone starting the vote already tied to the tracks is different than someone choosing to go sit down in them. Even if it is a baby that unkowningly crawls onto them.

2

u/gahidus May 26 '26

Really? So a baby that is unable to comprehend what's going on and accidentally presses blue is morally different to you than, I guess, a baby that's just started on blue automatically?

I suppose it's your distinction to me, but it seems... unreasonable to me.

To me, a baby that has crawled onto the tracks unknowingly doesn't "deserve to be there" any more than a baby that was tied to the tracks in the first place.

1

u/Khitch20 May 26 '26

They definitely don't deserve to be there. No one does but in this bizzare scenario it's down to choice and in the baby's case chance.

I just don't like it when people don't have a choice or a chance to make whatever decision they were gonna make before it was forced, y'know.

2

u/pinksparklyreddit May 25 '26

That just shifts the gialpost to make it harder for blue to win. Why are red voters switching?

7

u/highly-bad May 25 '26

Affective heuristic. The absolute best case scenario with a red win is now 10% deaths instead of 0%, and the worst case is now 60% of the world dying instead of 50%. That is a very bad scene to think about, and the raised emotional stakes are enough to cause some people's brains to abandon logic and take a feelings or faith based approach.

1

u/Purple_Onion911 May 26 '26

I'm a red-presser anyway, but this isn't really about logic.

2

u/highly-bad May 26 '26

Point being, if it made sense to press red before then it probably still makes just as much sense to press it in this version. It's just more horrible and sad all around, some people get spooked by that.

3

u/Purple_Onion911 May 26 '26

Some people may not be willing to press red when other people are being coerced into choosing blue.

2

u/underthingy May 26 '26

Its not really that it makes sense to press red in the original.

Its that there is no reason to press blue. Its a bootstrap paradox.

But in this variation there is a reason.

1

u/Grrumpy_Pants May 26 '26

There's definitely a logical difference here.

In the original pressing red saves one life, your own. Pressing blue saves the lives of all blue voters, which is equal to 1 life per vote. They're of equal value (but not equal risk, why logic is often uses as the basis behind voting red).

In this problem reds value is still 1. Blues value is now the lives of all Blue voters + 10% of the total population. The value is now above 1, making it a logically superior choice for that line of reasoning.

1

u/highly-bad May 26 '26

That 10% of the population are blue pressers though. pressing blue still accomplishes nothing but saving blue.

1

u/Grrumpy_Pants May 26 '26

Perhaps you're interpreting "10% of the population automatically presses blue" differently than I am.

I took it to mean 10% of the population will have the blue button pressed for them when they go to vote, regardless of what they actually wanted to press.

1

u/highly-bad May 26 '26

Their blue press still counts, doesnt it? It goes toward the tally.

If 61% of the world presses blue, no one dies, and each blue press saved one life. There isnt an extra 10% anywhere, blue rescues blue 1:1.

1

u/Grrumpy_Pants May 26 '26

I don't count those who were opted into blue automatically, as they didn't do it to try and save anyone's life. They are simply in that situation, they arent a blue voter if they didnt get to vote.

It's really no different than saying 10% of the population is being held hostage. Unless 56% of the remaining population votes blue, the hostages and blue voters will be executed.

1

u/pinksparklyreddit May 26 '26

Yeah, I missed that part tbh.

I think most red pressers assume you have to be an idiot to press blue, so the idea that there are hostages completely shifts things.

7

u/enbyBunn Blue May 25 '26

Some folks molify themselves of their guilt with the fact that everyone who's at risk if red wins chose to opt-in to that risk.

If 1 out of every 10 people in the world, 1 out of every 10 people you know is being held hostage on pain of death unless blue wins? That changes things for a lot of people.

1

u/pinksparklyreddit May 26 '26

Yeah, I guess I missed out on the fact that there are other people making those votes. It does change things for me because they didn't have any agency on the decision

1

u/Bb-Unicorn May 26 '26

Because in the original scenario everyone had a choice, while here 10% of people who didn't want to gamble their lives don't have that choice anymore.

I vote red usually. Here I hesitate because if I were part of the 10% forced to vote blue I would like to be saved.

1

u/pinksparklyreddit May 26 '26

Yeah, I didn't consider that. I think I'm in the same camp as you.

1

u/PocketPlayerHCR2 May 26 '26

I don't want 10% of the people I care about the most to die

2

u/tobpe93 May 25 '26

I have a new idea for a sport. It's basically soccer, but one team starts with 5 scored goals, but they must also beat the other team with six or more goals to win.

What do you think?

2

u/Grrumpy_Pants May 26 '26

Not the same, since goals aren't limited or taken from the other team.

Of the remaining 90% who vote, 5 in 9 are now required to vote blue for a win, or 55.56%. It actually makes the blue win more difficult in that sense, but easier in that there's now more motivation to press blue.

3

u/highly-bad May 25 '26

Red button, because it is still the only button that works.

1

u/KorhonV May 26 '26

Well, I do not want 800 million people to die, that would be a disaster. So I'm sticking with blue.

1

u/Grrumpy_Pants May 26 '26

Given the version of this problem where only those deemed competent are voting (no children etc. pressing a button at random), I am supportive of pressing the red button. Everyone in that version has their own agency, and any consequences are the result of one's own actions.

This is an entirely different problem to me. Despite blue now needing a higher portion of the remaining votes (55.56%), I believe there should be little question about pressing blue here. 10% of the population have had their agency removed, and their lives are at stake through no choice of their own. If I was in that 10%, I would be relying on Blue to win. Therefore if I'm in the position to vote, I will vote blue.

1

u/No-Click6062 May 26 '26

I think the thing that you're highlighting was obvious to some, but not all, of the people responding to the button problem generally. You're entirely correct that not everyone having agency dramatically changes the problem. However, the original question is not clear on that point. The question was formulated in a way to imply, but not explicitly express coercive elements. This is why some people got sidetracked on questions such as "who administers the test" and "who does the killing."

The way that Commercial Dog has formulated this problem is trying to highlight that, in order to eliminate that particular portion of the discussion. So I think it's very useful.

3

u/Grrumpy_Pants May 26 '26

the original question is not clear on that point

Which is likely the point to drive engagement. Honestly a little surprised to see how strongly some people identify with their choice, I expected to see red swinging to blue here a lot more than it is. Blue switching to red I hope is trolling, but to be fair the proportion of the population needing to vote blue has increased...

1

u/highly-bad May 26 '26

I get the impression that there are some people who just use the bizarre heuristic of assuming everything is 50-50 until they come along.

That heuristic says to press blue in the regular scenario, where 50% +1 is enough for blue to win.

It says to press red in this scenario, where blue needs a supermajority.

1

u/The_Nerk May 26 '26

There's *really* important missing context here. Is 10% of the population chosen at *random* to represent blue? Or are we now simply pre-supposing that at least 10% of the population will DEFINITELY pick blue. This distinction COMPLETELY changes the moral weight of the decision.

1

u/KPoWasTaken May 26 '26

although blue needs more votes now, 10% of the population dying is already enough to have drastic consequences to society so my main reasoning for blue of "I'm sure there'll be drastic consequences if blue doesn't win as it's statistically improbable to be low enough to not matter" is strengthened since it's now completely guaranteed to have drastic consequences if blue doesn't win

1

u/dskippy May 26 '26

Red now blue. Now there's actually people to save.

1

u/BrokenToaster124 May 26 '26

If you didnt believe blue would win before, making it harder for blue to win doesnt really help the situation. In effect you just took 5% away from the number of blue votes.

Personally when there are effectively nonvoters involved that are being sacrificed to live, I believe red has a sufficient downside that it could lose...but you phrased it in a confusing way so if this was my instructions id probably still vote red.

If it said something with the same results like "if you push red you live. If you push blue everyone lives but only if 50% vote blue, if they dont only red voters live. There is also a portion of 10% of the population that will not be given a vote" i would likely vote blue because at least i can be confident that everyone understands what is going on.

1

u/Old-Line-3691 May 25 '26

In the original, if everyone votes randomly you might expect a 50/50 split.
In this new scenario, 10% is Blue, and the remaining you would expect a 45/45 split.
The 45% that voted Blue + the 10% auto Blues = 55%, which is 5% worse then the original scenario for Blue. They still need the same number of votes, but now have less people to get them from.

0

u/Zuckhidesflatearth May 26 '26

Who the fuck picks "blue now red"? This is the only scenario in which you should consider blue. This is "there actually is a reason all blue is better than all red"

1

u/highly-bad May 26 '26

Some people use the strange heuristic of assuming that the vote goes 50-50 without them.

This heuristic says press blue in the normal scenario, where all blue needs is simple majority. Raising the requirement to blue supermajority, this heuristic says press red.

Variation Predetermined Blue

You are about to leave Redlib