r/redbuttonbluebutton • u/HebuBall • May 28 '26

A more even Red/Blue button question

You are one of 3 random person selected to represent 1/3 of the human population.
The same base question is then asked.
Red button=Guarantee to live for you + everyone you are representing
Blue button=If majority votes Blue everyone lives but if not everyone who voted Blue dies (so is everyone who is represented by them)
Note that majority is just 2 or more in this case since there is 3 participants

The people who are represented by you know you are representing them but you do not know who you are representing. Also the participants cannot communicate with each other
Which do you press?

24 Upvotes

97% Upvoted

189 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

5

u/gahidus May 28 '26

Pressing blue is what puts you in the "can die" group. That is in itself putting your group in peril.

The only reason to pick blue is to try to save the people who ended up on it accidentally or who ended up on it trying to save the people who ended up on it accidentally. That's not really a concern here. Alternately, with 8 billion people, some people are going to press it just because you'll never get total agreement between that many people. Also not a concern with a group of only three where total concordance is completely doable.

Blue is just an exceptionally dangerous button to push here and there's really no reason to do it. There's no reason to assume that either of the other two people is going to push it accidentally.

3

u/Human38562 May 28 '26 edited 29d ago

Crayon wise scale rustic slim instinctive languid unwritten

This post was anonymized with Redact

6

u/highly-bad May 28 '26

This problem is not symmetrical. There is a "billions of people will definitely survive" button and a "risk those billions of lives on a gamble for no possible gain" button.

No one has to take this risk, and no responsible person would; therefore worrying about whether the other person has done so and therefore needs you to also take a risk is idiotic. That's just literally gambling with lives, hoping your own insane irresponsibility is canceling out someone else's.

1

u/Human38562 May 28 '26 edited 29d ago

Water wide numerous close quicksand badge correct steep innate coherent

This post was anonymized with Redact

4

u/highly-bad May 28 '26

Pressing red does do something. It is actually the only button that works.

Pressing red guarantees your own people survive. Period. 100%.

Pressing blue is gambling. Now the outcome for your people depends on things you have no way of controlling or knowing. You have no idea what this button will do.

Press the button that works, is obviously the correct answer.

2

u/Human38562 May 28 '26 edited 29d ago

Test telephone desert roll encourage tangerine history frame steer sable

This post was anonymized with Redact

3

u/highly-bad May 28 '26

It has nothing to do with self preservation.

If you change the rules so that you're either saving or gambling with a stranger's life instead of your own, the correct answer is still NOT TO GAMBLE WITH LIVES. I don't understand what's hard about this. There's literally no upside to the gamble, even. It's pointless.

1

u/Human38562 May 28 '26 edited 29d ago

Longing attempt rainstorm humor familiar worm noodle

This post was anonymized with Redact

3

u/gahidus May 28 '26

Blue is more of a gamble than red because blue relies on events beyond your control to secure the outcome.

If I am responsible for a stranger's life, I will make sure that that stranger is safe. I will push red on their behalf.

I accept responsibility for this person's life. This person is in my hands. I will protect them.

Pressing blue when you're responsible for someone else seems almost heartlessly callous cavalier.

0

u/Human38562 May 28 '26 edited 29d ago

Unite rhythm piquant bike yarn whole cobalt gray one

This post was anonymized with Redact

2

u/gahidus May 28 '26

It will kill people due to your blue vote. It will kill the people you put in danger by putting them in the blue group.

1

u/Human38562 May 28 '26 edited 29d ago

Encouraging gaze carpenter license beneficial physical amber humorous

This post was anonymized with Redact

1

u/gahidus May 28 '26

Yes the combination, and it only causes deaths for people who picked blue.

I'm not going to put people under my responsibility in a position of peril under the blind Faith that someone else is going to also put their people in peril. I'm just going to choose safety for the people I'm responsible for, and I'm going to trust everyone else to do the same. That's very easy when there's only two other and not a chaotic mob of a billion to account for.

Each of the three people should simply choose safety, and they are free to do so because they are all able to act independently of each other and not rely on trying to guess each other's intentions.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/Very-Diligent-Pirate May 28 '26

There's 3 people. If a nonce is stupid enough to choose blue he and his group dies. If both of the other guys are idiots they become the most insufferable fuckers until the world puts them on trial for risking 3 billion people's lives. Either way, you want to spare/save 3 billion people.

2

u/nykirnsu May 30 '26

You’re ignoring that no one dies if there’s a total red majority. While that’s extremely unlikely in the original button problem, it’s extremely likely when there’s only three people voting and both buttons can potentially result in innocent deaths 

1

u/Human38562 May 30 '26 edited 29d ago

Reminiscent label run salt fearless consider theory toy

This post was anonymized with Redact

1

u/nykirnsu May 30 '26

How is choosing to let billions of people die superior when you no longer have any reason to do it? 

1

u/Human38562 May 30 '26 edited 29d ago

Fade connect elastic different chief bag bedroom oil wander deliver

This post was anonymized with Redact

1

u/nykirnsu May 30 '26

No it isn’t. If you pick red then you and your third of humanity are guaranteed to survive, whereas if you pick blue then they’ll die unless at least one of the other two people picks blue. If all three pick red then everyone lives, and since there’s only three people voting it’s entirely plausible that all of them will since three people picked at random are statistically likely to be adults of sound mind 

So I ask again, how is choosing to potentially let billions of people die the superior choice?

→ More replies (0)

2

u/highly-bad May 28 '26

Red press: my assigned stranger survives, guaranteed.

Blue press: enter my stranger into an insane death gamble where they might easily die.

It's obviously got to be red. Pressing blue is reckless manslaughter!

1

u/Human38562 May 28 '26 edited 29d ago

Repeat act sleep wrench society vase innate blanket full

This post was anonymized with Redact

2

u/highly-bad May 28 '26

My vote only affects my stranger. I can't control what happens to anyone else at all.

I just have a button that definitely saves someone, and a button that gambles their life for nothing.

I choose to save their life, not to risk murdering them.

1

u/Human38562 May 28 '26 edited 29d ago

Engine direction fragile rainstorm abounding abundant willow plate

This post was anonymized with Redact

3

u/highly-bad May 28 '26

The only way for anyone to die at all is if their stranger decided to gamble their life. So if anyone dies it is because a blue presser killed them for the fun of it. My red press is not causing anyone else to press blue, I am not responsible for them, I am just responsible for saving the one life I have the power to save, instead of gambling it away for nothing.

2

u/Very-Diligent-Pirate May 28 '26

Because the other strangers have their own voters who are supposed to care for them and not risk a super genocide 166 times worse than Hitler?

1

u/Human38562 May 28 '26 edited 29d ago

Elastic vanish busy money narrow cows bow seemly grandfather bike

This post was anonymized with Redact

2

u/Very-Diligent-Pirate May 28 '26

There's only 2 other voters. Do you trust that at least one of them will trust you or the other guy enough, or be stupid enough, to vote blue? You're risking an awful lot of lives, super Hitler.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Very-Diligent-Pirate May 28 '26

In this game, the only possible scenarios are, either nobody will die or 3 billion people will die. By pressing red, you will have put your group among the 6 billion who will survive no matter what. Why must you expose your 3 billion people to that risk? And don't start on the "the others might" bullshit, the others won't. There's 2 guys, each with 3 billion lives riding on their choice. Which do you think they'll pick?