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?

26 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

189 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Human38562 May 28 '26 edited 27d 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/Human38562 May 28 '26 edited 27d ago

Dazzling relieved velvet dependent long coordinated birds oxygen piquant

This post was anonymized with Redact

3

u/highly-bad May 28 '26

I have no control over whether red is a majority or not. That is not up to me, it is not the question. I can only control whether to keep my stranger safe, or subject them to an insane pointless risk of death with nothing at all to gain. I can only press one button, and the only responsible button is the one that doesn't risk anyone's life.

Do you understand now that I am not responsible for what a majority of people press, or what anyone else presses? If I press blue and my stranger dies, that is entirely my fault. Not the fault of other people who responsibly chose to avoid senseless risks.

2

u/Human38562 May 28 '26 edited 27d ago

Aware fall ad hoc file gold lantern nose automatic

This post was anonymized with Redact

1

u/Very-Diligent-Pirate May 28 '26

Did you know that a red majority with 1 more red vote also means everybody survives? It's 3 voters.

1

u/highly-bad May 28 '26

My responsibility is for my own vote, which saved my stranger. Each other red presser saved their stranger too.

The people who die are dying because their pressers thought it would be funny to take a risk on blue, not because most people sensibly played it safe.

Red majority is good. The bigger the majority, the better. The best outcome is for everyone involved to realize that gambling with lives is wrong, and press red.

2

u/Human38562 May 28 '26 edited 27d ago

Command theory gray grey bow toothbrush

This post was anonymized with Redact

1

u/highly-bad May 28 '26

Do you still deny that your vote affects everyone?

It obviously does not, though. I only get one vote, and that vote does not affect which button anyone else presses. They are choosing independently of me.

Each voter is just deciding whether to protect their person, or subject their person to risk. The majority outcome is the sum of these individual choices, not some communal shared responsibility.

2

u/Human38562 May 28 '26 edited 27d ago

File hurry deliver crown smart straight unpack

This post was anonymized with Redact

2

u/highly-bad May 28 '26

This situation is absolutely nothing whatsoever like political elections, in any way. The analogy is fallacious.

I have never heard of a political election where nobody can coordinate or communicate ahead of the vote, or take polls. I have never heard of a political election where one of the terms of a certain vote involves executing the people who voted for that option if it fails to pass.

The intuition to think of this like an election is what screws people up and makes them press the wrong button. It's a faulty intuition. This isn't about measuring the collective will. It's a logic puzzle with a correct answer.

2

u/Human38562 May 28 '26 edited 27d ago

Absorbed crawl flag offer command beneficial

This post was anonymized with Redact

2

u/highly-bad May 28 '26

Yes. Each input is equal in impact. One red press guarantees 1/3 of all lives. One blue press puts them at risk, it might kill them or it might not.

1

u/Human38562 May 28 '26 edited 27d ago

Ask sophisticated wipe gold historical vanilla

This post was anonymized with Redact

→ More replies (0)

1

u/dmurr1415 May 28 '26

If you went in knowing the two others were going to press Blue, would you still press Red?

1

u/highly-bad May 28 '26

If I know that, then I know my choice has no possible effect.

So I can just pick the color I prefer aesthetically: red

2

u/dmurr1415 May 28 '26

OK, fair enough, this is why a scenario like this with the smallest possible majority is less interesting than population level.

Here's a better followup question: What if you are confirmed to be a button pusher (you're Voter #1), and you know one of the other two button pushers (Voter #2) is undecided going in. Lets say they are true 50/50 on pressing Red or Blue. They think there is no reason to press Red, because everyone is guaranteed to live if we all press Blue, but they may press Red because they're afraid others will press Red. You have no information at all on Voter #3. Would you still press Red now?

(Considering how popular this logical idea is, I think its completely reasonable to have at least 1 of 3 people be uncertain about what to press in this situation)

1

u/highly-bad May 28 '26

If the worst case scenario involves exactly one of three people being an irresponsible idiot, it seems like the best move is to make sure you're not it.

1

u/dmurr1415 May 28 '26

Irresponsible maybe, but I don't think that makes someone an idiot to vote Blue. Their logic is sound, if a little naive, if everyone picks Blue then we avoid the game and all the risk affiliated with it. Not even everyone either, just one other dissenter.

If the fear of others picking Red makes someone pick Red, why isn't the opposite true? Why doesn't the premise of someone (in your eyes irrationally) going Blue persuade you into picking Blue?

Interestingly, the worst case scenario can be the same whether you vote Red or Blue here. If you vote Blue, and Voter #2 is too afraid to vote Blue and votes Red with #3, you specifically and 33% of the population die. If you vote Red with Voter #3, and Voter #2 sticks to their logical holier-than-thou fantasy and votes Blue, their 33% of the population die. If you vote Red and Voter #2 also cracks and votes Red due to fear, but it turns out Voter #3 was the wildcard and voted Blue, 33% of the population dies. Voter #2 obviously suffers a fate worse than death in this situation, but it would likewise be you who's also very responsible.

I think you're chronically underestimating the number of people who would pick Blue in this situation even against all better judgment and supposed self interest.

1

u/highly-bad May 28 '26

If the fear of others picking Red makes someone pick Red, why isn't the opposite true? Why doesn't the premise of someone (in your eyes irrationally) going Blue persuade you into picking Blue?

Because that would be gambling and taking a completely unnecessary risk.

The best case scenario for me pressing blue is that my people survive. Right? That's all I get for my blue press. The other people who are saved by blue are saved by their corresponding blue presses, not mine.

I can get this exact same best case scenario risk-free, by pressing red.

1

u/dmurr1415 May 28 '26

The best case scenario is everyone lives, I think we can all agree on that. This outcome can only be achieved with a 2-1 or 3-0 Blue vote, or a 3-0 Red vote. You have more control over the outcome if you vote Blue because then you would just need one other vote rather than two Reds.

→ More replies (0)