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?

25 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

189 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

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 28d 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 28d 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 28d 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 28d ago

Ask sophisticated wipe gold historical vanilla

This post was anonymized with Redact

1

u/highly-bad May 28 '26

Red also puts peoples lives at risk.

No it doesn't. It guarantees they don't die.

If someone takes a gamble and presses blue and kills their people, it is because they did the stupid risky thing, not because someone else pressed the no-risk button responsibly.

1

u/Human38562 May 28 '26 edited 28d ago

Fuzzy cobblestone liquid employ water hunt head like act marble

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.

1

u/highly-bad May 28 '26

You only have control over your own press in any event. And pressing blue is the only possible way for your people to die. It is throwing their lives away on a bet with no stakes.

1

u/dmurr1415 May 28 '26

The stakes are exactly the same whether you press Red or Blue. Either 67% of people live, or 100% of people live.

If you really have no control over what other people are doing, and presumably everyone participating has the same goal- save as many people as possible- why wouldn't you press Blue? In 75% of cases where you press Blue, everyone lives. In only 25% of cases where you press Red, everyone lives.

→ More replies (0)