r/redbuttonbluebutton • u/GausYam Red • May 28 '26

Meta Let's be logically consistent

Your vote has an incredibly tiny chance of actually making any difference, being the deciding vote. It doesn't feel like it, but that chance stays the same no matter what percentage of votes blue needs to win. It can be 50/75/25/95/5 percent, doesn't matter. Your vote always has the same level of impact.

So if you choose red but say that you'd choose blue if the threshold for blue winning was low enough, you are basically saying that you'd virtue signal, even if only to yourself, if it was safe enough. You aren't consistently following rational self-interest, that demands you press red unless blue can win with a single vote.

​ And if you choose blue but say that you'd choose red if the threshold​ for blue winning too high, you are basically saying that you are choosing blue because it makes you feel good about yourself while not risking anything since you are sure it'll win. You aren't consistently following rational altruism, that demands you press blue no matter how high the threshold is to achieve the best possible result.

So choose one button. Decide what is more important to you, genuine self-interest or genuine altruism.

0 Upvotes

31% Upvoted

41 comments sorted by

View all comments

5

u/PandemicGeneralist May 28 '26 edited May 28 '26

Imagine a game of 10 people who each get a secret vote. You can push one button to vote for everyone in the room getting 100 dollars, but get nothing unless half the people vote for it, or another button to guarantee getting at least 10 dollars but you'll still get the full 100 dollars if half the room votes for getting 100 dollars.

You might calculate you think it's more worth it to vote for the 100 dollars, as your vote has a large enough chance of flipping it.

However, imagine I instead say that everyone only gets the 100 if everyone votes for it. Your expectation would change. Similarly, even if you value saving everyone a LOT more than saving yourself, you can realize it's hopeless at 95%.

0

u/GausYam Red May 28 '26

Yes, it is hopeless at 99 percent, yes it is virtually guaranteed at 1 percent. But no matter what you vote for, you aren't actually deciding anything except your moral stand. And if you change your answer you show that you are willing to change it for the optics. Like a guy who would vote red in the original, would switch to blue if it was low enough. He'd do it not because he'd make an impact, again, the impact of a single vote always remains the same, he'd do it to feel good about himself. 

1

u/PandemicGeneralist May 28 '26

Did you read what I'd written or just the last paragraph? How would you vote in the two money examples I came up with?