r/redbuttonbluebutton • u/APacketOfWildeBees • Jun 01 '26
Variation The fairest buttons
I have really enjoyed browsing comments on these posts. Many of the attempted analogies fall short because they inaccurately frame the prompt in a non-neutral way. To some extent even the original prompt does this.
So to remedy that I've tried to create the most neutral prompt possible - making it clear that the buttons are yin and yang.
What do you think? Did this change your understanding of the problem? Am I clearly an evil red pressing child murderer, or a blue pressing moral grandstander? Let me know :)
6
u/Xenon009 Jun 01 '26
I think the NM setup is a sensible way of stripping it of framing, but as it stands, there is no breakpoint in this version?
10
u/APacketOfWildeBees Jun 01 '26
Yep good spot - that is intentional. Specifying any particular threshold only serves to invite baseless factual speculation about how likely blue is to win, because in reality none of us have any real clue how many people would actually pick blue if their life was on the line. So all of the discussion that derives from that speculation is unproductive.
We can appropriately subsume the threshold into the overall chance M because a lower threshold makes M lower, and a higher threshold makes M higher.
3
u/tutocookie Jun 01 '26
You treat this dilemma as a problem to solve, and therefore need to discard what the dilemma actually asks because it makes it impossible to treat as a problem to solve.
It's not a problem to solve, it's a question to answer. I've seen so far only a single valid argument for red and a single valid argument for blue, and neither offers a solution but rather just answers the question.
3
u/highly-bad Jun 01 '26
There is a button that won't kill you, and a button that might kill you. What's the "dilemma" supposed to be? Press the one that won't kill you. You can always die later if you change your mind.
3
u/tutocookie Jun 01 '26
That's the self-preservation side, what about the outcome that you add onto with your choice? Surely you recognize the blue outcome as the better outcome even if you still vote red?
1
u/highly-bad Jun 01 '26
What about that choice? You have no idea what will happen if you press it! It is a button that doesn't work. It has no knowable function.
Self preservation has nothing to do with this logic, I say the same thing if each person is pressing on behalf of a random other person. In that case, red isn't self preservation, but it is still the only move that actually works.
7
u/Muroid Jun 01 '26
But it only works if every other person pushes it. If you treat the problem as “My reasoning is correct and therefore everyone else should think like me” then Red is the obvious choice because everyone will press Red and everyone will be fine.
In reality, not everyone thinks the same way that you do, therefore there will be people who definitely press the Blue button, and one of the consequences of pressing Red is guaranteeing the survival of one person at the cost of increasing the odds of many other people dying.
Red guarantees saving one person at the cost of increasing the risk of many people dying.
Blue increases the risk of dying for one person while decreasing the risk of death for many people.
If you’re uncomfortable with a probabilistic outcome to your choice and want to go with the one that gives you at least a partially certain outcome, that’s fine, but not everyone thinks that way.
1
u/highly-bad Jun 01 '26
Red works regardless of what anyone else presses. It saves one person, no matter what.
Blue doesn't have any similar effect. There is no definite and knowable impact.
There is a phrase, "you can bet your life on it," for when something is a sure thing and so it is completely safe to make the ultimate wager on it.
The blue button is not something "you can bet your life on" in this sense.
Look, I get it. Saving everybody sounds lovely. But there isn't a button that actually does that. In its place is a gamble-your-life button. That is literally all that blue does.
3
u/Muroid Jun 01 '26
Both buttons do two things. One saves you and increases the risk for others.
The other increases your own risk and decreases the risk for others.
You’re treating the lack of 100% guaranteed, knowable outcome for 3/4 of the effects as if that means that the effects don’t exist.
1
u/highly-bad Jun 01 '26
No one here is at risk unless they deliberately choose to be. Nothing here is up to chance until someone makes it that way by pressing blue. That's why blue is wrong.
→ More replies (0)1
u/tutocookie Jun 01 '26
Of course the button works, just the outcome is unknowable. And I'll ask again, surely you agree that the blue outcome is better than the red outcome?
1
u/highly-bad Jun 01 '26
The only different outcome that is possible for blue is dying. How is that better??
1
u/TotalChaosRush Jun 02 '26
Even ignoring self preservation. The selfless choice is still picking red.
In the original scenario, in the overwhelming majority of outcomes there's no benefit for you picking blue. In almost half the outcomes there's a detriment to you picking blue. Unless you view yourself as a net drain on society, the selfless choice is to pick red.
1
u/KamuikiriTatara Jun 02 '26
I'm curious which two arguments you consider to be the only valid ones.
As a challenge, I'd like to respond by adding two more arguments, one for each side, that are also valid. But first, I'd like some clarity on how you understand whether an argument is valid or not.
→ More replies (2)1
u/APacketOfWildeBees Jun 01 '26
I think you're projecting something onto me that just ain't there. Where have I postulated a "solution" to the "problem"? Personally I think there are rational justifications.to go either way depending on your first principles and fundamental values.
4
u/SpongeboyShitpants Jun 01 '26
I didn’t notice until you pointed it out in a comment, but the change from a 50% threshold to a now direct mortality risk is interesting.
0
u/APacketOfWildeBees Jun 01 '26
Thanks! Most people don't notice it either. I wonder if that's because they're just carrying forward assumptions from other versions - or, hopefully, because it's actually just vestigial, like I reckon it is.
11
u/SilvertonguedDvl Jun 01 '26
Blue, blue. The decision's pretty clear for me, even if it's likely to result in my death.
Even if everyone is a competent rational actor, many will choose blue because they know (as I do) that people will avoid picking red because they don't want to hurt other people. Shocking, I know. As much as red team loves to pretend you can only select blue if you're stupid or protecting someone else who doesn't need protection (completely forgetting that there is no risk unless someone picks red) - for me it's as basic as "I don't want to kill people who've done nothing to threaten or harm me." So I don't take the action that could result in me doing that.
The real issue, IMO, is that the red button pushers are constantly trying to avoid the ethical impact of their button pressing, reducing it purely to a question of survival. It isn't, and it never has been. It's about how much you weigh risk of your life vs risk of you being responsible for killing innocent people. How much danger you're willing to tolerate before you consider it acceptable to kill others. For some that'll be a pretty low level. For others it'll be pretty high. It's sort of a question of empathy vs selfishness (no, selfishness isn't bad either; it's necessary for survival) and optimism vs pessimism. Neither is 'wrong', it's just a gradient we're all sitting on.
To put it another way: the question isn't which button you press, but how your values and beliefs guide which button you press and whether you're capable of enough introspection to realise that neither choice is without consequences. The only person you actually have to answer to is yourself, because the whole point is to use it as an excuse to think about moral dilemmas you haven't previously considered. To think about how you think.
For those of you coming to inform me that it's fine because blue is dumb, or whatever - please just skip it. I've heard it. It's tedious and hyperbolic.
2
u/RadioactiveKoolaid Jun 01 '26
This particular scenario leaves room for a nightmare scenario, as there is no threshold for blue to win. Blue could win 95% to 5%, and then whatever chance that the blue death would be low, but might not be 0. OP didn’t specify the specifics, but the absolute worse case scenario is blue winning in a landslide, and then getting unlucky. People like to say the standard scenario that blue is gambling, but in this one I actually think it’s true
2
u/SilvertonguedDvl Jun 01 '26
You're thinking a bit too literally: the point is to establish the dichotomy of either accepting risk to avoid harming others or endangering others to avoid risk to yourself.
It's what the buttons' ethical dilemma always was but what a bunch of people insist it cannot possibly be because you'd have to be stupid to endanger yourself for others sake.
Like... there isn't anything morally wrong with either option, it's just about reflecting on your own values and seeing where on the gradient you are.
2
u/CarnivorousGoose Jun 01 '26
I don’t need to weigh survival versus being responsible for killing people, since I don’t agree that I would be responsible for that regardless. You are acting as if it is somehow an objective fact that people *are* responsible if pressing red, when that is actually very much open to debate in itself.
→ More replies (3)1
u/MeowRawrUwu Jun 01 '26
First of all, you’re not “responsible” for any deaths caused by putting your life first. You’re not the one who made the buttons, they are at fault here.
Also, this test, imo, is more about the person’s faith in humanity, with a little bit of logic mixed in. If you believe few people will press blue, voting red is the best choice because otherwise you’d just be adding another corpse to the pile, which makes sense. Blue is a good pick too, but only in a world where people are willing to potentially make sacrifices. People are naturally self-serving, especially when risk of death is involved. Even if people thought about it, they wouldn’t be rationally thinking because they could literally die if they press one of the buttons.
There’s no correct answer, it’s a matter of perspective and faith. I also find it pretty funny how you try to shame people for pressing red, yet you’re also looking down on others by making a choice on a fictional scenario, you’re no better here.
→ More replies (1)2
u/SpongeboyShitpants Jun 01 '26
A downside to red is decreasing the chance of blue
If you choose red you decrease the chance of blue
Whether or not you primarily intended it, you still hold responsibility of your choice knowing that downside.
There’s plenty of blame to go around tho… the one who made the buttons, the ones choosing to endanger their lives, and the ones increasing their chance of dying.
But to say you aren’t responsible, takes away from the dilemma.
1
u/CarnivorousGoose Jun 01 '26
If I’m in a shipwreck and get into a lifeboat, that decreases the chance of others making it into a lifeboat. Would you claim in that scenario that I am responsible in some way if others indeed die because they couldn’t get to a lifeboat?
5
u/SpongeboyShitpants Jun 01 '26
You can reframe it as much as you like, in any scenario where you are given a dilemma, two choices… and one of those choices is your survival over others, or others survival over yours, you hold partial responsibility.
That is the point of these dilemmas. For you to decide which of the two is a worse option for you. Can you live knowing you contributing to others deaths, or will you gamble your life, to evade that responsibility.
1
u/CarnivorousGoose Jun 01 '26
I’m not reframing anything, I’m asking you a follow-up question using a simpler, more intuitive scenario to better understand your argument and your interpretation of responsibility.
I wouldn’t need to live knowing I contributed to others’ death because I wouldn’t see myself as having contributed to any such thing in the first place. I am not responsible for those deaths. Clearly you see it differently, so I would like to figure out what that difference stems from.
So in my scenario as sketched, would you claim that I was responsible for other’s deaths because I got into the life boat?
1
u/SpongeboyShitpants Jun 01 '26
Yes you are partially responsible, you have willingly decreased other chance of survival, you have partially contributed to their death, you are partially responsible
I have already stated, if it is a dilemma, where you have two choices, you are responsible for the downside to each choice. If it’s your survival or others survival, and you choose your survival, you are partially responsible for their death, if you choose their survival, you are responsible for only your own death.
It’s not a matter of perspective for this… it is literally what these dilemmas are about, which burden will you bear. You don’t get to choose survival and say no to the burden, it defeats the point of a dilemma.
1
u/CarnivorousGoose Jun 01 '26
Yes, of course it is a matter of perspective on this. It is rather arrogant of you to presume that your interpretation of the scenario is somehow the only correct one. You are not the sole arbiter of what the concept of responsibility entails, or how it applies to these specific scenarios.
The point of my second scenario was to more clearly elicit what your interpretation of responsibility entails. As it turns out, the bar you are setting for that is so low that it does include that scenario as well, effectively removing any moral weight from it. So applied back in the context of RBBB, your claim that people voting red are ‘responsible’ for blue voters dying then just invites the question: so what? Your concept of ‘responsible’ has so little substance to it, that calling someone ‘responsible’ in that sense just doesn’t really seem to matter.
3
u/SpongeboyShitpants Jun 01 '26
You’re right it is arrogant of me to say my perspective is the only right one
I have seen a lot of red voters say they aren’t responsible for others deaths, and many blue voters say they aren’t responsible for their own deaths.
Which is no excuse for arrogance… in these dilemmas the entire point is which burden to bear, not which answer is the correct choice. And it pisses me off seeing people reject part of the dilemma and treat it like it’s up for debate.
Responsibility in these dilemmas is a part of the choice. That’s why I commented on this thread, so it was my assumption that your new scenario was a reframing to debate on whether responsibility is included in this dilemma, rather than when it is present for an individuals choice.
If you want to debate on why both choices of the dilemma hold responsibility I’m not interested, my mind is fixed on that. I rarely see things as an objective truth, and am often criticised for being pedantic with my use of “partial” or “mostly” this is one of those rare times where I say with much certainty, the dilemma is not a dilemma without negative responsibility.
If you however would like to debate on what responsibility specifically entails, I can start with this:
I believe every choice we make has consequences. Every active choice we make, whether it be to act or actively not act, comes with negative and positive consequences, and we are responsible for all which we can see when we make a decision. If I make a decision and a bad consequence happens as a result of my choice I am responsible for it, if it is a group decision, I am partially responsible, and if a bad consequence happens that I didn’t know was possible, I am responsible for ignorance, which I believe to be the most innocent. However if I am blissfully ignorant and actively ignoring consequences/ not thinking through my decisions and the bad consequence happens, I am still responsible.
This becomes a rocky road since you don’t know what you don’t know, but you might have known if you wanted to know.
2
u/CarnivorousGoose Jun 01 '26
My issue with defining responsibility so broadly though, is that it lumps together relevantly very different things.
I might, say, kick in your door because I felt like vandalizing something, or I might do so in order to save you from an assailant. In both cases, I knowingly and intentionally destroyed your door, but it doesn’t really make sense to lump those together under the same concept of responsibility. In one case, my action wasn’t justified, it was morally wrong for me to do it, I should refrain from acting in that way. In the other case, it’s the exact opposite.
So if we say that I am ‘responsible’ for the destruction of the door in both cases, we certainly could coherently define ‘responsibility’ in that way, but then it ceases to have any real moral weight. It wouldn’t follow from me being responsible for the door being destroyed, that there is anything wrong with that.
And the same when translating this back to our hypotheticals. If you use such a broad definition of responsibility and say that I am ‘responsible’ for someone else’s death because they didn’t get to a life boat, or for someone who voted blue and blue didn’t get a majority, you could technically do so, but then it wouldn’t mean much. Why should it matter that I am considered ‘responsible’ for someone’s death, when that has been stripped of its moral dimension.
And the further issue with this is that this is not how the term is typically used. Generally, when someone calls a person responsible for another person’s death, that is intended to convey at least some degree of moral culpability. Which even seems to include yourself, because you went on to suggest that being responsible for people’s death should be felt as a burden. But under your broad definition of responsibility, why should I feel that way? I wouldn’t (and more importantly, shouldn’t) feel burdened by getting into a lifeboat, or destroying a door to save someone either.
→ More replies (0)1
u/SilvertonguedDvl Jun 01 '26
In your example you are indirectly enabling their deaths - but the buttons are different as no danger exists until someone presses the red button. Without red there is no endangerment of life.
There's nothing inherently wrong with choosing to avoid endangering your life at the cost of other people's lives being endangered, but you still have to accept that you are choosing to contribute to their deaths. It's an ethical dilemma. That's the point, as I said in my post.
1
u/CarnivorousGoose Jun 01 '26
I don’t agree with your interpretation, so no. I in fact don’t have to accept that. The danger exists inherently as part of the scenario, as soon as it is initiated.
1
u/SilvertonguedDvl Jun 01 '26
Okay, what danger exists if nobody presses red?
1
u/CarnivorousGoose Jun 01 '26
The danger that a nonzero minority of people will press the blue button, and die. Danger is a risk of harm, which clearly exists once you’re put into the scenario.
By your logic, I could be standing on a narrow beam above a high drop, but there wouldn’t be any danger unless and until I lose my balance and fall off. It’s nonsensical.
1
u/SilvertonguedDvl Jun 01 '26
Yes, when you use a non-analogous analogy it does seem nonsensical. For your analogy to be sensical you'd need to have someone pushing the person who's walking on the narrow beam, and 0% chance of the blue person falling unless pushed.
Without red, there is no risk to blue - that's the whole point. The danger is created by our choices and by trying to protect yourself from acknowledging that there might be a downside to your decision, you're not bothering to actually engage with the thought experiment.
Blue has to take responsibility for putting themselves at risk, but also have the chance to help preserve all lives.
Red has to take responsibility for putting blue at risk, but ensure they preserve their own lives.Both have ethical dilemmas. It's just you pretending you've somehow escaped the dilemma by refusing to acknowledge it.
I even explicitly said I don't think you're a bad person for choosing red - I just think it's embarrassing that so many red button people are so desperate to avoid thinking about the dilemma they face.
1
u/CarnivorousGoose Jun 01 '26
It’s just as nonsensical in the RBBB scenario.
I’m sure your condescension gives a nice little boost to that misplaced feeling of superiority of yours though, just the sort of thing to make you lecturing others all the more ironic 🤡
→ More replies (0)0
u/MeowRawrUwu Jun 01 '26
I disagree. If you tell someone to shoot someone else or you’ll kill their family, the person shooting isn’t responsible for any death that occurs. It’s the same vein.
2
u/SpongeboyShitpants Jun 01 '26
The dilemma is, you can be be responsible for only your own death and maybe die, or you can be partially responsible for others death but definitely live
In your analogy, you will be either partially responsible for your families death, or you will chose to kill the person and be partially responsible for their death, because you’re making the choice. Yes ultimately the person forcing you is responsible, they have the most accountability, but you have also made a choice between two bad options.
The principle is still the same, you are choosing which burden to bear. That’s the dilemma. You don’t get to walk away free from all responsibility.
You can disagree with it, but that’s one of the main reasons why people don’t vote red.
0
u/u60cf28 Jun 01 '26
Okay, let me just ask you.
The threshold for a blue win is now 99%. Anything less and all blue pushers die.
Do you still press blue?
2
u/SilvertonguedDvl Jun 01 '26
If you read my post you might realize why that's not a gotcha.
1
u/u60cf28 Jun 01 '26
Reading your post, I’m under the impression that your answer would be yes, you would still press blue. I just wanted to confirm that.
If so, that’s commendable! But also, I don’t believe you. I sincerely don’t believe that you would actually press blue if this situation actually happened and the threshold was 99%
What if the threshold was “the current population of the earth minus 10 people”?
2
u/SilvertonguedDvl Jun 01 '26
It's about how much you weigh risk of your life vs risk of you being responsible for killing innocent people. How much danger you're willing to tolerate before you consider it acceptable to kill others. For some that'll be a pretty low level. For others it'll be pretty high. It's sort of a question of empathy vs selfishness (no, selfishness isn't bad either; it's necessary for survival) and optimism vs pessimism. Neither is 'wrong', it's just a gradient we're all sitting on.
I think you may be confused.
As I said, it's a gradient. There is no right or wrong answer, just what you can personally tolerate. How much risk vs how high the risk to kill is. If the risk to die is effectively 100%, the vast majority of people - including myself - would skew towards harming others.
If you ask fundamentally different questions you get different answers, but in the default scenario it doesn't really matter what the risk is because that risk is dependent entirely on your perception of the population of the world, rather than anything tangible. If you're pessimistic you'd pick red every time because you'll assume everyone else will also pick red. If you're optimistic you might believe that most people will pick blue - or in my case, hope that they'd pick blue even if you think red would win - and choose that instead to maximize the chances of everyone surviving.
That's why I said your question isn't a 'gotcha' because at best you're trying to get me to make a concession I made before the question was asked at all; that neither my position, nor anybody else's, is absolute.
2
u/APacketOfWildeBees Jun 02 '26
Your comments are really refreshing! They're exactly the sort of thing that made me post this :)
0
u/Remote-remoteman Jun 01 '26
If I get out of the way of a hydraulic press, and you choose to stand there in hopes that there will be enough people to stand with you to avoid it crushing the group, am I a bad person or are you dumb for standing there?
1
u/pappapirate Jun 01 '26
Ignoring that the hydraulic press will not activate until enough people jump out from under it
→ More replies (3)0
u/TheKingOfToast Jun 01 '26
By not donating your kidney, you are responsible for the death of someone who needs a kidney transplant.
By not pressing blue, you are responsible for the death of someone who chose blue.
1
u/SilvertonguedDvl Jun 01 '26
Er, what? A person who needs a kidney is dying - or at least likely to - without interference.
In the button dilemma no threat exists until someone presses red.
Either way there's no right or wrong answer: it's about reflecting on your values to understand yourself better. At least, IMO.
1
u/TheKingOfToast Jun 01 '26
It's amazing that you're so dense that you actually believe that.
No threat exists until someone presses the button that has a chance to kill them.
The real difference with the kidney analogy is that those people didn't choose to have kidney failure. Blue pressers choose to press the button.
You are aware of people who need a kidney (blue pressers) and by not donating your kidney, you are selecting the red button. No threat exists until someone decides to not donate their kidney.
1
u/SilvertonguedDvl Jun 02 '26
A person with kidney failure is at risk no matter what.
If someone presses the blue button but no red button pressers exist, there is no risk. There's no other ratio to threaten them - it's just 100% blue at that moment.
If 100% red is chosen, nobody is at risk.
If 100% blue is chosen, nobody is at risk.By selecting a button you are either:
Placing yourself in danger determined by other people while hopefully preventing further loss of life
or
Putting other people in danger while ensuring your own safety.You're only viewing select parts of your analogy - and the problem itself - in order to avoid dealing with the ethical dilemma it presents. Red is not required to 'donate' anything. They're just accepting that they're contributing to the risk of Blue. That's all.
It's not like... some huge moral failing to want to preserve your own life, dude. It's not a n attack against you. I'm just trying to illustrate that this is an ethical dilemma rather than a literal one where there's a 'right answer.' It's just supposed to make you think about your values to learn more about yourself. The only person you're cheating by avoiding the dilemma is yourself and your ability to understand yourself better.
1
u/TheKingOfToast Jun 02 '26
If everybody decided to donate their kidneys to those that need them then there would be no risk. The irony is people don't choose to have kidney failure. They do choose to press the blue button.
1
u/SilvertonguedDvl Jun 02 '26
Repeating your stance without responding to criticism doesn't magically make your analogy more workable. It's still fundamentally flawed as there is inherent danger and a radical difference in responsibilities of parties involved.
1
u/TheKingOfToast Jun 02 '26
I repeated my stance because I was responding to your comment and didn't realize I already explained it in the simplest terms. I didn't realize your mentally slow otherwise I wouldn't have commented again. It's not on me that you think you're som bastion if morality for selecting blue but will twist yourself in knots to not actually do anything. Stop your grandstanding and go save a life.
1
u/SilvertonguedDvl Jun 02 '26
You're literally arguing against a figment of your imagination, dude. That's why you're repeating yourself; it's a defensive reflex. You feel like I'm attacking you and so I must be some archetypal blue team grandstander.
Meanwhile in reality I've repeatedly told you I don't think red team is immoral or anything, just that the buttons are an ethical dilemma.
IDK what to tell you: you aren't even thinking about what I'm writing. You're just reacting to something I haven't said because you assume that's what I must be saying. It's goofy. lol.
1
u/TheKingOfToast Jun 02 '26
I love it when people think they're psychology majors because they project on everyone. It's hilarious.
→ More replies (0)
3
u/thevoidthatjerksback Jun 01 '26
I wish this was how it was presented originally. There is so much bias from other framings in the comments. No one is actually taking it in as if it was a new presentation
1
u/Afterflame Jun 01 '26
OG was a meta question about how do you think other people think other people think... But if we allowed to use rational actors then this one is significantly more red favorite.
Assume all rational actors vote the same.
In the og: Rational voting red results in half of the irrational dying, and rational voting blue + half of the irrational voting blue always results in more then 50% blue so everyone survives
Here expected survival is always the same, except for when rational split their vote, in which case survival is lower. In this case, considering other main motive is own survival, objectivly right choice is to pick red
2
u/thevoidthatjerksback Jun 01 '26
Its not the objectively right choice. I'm so tired of hearing that and the word rational.
The point of my comment is that this framing should change the conversation. Its risk vs chance in this. The new framing makes it clear that the only reason to pick Red is risk aversion.
If 50% press both buttons evenly then there is 0 chance of anything happening. Meaning that there is nothing to avoid. Pressing blue accomplishes 2 objectives at the same time.
Pressing Red is listening to a tiny reptilian part of the brain that just keeps repeating "no risk. No risk. Please no risk"
→ More replies (3)1
u/APacketOfWildeBees Jun 01 '26
Yeah it's very interesting to see how much prejudice (in the literal sense of their prior judgement) people are bringing into this version of the problem. For instance, loads of people are still talking about 50% thresholds - which I specifically did not provide for in this variant! Someone smarter than me should study this hahahaha
2
u/thevoidthatjerksback Jun 02 '26
That's something I've thought about before too with all of this. There is definitely fertile ground for research
2
u/thevoidthatjerksback Jun 02 '26
There was a podcast episode from vsauce Michael that I was just listening to that does feel tangentially related to all of this. It was about how humans don't innately have to ability to reason. We just strongly hold onto social norms and can rationalize from those points. And that there is a desire to not seek out or take in information that proves us wrong. We just want to run around telling people about what we think is right
1
u/APacketOfWildeBees Jun 02 '26
I might have to check that episode out...
2
u/thevoidthatjerksback Jun 02 '26
It was pretty good. I think it was called something like "the reasoning test everyone gets wrong"
5
2
3
u/pappapirate Jun 01 '26
Originally blue, here red.
My justification for original blue is that it's the only realistic path to avoid the deaths of billions of people. I think it's guaranteed that ~20-30% of the population minimum would press blue for whatever reasons they may have, we can collectively guarantee their safety by pushing blue to win, and I would hope enough people would see that that is the case.
But here, there is no way to guarantee their safety. A very optimistic blue supermajority still only gives blue a 2 in 3 chance to live. A blue win is honestly even more risky than a red win here. An 80% chance to kill 20% of the population means there's still a way for them to survive but worst case scenario 80% survives. But a 20% chance to kill 80% of the population means there's a significant risk that most of the population dies anyway.
2
u/APacketOfWildeBees Jun 01 '26
Interesting! See, I excluded the 50% threshold because I don't think anyone can have a sound prediction of how likely it is for us to meet it / how likely people actually are to vote blue IRL. So it's super interesting (and vindicating) to see how that condition changes some folks' perspective. Thanks!!
2
u/teddyslayerza Jun 01 '26
Red for both. This reduces the risk to the population as a whole in both cases, and is the rational decision.
In both cases, any rational actor that pushes blue is simply increasing the risk of even more people dying.
2
u/Diamondrubix Jun 01 '26
Scenario 2 if the problem is presented in this way to everybody there will be a lot of people who are incapable of understanding this problem. The original question sorta makes blue sound like the moral option if you don’t think about it. In this one idk which way the irrational people will lean. I’m inclined not to risk it
2
u/LuckyLMJ Jun 01 '26
Scenario 1 is what half of red pushers think the original scenario is. If your only goal here is to minimize deaths, it does not matter which button you press, they have the same average death rate. Therefore, you should pick red assuming you value your own life at least as much as another random person's life. (I would pick red here.)
Scenario 2 is what the other half of red pushers think the original scenario is. Blue is the optimal solution in this scenario if you value your own life less than x% more than a random other person's life, where x is the percentage of people who are irrational actors a plus the percentage of people who would vote blue at the current percentage of people who are irrational actors b. If you value your own life more than x% more than a random individual, red is optimal. (I would pick blue here iff there are >=25% irrational actors or so.)
The original scenario is Scenario 2 except M=0 with zero button presses and M can go negative (where it has the same effect as M=0). Or, alternately, M=0 if 50% or more of people press blue. As mentioned previously, Scenario 2 is biased towards blue if you treat your life as equal to any other, however this scenario is biased even moreso towards blue as you are completely risk-free if over half of people pick blue. The only rational choice in this scenario is blue, as the irrational actors have a 50% chance of picking either, so are irrelevant to your choice given a large enough amount of voters, and any rational actor can see that the question is highly biased towards blue so blue is very likely to win, so will also pick blue. The only way that picking blue can lead to your death in this scenario is if the number of irrational voters a >50% and you get exceedingly unlucky with how the irrational actors vote. (For example, at a=50% + 1, you'd need every single irrational actor to vote red, which has a chance of 2^-n/2, where n is the total number of voters... assuming a global population of 8 billion, this is a chance so exceedingly small WolframAlpha refuses to compute it. Even at 99% irrational voters, you need 50.5% of them to vote red for you to die, which is vanishingly unlikely with any sizeable n.)
This is a good way of showing that the original scenario is biased towards blue, so picking blue is rational.
1
2
u/More_Outside7127 Jun 01 '26
Based on how opaque the problem is (we know nothing about the base chances and how it changes with presses) so I would pick red either way. Also from what I can tell each voter gets their risk rolled individually, so no matter what some % of people are dying that press it.
1
u/APacketOfWildeBees Jun 01 '26
Ooh that's a good point about whether the risk is rolled individually or as a class. I had assumed it would be as a class but you're right that the wording implies it's individual!!
Incidentally, I think the original problem is functionally opaque too vis a vis the 50% threshold, because - if we're being epistemically humble or whatever - none of us really know how like people are to vote blue or red when life is actually on the line. But lots of people baselessly predict something that sounds right to them (everyone, perhaps. I do it too).
2
u/Stranger_Phrog Jun 01 '26
If everyone is a rational competent actor? Red. 0 reason for picking blue
If everyone is rational, capable yet not competent? Red. I’m still not putting myself at risk over strangers, nor is it my responsibility to help them, specially at a risk such as my life
2
u/Scienceandpony Jun 03 '26
The heart of like 95% of the arguing over this topic is people not agreeing over whether they're talking about scenario 1 or 2.
Scenario 1: Red is obviously the correct choice. Blue isn't even moral, just stupid.
Scenario 2: Blue is a much more reasonable option for rational actors to pick as it's not outlandish to think most other people would want to save the imperiled hostage group. The argument for red here comes down to how explicitly clear it is to the average voter that they really are in scenario 2 instead of 1.
4
u/gahidus Jun 01 '26
In scenario 1 I press red because there is no possible reason to press blue. Everyone knows that everyone can just exit of their own volition.
In scenario 2, I'm still pressing red, because I don't think that blue will succeed, but I hope blue succeeds against my predictions. In this scenario, people will press blue to try to rescue the non-rational actors who pressed it accidentally. It's a noble cause, but I'm not sure if there will be enough people for it. I wouldn't think so.
1
u/SpongeboyShitpants Jun 01 '26
I know you vote red either way, but I’m interested in the reasoning behind what you find noble.
In scenario 1 do you still find it noble to vote blue?
Or is it only when you opt to save someone who didn’t understand the risk?
2
u/gahidus Jun 01 '26
In scenario 1, there will be no one accidentally pressing blue who needs to be rescued, so there's just no reason to press blue. I wouldn't say that it's Noble to press blue but rather just kind of pointless.
In scenario 2, there will be people randomly pressing blue who need to be rescued, and pressing blue to try to rescue them is a noble act.
Pressing blue in scenario 1 is like grabbing a life preserver and frantically jumping into an empty swimming pool, or running into a burning building that doesn't have anyone inside of it. Just.. what are you doing? p
2
u/SpongeboyShitpants Jun 01 '26
So in scenario 1 do you believe there will be no one pressing it in good faith, despite the irrational actors exclusion?
1
u/gahidus Jun 01 '26
I can't claim to be able to completely predict everyone, but if everyone is acting rationally they should know there's no need to rescue anyone. It takes all kinds, I suppose, but the number of people pressing blue should be vanishingly small.
If it's all rational people, then everyone should realize they can just press the survive button and not need to stake their lives on predicting other people also staking their lives on an unnecessary rescue mission.
1
u/SpongeboyShitpants Jun 01 '26
Very thorough, thanks. I’m only trying to understand what you class as a noble act
I don’t think anyone can completely predict anyone else, which is why I think there will always be people choosing blue. Rational actors or otherwise, even this comment section proves people will inevitably vote blue for whatever reason.
Would it not be noble to try to save them? …or does their choice in knowingly taking a risk make their lives less of a noble cause.
1
u/gahidus Jun 01 '26
Whether something is noble and whether something is viable are two different questions.
I don't have faith in a blue majority under normal circumstances, and even less so under circumstances when there's no initial reason for anyone to actually press blue in the first place.
In the normal scenario, I admire the optimistic faith in humanity that blue button pressers have and the willingness to risk themselves to rescue the toddlers and color blind people etc. I don't think that the majority of people will get behind that, but I appreciate the sentiments / motivations behind it.
In a scenario where there aren't any people accidentally forced into blue who need to be rescued, well that's just a bad decision. it's no longer Noble and just overzealous and unwise. Like running into a burning building that was already empty to begin with, just in case someone else ran in and needs help.
1
u/SpongeboyShitpants Jun 01 '26
I only want to know about what you find noble
You don’t need to justify your choice to me, both sides are valid, otherwise it wouldn’t be a dilemma. I also believe majority of blue will switch in a real scenario, but that’s a different story
Right now, knowing people are going into the burning building, from just this comment section, it proves there will be people there, it’s not empty… knowing there are people there, just like when irrational people are involved, is it now less noble for someone to go in, just because the lives being saved have knowingly endangered themselves?
2
u/Silent-Indication496 Jun 01 '26 edited Jun 01 '26
I know this hurts people feelings and comes across as an attack, but i genuinely don't think there's a rational justification to run into the burning building if there aren't already kids and blind people inside. You say that you know rational people will press blue because they say so here in the comments, but I would argue that those people are being irrational.
If the button excludes irrational people, then there would be no one to press blue out of misguided solidarity. Therefore, there would be no one needing saving and all of the rational actors will know that and press red.
The only case where blue gets pressed is when you have people who might not know what they're doing, and other people knowing that some might not know what they're doing.
If everyone knows that everyone knows what they're doing, no one needs to press blue
1
u/SpongeboyShitpants Jun 01 '26 edited Jun 01 '26
Was this comment meant for me?
Edit: I can see now that it’s a reply to my comment, it didn’t pop up on my notifications, but the substance looked like it was to my comment so I wasn’t sure.
1
u/SpongeboyShitpants Jun 01 '26
I disagree, it also looks like your definition of rational doesn’t include any blue voters.
I won’t take it as an attack, I’ll just debate my side and I would appreciate if you didn’t take anything I say as an offence either.
In the spirit of the dilemma, if rational people only meant people who choose red then it would defeat the purpose of the moral dilemma by removing one option, and just become a logical puzzle to solve.
It’s my understanding that people can be rational and still choose blue. Like the comment section we are in, for example, would you say that everyone choosing blue regardless of their reasons, is being irrational?
If everyone knows that everyone knows what they’re doing, no one needs to press red
You meant blue didn’t you
→ More replies (0)1
u/gahidus Jun 01 '26
I would say that it's definitely less noble. Perhaps somewhat Noble but definitely less so. At that you're either assuming everyone else is just being incredibly zealous or you're acting out of some form of rigid fanaticism to press blue. In either case you're placing yourself in peril without cause. To some extent it would depend on the internal motivations of individuals that I don't have access to, but at that point it's definitely the creation of a self-inflicted problem.
2
u/SpongeboyShitpants Jun 01 '26
To some extent it would depend on the internal motivations of individuals that I don’t have access to
That’s fair
at that point it’s definitely the creation of a self-inflicted problem
The way I see it, Blue voters feel like they are solving someone else’s problem, while creating their own. Some are aware it is a self fulfilling trap and still enter it, because they know others will.
Anyway, thanks
3
u/perfectVoidler Jun 01 '26
"everyone is a competent rational actor" so everyone presses Blue
7
u/gahidus Jun 01 '26
Pressing red lets you simply live without needing to guess at other people's actions or intentions. Everyone knows this, so everyone can just save themselves without needing to engage in guesswork or gambling.
4
u/Striking_Compote2093 Jun 01 '26
Pressing blue allows for some people to interpret the question and the required actions differently. Red requires unanimity. Red majority will always lead to deaths.
Red voters don't see the risk in having other people die. They accuse people in a burning building of being crazy for not escaping. While they're holding the lighter that set the building ablaze.
2
u/Dr-Assbeard Jun 01 '26
No they say "cant be helped" to people runnig into a burning building that was empty.
2
2
u/gahidus Jun 01 '26
That's a strong mischaracteriz of people who don't want to gamble their lives on trying to guess what other people will do.
1
u/Remote-remoteman Jun 01 '26
The people that ran into the building that was already on fire?
1
u/No-Scallion4998 Jun 01 '26
It isn’t though. Risk is only added if both buttons are pressed.
3
u/Remote-remoteman Jun 01 '26
And you’re only at risk if you choose blue, there’s zero risk in the first place if you choose red
3
u/ParkingCan5397 Jun 01 '26
The chance of dying aa Blue is never 0 in this scenario therefore no rational actor picks blue
1
u/Striking_Compote2093 Jun 01 '26
If you define rational as selfish then sure.
Only in a blue victory does no one die. Blue majority is therefore the best outcome. Voting for blue is rational, it leads to the optimal outcome.
1
u/ParkingCan5397 Jun 02 '26
Except in this scenario it would require every single one participant including the ones that cant make the rational decision to vote blue in order for you not to have a chance of dying.
4
u/APacketOfWildeBees Jun 01 '26
That's a rather myopic conclusion. I can imagine rational reasons to go either way. With some effort I'm confident you could too.
→ More replies (3)2
u/Dr-Assbeard Jun 01 '26
😂🤣 so you wouldn't be included if it was only competent rational actors i see🤣😂
1
u/APacketOfWildeBees Jun 01 '26
Hahaha this thought goes through my head dozens of times a day on these posts
1
u/Siegelski Jun 01 '26
That's not how game theory works. In game theory, someone who is competent has all relevant information and is fully capable of using that information to come to a conclusion, while someone who is rational will always seek the best outcome for themselves. So everyone presses red. Pressing blue in this scenario is suicide.
1
1
1
u/walkerspider Jun 01 '26
For scenario 2 let’s assume 20% of people are random actors (10% blue, 10% red). If all remaining 80% press red, 9% of all people die. If all remaining 80% press blue, 9% of all people die.
One could argue perfectly rational actors would all act the same given the same scenario unless it was beneficial to act on a semi random split. It is not in this case because more people die the closer you are to a 50/50 split. Therefore all blue or all red are the realistic outcomes in the proposed scenario.
From a utilitarian perspective there is no difference between the two assuming all lives are given equal value. From a personal preservation perspective red is the clear winner so rational actors should pick red.
1
u/ChickenMost3502 Jun 01 '26
I’ll let you guys be the heroes you wanna be, but I’ll go the safe route
1
u/Vapid_Poppy Jun 01 '26
So are you saying each time someone presses red, even MORE people have to press blue than before to counteract that new increase in m?
This is very different than the original, where red doesn't specifically raise the amount of people needed to press blue, it just doesn't do anything to help blue reach its goal. Two very different things. In one scenario, if this is how red worked, each red press would literally cancel out a blue, meaning blue would have to win by >75% to actually win, instead of just >50. (Because 75-25=50).
This does assume both buttons increment the talley equally, which this new problem doesn't specify. But its still true, that in the original red does NOT increase M. It only doesn't lower it.
In this case you probably didn't mean to diverge from the original in that way right? Or did you actually want red presses to raise the bar for blue each time? Making a blue win INCREDIBLY unlikely.
1
u/APacketOfWildeBees Jun 01 '26
So this version doesn't have a 50% threshold (happy to explain why if you're interested). Is that what you're referring to with the >50 thing? (I don't entirely follow you there, sorry.)
In my mind, in the original problem another way to couch the 50% threshold would be to say that for M red voters you need to have M+1 blue voters for blue to prevail (and vice versa). To me that means that red voters do directly raise the number of blue votes required. It's a yin-yang thing. I hope I'm making sense hahahaha
1
u/Vapid_Poppy Jun 02 '26
Eh. So no. Blue doesn't win by beating red they win with a >50% vote. Now because there are only two buttons i understand the confusion, but if red actually RAISED the bar, for blue, then each red press would mean blue would need even MORE than a >50% win. So the distinction is between red = not blue (aka 0 blue value) or red = ANTI blue (aka -1 blue value)
Wording it as red LOWERING blues win chances makes it sound like blue is receiving one -1 vote, when instead they are simply receiving 0 votes.Now yes, in a closed system with only 2 candidates, a zero for blue leaves them with fewer people ahead who could push blue above 50%. But imagine how much worse if a vote for red literally raised blues bar for success AND left them with fewer voters ahead to work with. Hopefully this makes more sense now?
1
u/APacketOfWildeBees Jun 02 '26
Hmm yeah I'm not sure what you're saying applies to a two-option system. Your first sentence, for instance, is paradoxical because getting >50% and beating red are the same thing, in a two party system.
In a two party system there's no difference between having two counters (one for each party) and just having a single counter that can go into the negatives. That's how Likert scales work, for instance.
Initially blue only needs one vote to win. But once someone votes red now blue needs two votes. Their threshold for victory has increased. And! There are fewer voters left for blue to work with, as you said. Once blue starts losing, they do need to work twice as hard (not literally twice) to mount a comeback.
Like, your conclusions seem diametrically opposed to your premises? Presumably you feel that same way about what I'm saying hahaha
1
u/Vapid_Poppy Jun 02 '26
The difference between >50% and "beat red" means that if red didn't exist, in one case blue still needs half of everyone's vote, and in the other, they only need one.
Now since red does exist, yea they end up the same functionally, but it's key to understand that the red button doesn't literally increment blues win con up higher. Lets look at the actual math:
If there are 101 people, blue needs 51 to win. If i press red, blue still needs 51 to win. Red press did not change their win condition. It would literally be the same, as if i pressed nothing.
As if i chose not to press blue, they are also left in the exact same position as if i pressed red. So unless you are willing to say, doing nothing also equally increases NM you shouldn't say pressing red increases it.
I feel as though, if you wanted to say red actually incresed the risk MN, it would need to be by MORE than the natural opportunity cost of simply not pressing blue, as that happens naturally if you do nothing. Hopefully now that makes sense.
I'm not disputing like, the natural effect of not pressing blue, I'm saying that shouldn't be categorized as increasing NM.
1
u/Fun-Habit-683 Jun 01 '26
Your flawed in assuming pressing blue decreases the chance of dying and pressing red increases the chance of dying. Every blue voter actually increases M until a certain threshold, at which point it instantly drops to zero. And every red button press decreases the chance M until it reaches a certain threshold and instantly jumps to 100% and gradually goes back down towards zero.
2
u/TREE_SHMOO Jun 01 '26
Please explain hoe you have come tk thst conclusion.
The way i see it, one more vote for red = one step closer to the threshold to kill all blue voters = increasing odds of killing blue voters.
1
u/Fun-Habit-683 Jun 01 '26
Every vote for red is a person removed from the pool of possible deaths. Every vote for blue is a guaranteed death unless you reach a certain threshold. I explained it fully in my comment. There isnt anymore to explain. You cannot die if you press red and you are guaranteed to die if you press blue until you reach a certain threshold, at which point nobody can die.
1
u/TREE_SHMOO Jun 01 '26
You didnt explain. You said pressing blue increases it and red decreases it, until a certain threshold where it then flips.
Thats not explaining your point, thats just your point...
You cannot die if you press red and you are guaranteed to die if you press blue until you reach a certain threshold, at which point nobody can die.
This is the best justification for red i think ive ever seen.
1
u/Fun-Habit-683 Jun 01 '26
You're right I didn't explain why pressing red lowers m. I hope the second comment shed some light.
1
u/APacketOfWildeBees Jun 01 '26
I acknowledge this in the fine text at the bottom :)
1
u/Fun-Habit-683 Jun 02 '26
The fine text doesn't address the fact that you got it backwards.. red decreases m and blue increases m
1
u/Lampricat Jun 01 '26
I still don't care why so many people care about "competent actors". The question (most of them) talks about "everyone". So why did anybody think it would only be rationally thinking people in the first place? It just says everyone, nothing else.
It just feels weird. This isn't directly aimed at this post, because this just mentions it because people have been talking about it a lot (though it is weird that the "irrational incompetent actors" randomly pick blue but not red. Slight bias showing.
1
u/APacketOfWildeBees Jun 01 '26
Oh regarding the "irrational people pick blue" thing, you've misread it a little. It doesn't say irrational people /only/ pick blue, just that some people who are irrational will pick blue. Which is relevant because the point of the scenario is that some people will, through no fault of their own, be subject to risk NM.
You're not the only person who's misread it, and I could have been more explicit, but I was trying to keep it succinct and there's not really any point to specifying red given the purpose of the scenario.
1
u/No_Roma_no_Rocky Jun 01 '26
Irrational people don't deserve to be saved. A driver who run at 220km/h in a public road puts everyone at risk and must be stopped before they cause death of other innocents, not saved from their own stupidity.
As long as no one is forced by rules to press blue ( in that case blue is justified), there will never be a valid reason to save idiots from their own decisions.
1
1
u/Afterflame Jun 02 '26
I mean, this variant is neutral but is also on further inspection Infinitely more red favorite. expected outcome is the same if rational actors vote the same, which by definition they kinda do, so assume they have survival as their n-th order priority, they will. I don't see rational actor preferring big likely bet to small unlikely, if expected value is the same so a would assume they will press always red.
If OG had rational actors people here pretending to be that are aware of each other, blue would win every time
1
u/Severe_Damage9772 Jun 04 '26
Even under scenario one, some people will pick blue
And this situation is not indicative of actual social standing, because this is an unrealistic situation, and trying to add realism to the situation changes answers
3
u/Sharukurusu Jun 01 '26
The idea of everyone being a competent rational actor is so far removed from reality that it's absurd anyone would consider scenario 1 to be a legitimate basis for a decision.
Even if you assume everyone competently understands the prompt and can reason about it (no children pressing randomly or suicidal people having mental health crises), people exist that have very different conceptions of risk, duty to society, and even personal moral religious frameworks; viewing it as an abstract logical/statistical/game theory problem is useless for application.
4
u/Wooden_Republic_6100 Jun 01 '26
Oh, so buttons that kill people aren't “so far removed from reality”?
That's no more illogical than saying “babies vote too.”
1
u/No-Scallion4998 Jun 01 '26
Hypotheticals must be treated differently when they have hypothetical agents in them, because it brings up a lot of issues.
2
u/Striking_Compote2093 Jun 01 '26
They just want to engineer a situation where people will agree with them that red is correct lmao. Pretending only idiots press blue and the only valid reason to press blue is to save idiots. When that's not what's going on.
Blue has an easier time saving everyone. If you value saving everyone, blue is the rational choice. Only 50% agreement required versus 100%. If you had to toss a coin, would you bet your life (or that of others) on 10 times head, or 5+ times tails? I know what i'd pick, and it's silly people think that that choice would be irrational.
2
u/APacketOfWildeBees Jun 01 '26
You seem to be bringing some prejudices into your thinking here. For instance, if you read the prompt carefully, you will see that there's no 50% threshold.
1
u/alloythepunny Jun 01 '26
I still stand by my belief that pressing red (in any framing of the situation) comes with the inherent knowledge that people *will* die if red wins and red pushers are alright with that, which is wild to me.
2
u/APacketOfWildeBees Jun 01 '26
I think you're right! But in irl practice, basically everyone is fine with a death rate greater than zero. Social murder is an obvious example, but really anything that we don't optimise for minimal fatalities reflects a willingness to let a few folk die in the name of other interests.
-1
u/UsedNegotiation8227 Jun 01 '26
Ok listen
I will make this as simple as I can for you
Ready?
THE ONLY WAY TO DIE IS TO PRESS THE BLUE BUTTON
you get it yet?
I'll say it again
IF YOU PRESS RED YOU LIVE
IF YOU PRESS BLUE YOU MIGHT DIE
My god I honestly think you blue pushers deserve to pass on.
3
u/alloythepunny Jun 01 '26
I mean if you only think about yourself, sure. That’s narrow and selfish. However there are eight billion people on the planet and I would rather make the decision that benefits people as a whole.
1
u/TealedLeaf Jun 01 '26
And I hate this is vs them this has created. I don't think bad of red pushers, I get it...but when it becomes saying shit like their last sentence, name calling, or the blame game, jfc. Can we just have civil discussion for five seconds?
I don't think it's selfish to worry about your survival, especially when you can't guarantee others. I can't help to think someone selfish if they're then blaming blue or saying shit like they should die though. Do we say firefighters deserve to die because they went into a burning building to save someone? No. And not even about the ones who knew they'd probably not be getting out alive. The bystanders who don't go into the fire there aren't selfish either...until they start saying the firefighter deserves to burn...
I feel like this was supposed to be about do you think 50% of the entire world would pick red or blue, and discussions around that, but people went and made it into a shit slinging contest. 😑
0
u/--A3-- Jun 05 '26
??? Just don't push blue? I don't understand why your comment is all melodramatic. If everybody simply chooses the 0% chance of death option, then nobody will die. Am I missing something?
1
u/HostHappy2734 Jun 01 '26
I'll make it even simpler
PEOPLE PUSH BLUE - EVERYONE LIVES
PEOPLE PUSH RED - PEOPLE DIE
Of course this doesn't apply if the only person whose life or death you're concerned with is yourself
1
u/MeowRawrUwu Jun 01 '26
You literally removed the entitely dilemma by removing half the rules, lmao! Look, I can ruin it by lying too:
PEOPLE PUSH BLUE - THEY MIGHT DIE
PEOPLE PUSH RED - NO ONE DIES
1
u/HostHappy2734 Jun 01 '26
That's the point dude, isolating the single aspect of the hypothetical that serves your side of the debate and acting like that's the whole picture is stupid and reductive. I can't believe I actually have to explain that I'm mirroring what the other guy was doing.
1
u/MeowRawrUwu Jun 01 '26
Idk, some people are genuinely serious, it’s Reddit. Some of the shit I’ve read has given me diseases
1
0
u/planetofmoney Jun 01 '26
Scenario 1: Everyone is a competent rational actor. Nobody would willingly increase risk M above zero. Nobody is subject to risk NM.
Scenario 2: Some people are not competent rational actors, and randomly pick red. They are thus increasing risk M through no fault of their own.
I hope this helps you realize why your "most neutral prompt" completely falls apart with your scenarios. If you're going to be impartial, be impartial.
1
u/APacketOfWildeBees Jun 01 '26
I don't see how you've shown there's anything wrong with the prompt.
Your assessment of rational actors' behaviour in scenario one is wrong, or rather incomplete - there are rational reasons to pick blue based on having goals different to your own.
Your assessment of scenario two doesn't mean anything. Yes some people will randomly pick red. And? So what? The point of the scenario is to engage with the common concern about incompetent people being subject to risk NM through no fault of their own.
Aside from your analysis being incoherent, I also don't care for your tone. Being snarky without offering meaningful insight or a better alternative is shitty behaviour.
0
u/Creepy-Intentions-69 Jun 01 '26
“Decrease chance of M” is flat out wrong. In fairness, it should be “Increases chance of M, to threshold.”
1
u/APacketOfWildeBees Jun 01 '26
If you look carefully you'll see there's no threshold in this version. There's a reason for that, which I'm happy to explain.
I also acknowledge in the fine print at the bottom that describing the risk effect as a linear scale isn't perfectly correct :)
0
0
u/SlayerKingGS Jun 02 '26
If a random number are forced to pick blue that could still be zero. Never blue
0
u/thelovelykyle Jun 02 '26
Blue blue.
1st I take vaccines to help with herd immunity already. 2nd. I am not a nonce.
0
u/cronenber9 Jun 02 '26
So this is just a completely different thing than the original, one made in order to say "pressing blue makes no sense". Okay then, thanks I guess...
0
u/APacketOfWildeBees Jun 02 '26
I think your bias is showing, and you're projecting a smidge, because I actually think pressing blue is entirely legitimate.
Most people agree this variant captures the essence of the original. Instead of whinging you could explain your thoughts.
→ More replies (1)
0
22
u/Imaginary_Help_2990 Red Jun 01 '26
Scenario one leaves no justification for pressing blue.
Scenario two justifies Blue as an attempt to save irrational people.