AIBU to wonder which button people would press to survive?

Well said!

shall I take personal responsibility and push red and survive?

Or shall I put my life into the hands of unknown masses of people, at a time when being stupid is celebrated like never before, at a time when society feels more divided than ever before, at a time when some people insist men are women and only bigots disagree, at a time when racism is celebrated, at a time when lying is common and also celebrated etc etc etc?

no way. I'll take the personal responsibility route, and so should everyone else.

The naivety would be enough to make me press red even if I had faith in human nature!

It’s fascinating how consistent the outcome of this experiment has been across SM - I feel like Mr Spock watching this strange species acting illogically.

I pushed red, and now I’m pondering whether it would be better to push blue in the knowledge that so many other people would be daft enough to vote blue. I didn’t want daft people to die, tbf, I just assumed that when everyone is handed a life jacket they’d put the bloody thing on. Nowt queer as folk.

The irony of the blue button people...

The irony of all these people trying to guilt or shame others into placing blind trust in the altruism of strangers. Blind faith has been exploited throughout history to justify some truly terrible behaviour. There is nothing altruistic about using shame-based pressure to coerce conformity. In fact, knowing / seeing that some people automatically default to that behaviour is enough to ensure that I would press the red, all day long!

But they won’t. People may like to think they would risk themselves to save the lives of unknown people but it’s clearly not true in general.

I would still press red and if that makes me a bad person then so be it

Wouldn't be great for them if people fell for the framing and opted for blue instead of the everybody wins choice of red, either.

It's really quite fascinating that you can't understand that this isn't "game theory".
It's like you're seeing an abstract painting for the first time and keep explaining that the artist failed to make the objects look realistic.

Why would you assume it would be ‘nearly everyone votes blue’ in that circumstance?

Because if enough people press red, and if you exclude babies from the consequences, then you get a lot of parentless children and the ones pressing red aren’t going to step up. So the babies and toddlers will die ultimately

If you exclude babies and change from the outcome then that isn’t going to be great if all the parents are dead because of the number of people pressing red.

Red, obviously. Then you have a 100% chance of surviving. If people want to self select themselves out by pushing blue that’s on them. You need a better example if you’re trying to set up a moral choice

If everyone on the earth pressed red though then everyone would survive! They all have the same choice as you.

If it was the case that only 50% of people were making the decision for everyone then I would be absolutely in agreement with you.

I looked at it another way: say a plane was going to crash, everyone has a parachute and can jump and will survive, or 50% of people can jump and the plane might be light enough to make it down safely so the rest survive too. Surely the whole plane would jump to ensure they lived rather than taking the risk? Why would you not??

Framing this as purely a morality test is an oversimplification. A pragmatic decision is an equally valid decision. (Most) Humans are wired with survival instincts, and many people will prioritise staying alive, protecting loved ones, and ensuring they stay alive to help others rather than placing their lives and their families lives, entirely in the hands of strangers.

The red button/blue button is an example where blind faith could be detrimental to your health and the health of all those you care about.

Excellent observation. Now it’s a trolley problem — acts of omission vs commission.

She hasn't misremembered. This question is all over the Internet for the last couple of weeks.

You do know that that is exactly what most people do in elections, don’t you? Do you honestly believe people vote against their own interests for the sake of the country? Some may of course but I would bet it’s rare, despite what people claim.

And you aren’t pissing over anyone by voting red. They have the right to do the same and if they don’t understand the question surely they are just as likely to vote red too.

I think voting blue because you have some level of faith in human nature is well meaning but incredibly naive

But if you choose blue and your loved ones choose red, you are leaving them without you. So even thinking about others it’s not one-sided.

I'd like to think I'd be philanthropic and press blue. But obviously if I'm hellbent on my own survival at any cost, then red.
But pressing red feels a bit like voting for the party that serves you best personally rather than the one that's best for the country. You're pissing on all the people who don't understand the question, or who are voting blue in the hope that they can save everyone.
Really interesting question, thanks OP.

Still wouldn’t do that though.

Even before then it probably would be the same. You cant change human instinct that quickly

So much of the intuition depends on how the question is framed.

Everyone is led into a room, blindfolded and given an empty pistol.

Those who wish to are permitted to get a bullet and put it into their gun.

All must then put the gun to their heads.

If more than 50% have chosen a bullet then the experiment is stopped. Otherwise all are required to pull the trigger.

Should you put a bullet into your gun?

I’m waiting for the reveal that this question was run before in the 90s / 2000s before the economic and demographic changes bit hard,.

And most voted blue.

How cultures change and destroy themselves…

@SnappyQuoter

the point of game theory is not that betrayal is necessary to win. You are focusing on one particular thought exercise. Game theory supposes that people will act in their own self interest. This has proven true when tested in experimental and applied conditions.

Game theory has been used as the basis for forming systems and rules that provide optimized outcomes for the greater community. It has strong applications in resource management.

You don’t have to design a “game” where someone wins and someone loses. It’s possible as the person in charge of a regulatory environment, project, or auction, to write the rules to maximize the value to stakeholders. Will everyone be happy with the outcome? Probably not. But if your goal is to best serve a population, you can use game theory to design a system to reach that goal just as easily as you can to show that people are assholes.

The point of game theory is that betraying someone is the only way to guarantee you win something/won’t suffer the worst fate, but you’re still worse off than if you both cooperated.

Well then I guess it depends whether you think millions of your fellow human beings dying makes you worse off.