AIBU to wonder which button people would press to survive?

Well blue is winning 😆 🙈

This is actually very interesting! At first I thought blue to save everyone, then red, then realised it was a question about personal safety versus collective action. So, for every person who votes red, they are actively making the blue 'save everyone' scenario less likely. It's people acting out of self-preservation that put everyone at risk. I'm voting blue, because I'm not going to allow the actions of the red voters diminish the chance to save lives. If I die, so be it. Sometimes we have to put ourselves at risk for something bigger. Let the reds inherit the earth!

Not the first time I've seen this dilemma, but my first instinct was immediately blue, it seems completely obvious and I assume most people would pick blue as well. Why would I pick the option where people die?!

It's fascinating because everyone is so convinced that their solution is the obvious one but clearly not. And everywhere it's been run as a poll, you get roughly similar numbers - about 42% red, 58% blue. MN's numbers aren't far off that in this thread either, despite the early comment popularity of red.

But everyone who cared about both their own survival or that of their families would survive if they pressed red. Why would your family press blue?

It is illogical rather than ethical to press blue. Everyone who presses red survives. Everyone has access to that choice. If people want to press blue and take a gamble on their survival thats up to them.

I believe this is called “suicidal empathy”.

But you're supposing that everyone only cares about their own survival. So if I press red, I'm risking my child's my family's my friends survival. Nah, blue for me. Imagine if you pressed red and your child pressed blue. It sooner not go there.

Be an ass and try and press both at the same time.

Red is the only option.

are you sure you presented your scenario to us correctly?

Why is it selfish to want everyone to live?

If everyone presses red in the OPs scenario then everyone lives which seems the opposite of selfish?

Im feeling a bit foolish for voting blue. I guess the clever ones and the selfish ones will be the ones to survive

I said blue

Have I misunderstood the question?

Thats a Darwin award right there I assume

I thought blue would guarantee everyones survival including me?

But others are saying the red guarantees survival? Im confused.

I’m not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that we live in a world where people are inherently selfish? I agree.

I used to think when things got really bad most people would do the right thing. Think the spirit of wwii and everyone pitching in and doing their part. Then 2020 hit and I saw that I was wrong. Most people will only protect themselves. People are inherently selfish and awful.

that doesn’t mean I can’t wish the world was different. It could be. People could choose a different path.

I think that is basically the point of this question. Do you think humanity can change or will we always be stuck in the muck? Right now it’s the muck. I can’t deny that.

Thanks for explaining.

The prisoner’s dilemma is. But the OP’s question is not an example of that. It’s just nonsense.

The golden balls thing also isn’t the prisoner’s dilemma either, because they have option 3 as “both steal then you both get nothing.” Prisoners dilemma would be that both steal and then both win a smaller sum than they could have won if they cooperated.

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. But the risk of cooperating is that you need to trust the other person, because if they betray you, then you’re the only one who suffers and you suffer badly. That’s the talking point and where the discussion comes in.

The OP’s question isn’t game theory. She needs another outcome.

But it’s pretty high risk to try to persuade people to agree to press blue.

It’s a bit like like persuading all countries to get nukes in the hope that enough will do so that a mutual deterrence effect sets in. It might. But if it doesn’t that a lot of dangerous weapons you’ve encouraged people to get.

@SnappyQuoter I thought that the Prisoner's Dilemma was an example of game theory. What's the difference between the 2?

Op didn’t create this question. It’s going around the internet right now. It’s just a thought experiment and starting discussion point.

The OP’s example is not the prisoner’s dilemma. She has tried really hard to ask a game theory question but got it wrong.
She needs three outcomes

-best for the group (cooperating for the good of everyone)

-best for the selfish one alone (betraying because you’ll win no matter and the other cooperates so you get the win)

-worst for the group (both betray but the outcome isn’t as good as if you had cooperated, but it is the only way to guarantee that you don’t lose individually)

This is my all time favourite response to the Prisoner's Dilemma.

Prisoners dilemma in a new form.

Google the studies if your interested. It has been around since the 50's.

You don’t live in that world now! No one has lived in that kind of world yet, and odds are , they never will.

I know you’re attempting a game theory question here OP, but you’ve got it wrong. There needs to be more outcomes to make it an actual dilemma. Your questions guarantees survival for everyone, with no negative consequences, if everyone presses red. That’s not game theory - it’s just stupid.

Here is a game theory questions.

You and your treasure hunting partner have been separated. There is £50000 of treasure you both found being help hostage. You are given two options
A) Co-operate
B) Betray.

The catches - if you both choose A, then you share the treasure equally and get £25000 each. But if one chooses A and one chooses B, then the person who betrayed their friend (B) gets it all. If both choose B then you only get £1000 each.

Selection options and outcomes:

A - A = each £25000
B - A = B gets £5000 while A gets zero
B - B = each get £1000

That’s a game theory question. Because there are downsides to the “easy” choice. The only way to guarantee that you’ll get something is to betray your friend, because if they choose to cooperate then you win it all, and if they choose to betray then you still get a little something each.
If you choose A, you have the chance to get half the money… but only if your friend also chooses A. It is a risk. If you choose B, you could win it all or you could just get the small amount but at least you get something.

Everyone is better off if you cooperate, but it only works if everyone does it. If one person is greedy and wants it all, then they can choose B and betray. They’ll win it all. That risk makes everyone choose B, so they’ll either win it all or more likely, get a small amount but it’s better than nothing. Betray guarantees you get something, but it will be less than you could have if everyone cooperated.

That’s game theory. Your OP question is not.

But it's more like the blues have killed themselves by being daft. Up to them if they want to take that risk but I'm not joining them.

Someone out there is colorblind. Someone else is going to trip and hit the wrong button. Another didn’t understand the question.

if we hit red, even if we all collectively agree to hit red, a few people will end up hitting blue and die.

I want to live in a world where we think about those people and care about them. If we all agree to hit blue and a few people hit red by mistake, no one gets hurt.