AIBU to wonder which button people would press to survive?

[Boxingshibes]

Everyone on earth takes a private vote by pressing a red or blue button.

If more than 50% of people press the blue button, everyone survives.

If less than 50% of people press the blue button, only people who pressed the red button survive. Which button would you press?

Red or blue
Red- aibu
Blue-ainbu

You know this is how the real world works every single day don't you?

This is an insane question.
Obviously under all circumstances you press red. Saying you’ll kill yourself etc is just hysterical nonsense. Think sensibly and pragmatically. Press red and we all live. If you can’t figure it out then I suppose that’s Darwinism.

Is there a condition missing? Eg there's a threshold for red button voters - everyone who pressed red dies if collectively they didn't exceed x% of button pushers. But in a way that doesn't conflict with the blue button outcome of everyone surviving.

Or is it testing people's comprehension of the question? I would have failed and pressed blue.

My instinctive reaction on reading the OP was that I would press blue. It seemed the obvious thing to do. Why would I want to kill everyone who didn't press the same button as me?

Then I read the thread and all the replies were saying that obviously they would press red which genuinely surprised me.

I think it's because I'm autistic. Being naive/trusting/gullible and assuming everyone thinks the same way as you, goes with the territory. It didn't cross my mind that many people would press the red button so therefore the safest thing to do would be to also press the red button.

You think everybody is in this world only thinks of themselves then.

I disagree. My aim in life is to leave it in a better state than I joined it. I not only think that aim is ethical, I also think it may well be biological.

why would nature, for won't of a better word, require a species whose aim was to simply destroy everything around it?

in my 75 years on earth, I have come across nothing that has persuaded me that being cruel in order to further a selfish aim is advisable.

This was my thinking

And if don’t press any then no one survives?

Oh bugger, I'd press blue

But then, I'd never be disappointed i suppose?
We'd all win, or I'd just be gently dispatched if the reds won anyway.
I'd love to be head over heart. Unfortunately..........

You'd be the one killing any other blue button pushers, not the reds.

Am I missing something? The only reason to select the blue button is to try and save the people who were stupid enough to press the blue button. There’s no other reason to select blue.

But only really stupid people would press blue. Pressing red guarantees your survival. So everyone would press it. No one would press blue, so there’s no need to worry. It’s a stupid question because as soon as you read it, you know that you’ll survive no matter what if you press red so logically, everyone will press red. So there isn’t anyone to worry about! Are people honestly stupid enough to press blue?

But if everyone presses the red everyone survives.

All the blues falling over themselves to show how kind and humanitarian they are.

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.

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.

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.

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

Prisoners dilemma in a new form.

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

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

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)

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

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

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.

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.

Thanks for explaining.