• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Everyone on Earth has to press a button

Which button do you press?

  • Blue

    Votes: 104 41.4%

  • Red

    Votes: 147 58.6%
  • Total voters
    251
Press the red button.

MatrixBluePillRedPill.jpg
 
Major Insano said:
Why would there be legal consequences for red if blue won? Everybody was forced by the state to make a choice on which button to press. You can't hold them accountable when they were compelled to act by state authority.
There might be some social consequences, much like voting choices today, but the responsibility for the deaths would only be on the authority that implemented this system and the people who would've 'pulled the trigger' on the blue.

And duress is absolutely a valid defense in most legal systems. It might not prove innocence, but it can prove there was no premeditation.
Click to expand...

States do not force the potential annihilation of a significant number of their population based on factors they couldn't control and they would build in a deterrent against choosing the state sponsored choice. The dynamics of social collectives has a lot more play in the outcome here than just boiling down to the choice of individuals.
 
Last edited:
I don't see any major dilemma actually.
Safest solution for individual profit is to press red (I am sure to survive)
Best collective solution is either to have everyone push red, or a majority push blue. Although the first point makes a majority pushing blue less likely.
Pushing blue will make you die, but unlike the trolley experiment you are responsible for your demise since you decided to take the risk. Hence there is no moral issue with pushing red and « killing » all the blues who refused to take the safe path.
 
I picked blue because a world dominated by people choosing red would eventually self-destruct. The ones who choose blue are the ones holding things together, keeping society functional. Take them out of the equation, and what's left is a population driven by self-interest, with little capacity or willingness to look out for one another. I'd rather die with the blues than stick around with the shitty reds.
 
Bojji said:
We are tribal but our natural habitat were groups of ~100 people that would have to agree on most things and help each other to survive.

People voting would think about their closest groups (family and friends, neighbors, village and so on...) first and foremost, not some hateful Muhhammad in Iraq (or Park Samsung in north korea). And if most people vote so people in "their group" can survive - blue wins.
Click to expand...

That's a key framing point for me.

If this were a question about saying "Everyone in your family has to press a button" or "Office" or "friend group" or "Community" it would be Blue all the way for me. But this is about everyone on the planet, making my community an insignificant minority, with a majority of tribes being unknown and therefore untrusted. Not down to hate, but down to the unknown. Hoping for the unknown to save you is too much to ask when there's a button that says "Don't worry about it, press Red and it's all in your control".

Now you could say that this experiment is just the question but repeated. So if I would vote Blue if it were just my tribe and we repeat that point around the world then Blue would win. Except we know different tribes don't act the same. I posted a map of world conflicts yesterday as a signal of just how varied the world is, and though it's extreme, it was just one data point to show that people don't think alike and it's why we see conflict. It diminishes the sense of trust that the Blue button is the one to go for.

I don't buy this whole "Red" == evil shit, as I said, I'd vote Blue if the coverage was more localized, but Red when it's global, meaning my entire tribe is a pinprick minority. And I'd hope that my tribe would do the same because even if 100% of us voted Blue it would still be in the hands of the other and essentially be removing all of our autonomy when we have a button right there that can avoid it.
 
falconhoof said:
That's a key framing point for me.

If this were a question about saying "Everyone in your family has to press a button" or "Office" or "friend group" or "Community" it would be Blue all the way for me. But this is about everyone on the planet, making my community an insignificant minority, with a majority of tribes being unknown and therefore untrusted. Not down to hate, but down to the unknown. Hoping for the unknown to save you is too much to ask when there's a button that says "Don't worry about it, press Red and it's all in your control".

Now you could say that this experiment is just the question but repeated. So if I would vote Blue if it were just my tribe and we repeat that point around the world then Blue would win. Except we know different tribes don't act the same. I posted a map of world conflicts yesterday as a signal of just how varied the world is, and though it's extreme, it was just one data point to show that people don't think alike and it's why we see conflict. It diminishes the sense of trust that the Blue button is the one to go for.

I don't buy this whole "Red" == evil shit, as I said, I'd vote Blue if the coverage was more localized, but Red when it's global, meaning my entire tribe is a pinprick minority. And I'd hope that my tribe would do the same because even if 100% of us voted Blue it would still be in the hands of the other and essentially be removing all of our autonomy when we have a button right there that can avoid it.
Click to expand...

But other tribes will think about survival of their tribes, so I think they will vote blue.

If the question was "press red to annihilate groups of people you don't like" - outcome would be very different lol.
 
BloodFree said:
No, I understand. It's just that his qualifier was that everyone must press a single color, which is unrealistic as you say. But if 100% of people pick one color, the outcome is the same, no matter what color is picked, that's what I meant.
Click to expand...

Yeah, if everybody magically picks one color, sure… same outcome. That only works if you take actual humans out the equation. :messenger_grinning_sweat: Problem is, real people are the equation… and people don't all think the same, so your math ain't accounting for that.

Blue is "we trust each other so everybody lives."
Red is "I don't trust y'all, I'm making sure I live if this goes left."
 
My favorite thing about this is the virtue signaling.

"Blue, because i don't want to murder people" (Newsflash, it's not the reds who killed anyone, it's the aliens or whoever came up with that evil shit)
"Blue, because i don't want to live in a world with the evil reds" (See above)
"Look at me, i'm telling you i'm a good person. I don't kill people, that's how good of a person i am!" (Most people don't kill people, you are not special)

This is why the poll numbers don't really say anything. Because if this war real, most blue voters would either chicken out and try to justify it thinking "i will press red, but blue is gonna win anyway, right? Nobody gonna notice".

Think about this: How many of the blue voters will change to red at the last moment, in a real world scenario, and how many red voters will change to blue? Do you think the blue side will steal more votes or the other way around, compared to what the safe forum game shows?

You don't have to virtue signal because the question is what do you think others will do, not you, we all know you will press blue no matter what.
 
Last edited:
Idleyes said:
Yeah, if everybody magically picks one color, sure… same outcome. That only works if you take actual humans out the equation. :messenger_grinning_sweat: Problem is, real people are the equation… and people don't all think the same, so your math ain't accounting for that.

Blue is "we trust each other so everybody lives."
Red is "I don't trust y'all, I'm making sure I live if this goes left."
Click to expand...
Sure, I don't know what you're trying to tell me here, even in the same post you're quoting, I already acknowledge that 100% of either vote isn't happening.
 
BloodFree said:
Sure, I don't know what you're trying to tell me here, even in the same post you're quoting, I already acknowledge that 100% of either vote isn't happening.
Click to expand...

My bad, I keep forgetting that on this forum you sometimes have to say it outright when you agree with someone. I was agreeing with you, just putting it in my own words.
 
Atrus said:
States do not force the potential annihilation of a significant number of their population based on factors they couldn't control and they would build in a deterrent against choosing the state sponsored choice. The dynamics of social collectives has a lot more play in the outcome here than just boiling down to the choice of individuals.
Click to expand...
So who else, but state authority, is going to force people to push a button?
 
Idleyes said:
My bad, I keep forgetting that on this forum you sometimes have to say it outright when you agree with someone. I was agreeing with you, just putting it in my own words.
Click to expand...
Oh ok. The "Problem is, real people are the equation… and people don't all think the same, so your math ain't accounting for that." part of your post tripped me up, cause it made it seem like I was missing something.
 
BloodFree said:
Oh ok. The "Problem is, real people are the equation… and people don't all think the same, so your math ain't accounting for that." part of your post tripped me up, cause it made it seem like I was missing something.
Click to expand...

What I meant is that part of your math isn't accounting for that. The "yeah" at the beginning was me agreeing with you, if everyone magically picked the same color, sure, same outcome. I was basically restating your point, just adding my own touch such as,

Blue is "we trust each other so everybody lives."
Red is "I don't trust y'all, I'm making sure I live if this goes left."

What I added is the human element arguing that a certain type of folks would pick red. :messenger_winking:
 
If everybody press red then nobody has to die. If you press blue, you put yourself and other people in danger for no reason. Not sure what the point is, blue propagandists are the ones killing people.
 
The problem for 100% red button voters in game theory is the "stag hunt".

Stag hunt - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

In this case the their perfect stag hunt is the 100% red vote, against the blue 50% vote which is the common "hare" hunt. The 50% blue vote is the much safer and easier target to go for, but the real kicker is that that the "stag" of the 100% red is no better here than the "hare" of 50% blue. Both have the same value to hunt for. It's like, do you want to team up to do something so impossibly hard that it would basically never happen for ten dollars? Or would you just rather follow your gut, pick the safe option, do no work, and most likely get ten dollars?

Using game theory, betting on a 100% red vote, even with a massive red campaign, just doesn't make sense. Saying, I just want to survive at any cost, and I don't care if billions of people die, at least is coherent. Then the stag becomes the blue vote and the hare becomes the red vote. But the payoff for the blue vote is so high and so easily easily achievable.
 
Last edited:
But I don't really care much if people want to heaven gate themselves, vote red, tell everybody to vote red, go on with your business. The solution is right there to not impact anybody with the bs button.
 
You're underestimating people's fear and peer pressure. Majority will press the blue button even in private. The idea of half the world population is fun in theory but society will collapse almost immediately might as well go for the blue either way.
 
Aressa said:
You're underestimating people's fear and peer pressure. Majority will press the blue button even in private. The idea of half the world population is fun in theory but society will collapse almost immediately might as well go for the blue either way.
Click to expand...

If you actually break it down, red is the only choice that guarantees your survival. Think about the outcomes. If blue gets more than 50%, everyone lives, including the people who picked red. If blue fails to reach 50%, then only the red voters survive. Either way, red covers you. That's why people pick it. From a purely self-preservation standpoint, it's the rational move. You remove all risk. But here's where the real divide shows up. Some people still pick blue, even knowing it's risky. Not because they misunderstood the math, but because they refuse to make a choice that could contribute to anyone who doesn't understand and actually means well dying. So it's not really a logic problem. It's a values problem. Red says "I make sure I live no matter what." Blue says "I'm willing to risk myself so we all have a chance."
 
Pressing red means you end up in a collapsed society, and the reamining people alived are a bunch of selfish ones that have zero trust of others.

Good luck rebuilding society with those people remaining.
 
thefool said:
🔴 ---> Nothing happens

🔵 ---> You Die (unless 50% of people press this button)
Click to expand...

It's all about presentation. This test is so abstract, it leads to abstract thinking.... like it's just a puzzle.

"Why on earth would anyone press blue?"
"OK, some one might press blue..."
"OK some one might press blue because they want to save any one who would press blue..."
"OK some one I care about might press blue..."
"Maybe I should press blue..."
"But how many are thinking like me? Will it be 50%+?"

Unfortunately it's -so- abstract that we start imposing real world assumptions to try and relate to it.

"OK one kid or some mentally disabled person might press blue..."
"Can we discuss it? I tell my family don't be dumb and press blue"
"What if we're in a woodchipper and everyones screaming?"
 
Bojji said:
You know some people will press blue and die, but you don't give a shit about it.

Problems is, those people might be your parents or children - you don't know that.
Click to expand...
Let's not assume he doesn't give a shit. He might have a different opinion and that's ok, that doesn't mean he is a bad person.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Everyone except Sydney Sweeney has a face full of Botox
2
84
295
Zacfoldor replied
Use the Earth to Spell your Name from NASA
6
252
Moondoggy replied
I have a question for everyone
Live  2
50
1K
EverydayBeast replied
  • Poll
Was Hulk Hogans greatest accomplishment on earth...
34
766
Dithadder replied
Frequent Fliers, what's the most annoying thing someone has done on a plane you've flown on?
2
58
106
p_xavier replied
Top Bottom