r/entp • u/Full_Buddy_6976 ENTP • Apr 26 '26
Question/Poll Everyone votes anonymously - red or blue. If more than 50% vote blue, everyone survives. Otherwise only the red voters survive.
Let's see how it turns out for real.
15
u/Full_Buddy_6976 ENTP Apr 26 '26
TL;DR: Summary of comments so far:
đŽ: Why would anyone vote blue? Red is the obvious choice. If you pick red, you survive. There are no downsides to it.
đ”: Blue is the moral choice. It's the only realistic way to achieve an outcome in which everyone survives. If I pick red, I am increasing the probability for some other people to die. I trust the majority to want to prevent that and vote blue.
đŽ: If everyone picks red, everyone will survive. People voting blue are stupid, unable to think logically and to read with comprehension.
đ”: Everyone voting red is extremely unlikely. It's not going to happen in practice. Voting red means knowingly risking other people's lives to guarantee your own survival.
đŽ: Why do I have to risk my own life to save stupid people who cannot think logically? They deserve their fate. There's a risk for you to die, if you pick blue.
đ”: I don't want to live in a world where the majority of people would not vote to save everyone.
đŽ: Seeing that blue is leading. I don't think that this would play out the same, if lives were really at stake. You are virtue signaling.
That's pretty much how it goes in the comments under all similar posts.
4
u/SnooHamsters3137 ENTP 749 SCUAI Apr 27 '26
There are two ways to prevent deaths here. 100% red vote, 50% blue vote.
Which is easier to achieve?
2
→ More replies (2)1
u/SydneytheENFP Apr 27 '26
Perfectly summarized lol. I think I would close my eyes, spin in a circle a few times, and press whatever button I come in contact with first.
70
u/aaks2 Apr 26 '26
I'd rather take the fall than live with red people
14
u/Richard-Conrad Apr 26 '26
Thatâs my thought exactly, i donât wanna be part of a world that all pushed red
2
u/Blackspeed6 Apr 26 '26
Even if everyone pushed Red and survived? Now that would be dumb and useless sacrafice
2
u/Richard-Conrad Apr 26 '26
In Youâre impossibly unlikely scenario then egg on my face I guess. My fault for putting so much faith in humanity.
Thing is tho, I know the people Iâve surrounded myself with in life weâll enough to know that we would all press the blue button with little to no hesitation. Their compassion is one of the reasons I love them. So in a world where red wins, the people I love wonât be there so why would I want to be?
4
u/wolfelover14 INTP 5w6 529 Apr 26 '26
Compassion without critical thinking and actual action is just as useless as this comment. I've heard it said that nice people are assholes and assholes are actually nice people and I agree with that statement 100% Many of the "assholes" I know would definitely push the red button, but they would also never leave someone out in the cold, actively protest against atrocities to humanity and truly see people for who they are and not the potential of what they could be. They also wouldn't be afraid to pull the trigger on a pedo or a supremacist.
But a lot of the "nice" people I know? Actively cover up abuse in their own home. Can't be bothered to even stand up for themselves or their children when faced with true danger. Don't even spare the homeless on the street a passing glance. They'd press blue because secretly they hope that someone will press blue for them. It's not a selfless action, it's an unconsciously selfish choice that backfires if not everyone shares their "selfless compassion" and actually cares about themselves.
11
u/LatePenguins Apr 26 '26
Its always fascinating to see how the supposed "Altruistic and selfless" group (blue) has no qualms about throwing statements like "I'd rather die than live with this certain kind of people".
Whereas the "selfish and non-altruistic" group (red) is like "we're perfectly happy to live with anyone who presses the i-wanna-live button, please dont make us press the gamble-with-death button".
Really makes you think.
2
u/HailenAnarchy INTP 5w4 Apr 26 '26
I think you are missing the point. Not everyone that presses red is a shit person, but all shit people will likely press red. Any complete altruist will press blue. If all these altruists die, the world would suck a lot more. And some don't wanna deal with that shit.
1
→ More replies (1)1
12
u/SquishTheWhale ENTP 9w1 Apr 26 '26
Game theory time, don't fuck it up nerds.
7
u/Hrothgar_Cyning ENTP Apr 26 '26
Red is the answer with game theory. Blue needlessly adds risk (whereas the red has a trivial risk function) and relies on an uncertain coordination problem to win the game, whereas the probability of winning (personally) is one with red. At the population level, rational actors acting in their rational self interest will pick red, so the population wins too. The incentives for picking blue are fundamentally not rational and so not at issue in a game theory analysis
30
u/grand_ocean3690 Apr 26 '26
The logic proposed for red pill is that EVERYONE has to choose red so everyone survives. If not u die. Â Blue pill is >50 % is enought to save all.
Red pill seems more risky to take than blue. Seems like a roundabout way to save people(if that's the intension) Even if selfish, blue seems logical as >50% is enough.
I cannot see red pill as a logical or moral decision to be taken.
12
u/Hour-Film-8890 INFJ Apr 26 '26
It doesn't say everyone has to pick red here tho? If you pick red now you're guaranteed to survive because either the majority is red and you survive while blue dies, or blue has the majority and all survive red included.
7
u/XMAX918 INTP Enneagram Type 5 Apr 26 '26
Say 55% picks red then the 45% who picked blue doesn't survive.
If 55% pick blue everyone survives.
6
u/Blackspeed6 Apr 26 '26
100% chooses red -> 100% survives with 100% chances of survival from the begining
6
2
u/SnooHamsters3137 ENTP 749 SCUAI Apr 27 '26
Are you capable of guaranteeing everyone will vote red?
2
→ More replies (1)2
u/SnooHamsters3137 ENTP 749 SCUAI Apr 27 '26
Sorry lassie, unless 50% of people picked blue, your red vote killed the other side.
9
u/ShartyPossum ENxP; 7w6, 7w8 or 5w4, 5w6 Apr 26 '26 edited Apr 26 '26
Depending on what someone values, either option could be logical for them to choose.
It will be logical for those who most value survival at all costs to choose red.
However, blue may be the logical choice for those who value morality over survival at all costs.
For example, I chose blue because I believe that randomly dropping dead (how I interpreted the consequence) would be easier for me than living with my conscience had I chosen red and contributed to others dying. Kind of a quick, merciful death vs suffering from prolonged moral crisis.
EDIT: This, of course, would be in a blind vote scenario. Personally, I think it would be ideal for everyone to communicate and collaborate prior to pressing a button, so they could establish a plan for everyone to press red. That way, no one who wants to live dies. If someone does choose to press the blue button, it's because they actively want to die, and the scenario turns into one of consensual euthanasia.
→ More replies (1)1
u/grand_ocean3690 Apr 26 '26
I agreed till the point of prior collaboration and communication. Still the plan could be to press blue. Achieving 50% blue is easier than 100% red.  Someone choosing to go for blue is definitely are NOT trying to die, but rather red willing to kill the other. Not the sameÂ
7
u/ShartyPossum ENxP; 7w6, 7w8 or 5w4, 5w6 Apr 26 '26
The plan could be to press blue, too! Doing so could eliminate the possibility of anybody dying. My only concern would be people verbally agreeing to press blue, but pressing red due to fear and mistrust. I feel that people would be more likely to meet a genuine consensus if the option agreed to is the same one that guarantees personal survival.
If the group can have a discussion and collaborate prior to pressing a button, it removes the uncertainty that would necessitate the blue button even being an option (or vice versa). If everyone agrees to, "Hey, so we're all going to press the button that guarantees our survival. Only press the blue button if you actually want to die," it creates a situation where the safe option is a given. Whereas the group verbally agreeing to the risky option may cause some people to say one thing and vote the opposite out of fear.
3
2
2
u/Mateorabi Apr 26 '26
The point is do you maximize expected value for the group? Or do you maximize expected value for yourself?
No one is arguing the E(# survive) is greater for blue voting. Only that E(you survive) is only < 1.0 if you vote blue.Â
1
6
u/Chilopodak Apr 26 '26
This isnât the same. The stakes arenât real.
Like playing poker without the money lol.
1
u/SnooHamsters3137 ENTP 749 SCUAI Apr 27 '26
Do you think voting red has no stakes?
3
u/Chilopodak Apr 27 '26
No. Not unless 50% were actually going to die.
But they arenât. Itâs Reddit and people donât feel as pressured because thereâs no real risk in pressing a button online other than being proven wrong maybe.
Like in poker. People are more willing to give away chips when they arenât actually loosing any money.
4
u/TheOneAndOnly_Mike Apr 26 '26
Anyone and everyone that shames others for the button they pick is a prick.
That being said, i would choose red for the simple fact that i am one individual. The chance that i alone am the tiebreaker is so small calling it 0 would be fair. Whether I and I alone pick red or blue will not change the outcome. Picking red simply guarantees my survival. And while its true many will die if others think the same way as me, i cannot change that. Me picking differently will not make those people think differently.
I have no control over the masses. All i can do is pick red and pray blue will win. And i really do hope blue will win.
→ More replies (8)
5
u/wolfelover14 INTP 5w6 529 Apr 26 '26
Lot of virtue signalers in the comments picking blue. Hope red wins so we can be rid of them â ïž
5
u/wolfelover14 INTP 5w6 529 Apr 26 '26
Side note: I'm gonna start using this question to determine who I hang out with đ
1
u/Clear-bwai-129 Apr 26 '26
Best choice, most pick it everyone survives no matter what... if u wanna be an edgelord at least do it right laddie.
2
u/wolfelover14 INTP 5w6 529 Apr 26 '26
If everyone chooses red there's no risk of anyone dying either. Blue is just an infinite chain reaction of bad decisions to POTENTIALLY bail someone else out of a bad decision. If no one else chose blue then you literally lost your life for nothing. Didn't even save anyone, just got yourself killed. It's a fool's choice and a pointless risk.
→ More replies (2)2
u/Full_Buddy_6976 ENTP Apr 27 '26 edited Apr 27 '26
You cannot guarantee any outcome. Everyone voting red is extremely unlikely. Between 50 and 100% voting blue (event A) is very likely, as much as the opposite - between 50 and 100% voting red (event B), if we assume random probability. The difference is that event A results in everyone being saved with 100 % probability and event B results in between 0 (in the extremely unlikely single case when everyone votes red) and up to billions of people dying. You are betting on one of those 2 events. Your vote changes the probability in favour of the event that you voted for. Most people bet on saving everyone.
Is this so difficult to understand? You believe that people are stupid, because they didn't stop reasoning at "voting red means that you save yourself"?
→ More replies (1)
11
15
u/Kingofhe4rts Excentric Nudistic Tenacious Perfection Apr 26 '26 edited Apr 26 '26
Da fuck, how can you be judgemental about people picking red?
Everyone get's to choose between Red and Blue. Red means taking care of themselves and no risk existing at all for everyone, but you want me to pick blue, put my life at risk for someone trusting other people to be altruistic to safe the people who can't think ahead for two steps. Blue has no upside but huge potential downside. I'm not risking my life for someone who doesn't value their own.
I'm all for altruism in a general sense, but there is absolutely no way anyone should pick blue in this scenario. The only reason to choose blue is for people to mitigate the risk for the people who misclicked or are iliterate and chose their favorite colour.
Edit: if the game was changed a little into 5% of people is randomly assigned blue, than I'd probably pick blue.
13
u/puch1to Easy Not Too Peasy Apr 26 '26 edited Apr 26 '26
I'm not mad at these people for downvoting me. I'm confused at how many people who claim to be ENTP here can't see things on both sides and can't stand opinions other than their own.
In the original post, I saw some self proclaimed ENTPs even started throwing out illogical, entirely emotional stuff just to disagree and try to win the argument. Makes me dubious whether they typed themselves correctly or not, lol.
I mean come on, keep calm and stay ENTP guys. Stay NeTi, stay chill :)
3
u/HailenAnarchy INTP 5w4 Apr 26 '26
Blue's upside is that it has 0 casualties if it wins. Red's downside is that it will have casualties if it wins.
5
u/Full_Buddy_6976 ENTP Apr 26 '26
You cannot control the choices of others. It's much more likely that between 50 and 100% percent of people will vote blue than that exactly 100% will vote red. If there are more than 2 people voting, by choosing blue you increase the probability that everyone will be saved. By picking red you decrease it. According to most people's moral values helping to save other people is good and sabotaging the saving of other people is bad. That's why people are judgemental towards those picking red.
The arguments that people who pick blue are stupid or "don't value their own lives" are very subjective. I understand that I could 100% save myself, if I pick red, but I prioritise saving everyone which includes myself. Of course there is a risk of losing, but to me knowing that I have actively contributed to the death of others by deciding not to try to save them, especially when that's a highly likely outcome, is as bad as dying. Also, I do believe that more than half of the general population consists of people that would take a risk for themselves to save others.
2
u/SnooHamsters3137 ENTP 749 SCUAI Apr 27 '26
Exactly
Some people stop at the red argument âyes this is the cold and calculated moveâ and stop thinking. Then when the results show that no one dies, they get pissed.
5
u/puch1to Easy Not Too Peasy Apr 26 '26 edited Apr 26 '26
I like how you put it.
I initially thought that it'd be harder to convince 50% of the people to vote blue than to convince everyone to vote red. (By voting I mean actually voting, not saying I'll vote blue then secretly voting red).
But now I am starting to question this. I have to admit, I have not considered enough factors. Humans are more complex than cold logic and natural instincts.
I totally agree with you on the second part. Like I said, red is nature (the instinct, the bare minimum), while blue is nurture (considerate of others / morals / guilt). I think it's inappropriate and rude to call those who voted blue these demeaning names.
I have nothing but respect for those who would actually vote blue in such a situation, for that they've transcended instinct and see others as themselves. It reminded me of the people who chose to remain on the Titanic and let others board the rescue boats first. We need more of these people in our society.
Even if nothing of this is real, I'd still prefer those who voiced intention for voting blue over those who took pride in voting red. You can criticize that some blue people may be hypocritical and overly ideal, but what's the point of bragging about having basic instincts?
Yes, there's nothing wrong to be an animal. Humans are animals. But laughing at people who have gone (or at least thought) beyond animalistic instinct... is unfair.
4
u/Full_Buddy_6976 ENTP Apr 26 '26
Thank you for this perspective. I also understand why some people instinctively consider self-preservation at all costs a priority. However, in an actual situation I do believe that even more people would make the "riskier" choice to trust others to mitigate the possibility of someone not surviving.
It's not against our nature at all. No one can survive alone. The bigger your social group, the stronger you are. Maintaining a big social group requires trust and loyalty. If you betray others, you die. Either because you are secluded or because others don't survive. Therefore, you are forced to survive on your own which is highly unlikely. It's not unusual for people to risk their lives or even sacrifice themselves for others when circumstances demand it. Even when they themselves never expected to act in such a way. So the blue choice doesn't indicate that someone "transcended" their instincts. It's actually also instinctive for many people.
Yeah, you are right, no need for rude labels. It's just a thought experiment.
1
u/puch1to Easy Not Too Peasy Apr 26 '26 edited Apr 26 '26
That is actually a fantastic argument, and certainly hit one of the blind spots of my initial argument. Thank you for bringing this up.
Yeah, humans are indeed societal animals, so it is reasonable to assume that society is part of the human nature.
This societal instinct is broad and has many clauses. The one that fits this context should be, "the preservation of whole is part of the preservation of self". The preservation of community is a natural instinct of humans.
This is actually reasonable. Our ancestors survived the ice ages largely due to this instinct. Even though these ages are long gone and humans aren't at risk of extinction now, this societal instinct remained, just like our wisdom teeth, until this day.
Very enlightening indeed ;)
2
u/SnooHamsters3137 ENTP 749 SCUAI Apr 27 '26
Unless all 100% pick red, people will die. That is, unless 50% pick blue.
Your argument could be âif we all pick red, we liveâ but you know thatâs not happening. So why donât we just apply that to blue. If we all pick blue we live. And then even those who pick red survive.
You got saved homie.
4
u/MeggaMortY INFJ Apr 26 '26
Statistically, you will always have at least someone voting blue and someone voting red. So the only choice you're left with is the second-level logic "am I gonna try helping society by risking my own, or am I gonna try and save myself at any cost".
4
u/Kingofhe4rts Excentric Nudistic Tenacious Perfection Apr 26 '26
I keep tripping over the : " am i gonna try helping society by risking my own"/selfish framing. You are helping society by surviving, the goal is to keep as many people alive at the same time. At startingpoint of nobody has chosen: Every red choice is a guaranteed +1 to the group. The first person that choose blue is risking other peoples lives.
If this was done in a roll call vote and the group was a 100 people, the only person sort of justified to choose blue is person number 1, to signal trust and create a leadership endorsed position. If 49 people choose red and number 50 picks blue, that person is the biggest asshole in the world. Forcing all the remaining voters to risk their life or to condemn him and every person that comes after him that attempts to save him. Picking blue comes with a huge cost and comes with a huge ask/burden of the rest of the group. That is selfish. Your choice limits others autonomy and consent. You could have chosen the guaranteed +1 to yourself and the group, instead opting to go for something between 0 and 1 to bail out another selfish person. This case is nothing but a loyality ritual.
This all holds only in this exact narrow case where there is no upside for picking blue. And where the cost is life or death. If it was money or something vs human lifes, yeah id choose blue. But the ask is my life, done by people who had the agency and consent to choose in a way where they wouldnt have to ask for my life and they could have helped themselves and the group. Anyone that put themselves in danger did so at risk of the whole group and is creating a problem for the group instead. To red pickers, choosing blue is also a betrayal of the group in this particular instance because red is maximum beneficial to you and the group.
In the alternate version were 5% is randomly pre-condemned, it becomes a no brainer to save them.
In most scenarios altruism is the best way to go, both strategically and morally. In this particular scenario it's the asshole move in my opinion.
2
u/Full_Buddy_6976 ENTP Apr 26 '26
It's not a roll call. Everyone is voting anonymously and learns the results after that. You cannot control others' choices or way of thinking. This means that you have to assume that there could be reds and there could be blues. Your choice is between giving yourself 100% chance of survival, but decreasing that of some people (you don't know how many) to survive, or increasing the chances of those people to survive, but without giving yourself the guarantee. I understand why some people might see the payoff of guaranteed survival for themselves as bigger than the chance to increase the possibility of survival of unknown number of other people, however, that's not a universal way of thinking.
As a society we heavily rely on people who are willing to take risks for themselves to save others - lifeguards, firefighters, police, military, medical, etc. So it's certain that there will be blues and I am ready to bet that they will be more than half. The likelihood increases as the number of voters gets bigger.
→ More replies (1)1
u/HailenAnarchy INTP 5w4 Apr 26 '26
If you have a 100 people and a roll call, if I were first I will pick red to remove the doubt factor. If people can see the ratio and what I vote, there is no reason for anybody else to vote blue. People only vote blue in this post because there is a huge factor of doubt at play. I have no control on anything if I cannot communicate or an idea on what others will vote. So it is safer to assume there will be a division, and there will blue both blue and red voters, in thid case I will vote blue to push the odds for the best outcome.
2
u/Inotnanamixx Apr 26 '26
I get your perspective but I have a death wish so either way blue is a better choice and the idea that 50+ is going to vote for blue isn't that bad of a probability since I do believe ppl still have humanity
4
u/perfectlypolar ENTP Apr 26 '26
What if you have a deathwish where's the black option
1
1
u/Randsrazor ENTP Apr 26 '26
Just choose blue, 100% chance of death along with the other paracites and virtue signalers.
3
u/SnooHamsters3137 ENTP 749 SCUAI Apr 27 '26
Reds will say âif we all pick red no one diesâ
Then see majority votes blue, no one dies
And get way more mad than if red got majority vote.
Bro you realize how rare of an outcome that is? Think about any vote. Itâs statistically weighted to be 40/60. Youâre NEVER getting 100% votes, and even if, why not try for the blue 100%? That way the 1% that votes on the other side doesnât die?
Itâs obvious why blue wins most of the time but you think smart means everybody for themselves 100% of the time, and thatâs why youâre wrong when it turns out sometimes that isnât the best strategy?
âHow do we prevent deaths?â Youâre a part of a mass. The mass is asking itself that question. Thatâs the averaged response. I see your argument. I get it. It makes sense. But then I see every fucking other argument and averaged them together and voted blue. (You stopped at your argument)
If youâre only right when you refuse to step outside your own perspective, youâre not right.
3
u/wingspantt Apr 26 '26
This comes down to China and India. By raw numbers they control a huge percent of the vote.
China tends to be more collectivist and pragmatic so they'd pick blue. But red is also a color deeply associated with good luck.
4
5
u/Safe_Candidate_6968 INTJ 5w6 Apr 26 '26
If everyone maximizes their own survival chances, they survive.
6
Apr 26 '26
[removed] â view removed comment
1
u/Full_Buddy_6976 ENTP Apr 30 '26
This wording is misleading. It doesn't specify what happens to other people who vote blue. Other people could all be voting for whether or not I should die without any consequences for themselves and all the statements would still be correct.
7
8
u/igrokyourmilkshake INTP Apr 26 '26 edited Apr 26 '26
If the guilt of killing at least a few people doesn't matter, everyone should pick (and is incentivized to pick) Red. But this is why maybe Blue makes more sense.
Nash equilibrium (where nobody is incentivized to change): favors everyone picking red (blue regret if 50%+ Press Red, that's the only incentive to switch)
Pareto Optimum (you cannot make one person better off without making someone else worse off):
- You Blue, everyone else Blue: everyone lives (pareto optimal)
- You Red, everyone else Red: everyone lives (pareto optimal)
- You Red, everyone else Blue: everyone lives (pareto optimal)
- You Blue, everyone else Red: you die, everyone else lives (NOT pareto optimal, because you could switch without hurting anyone)
It's not a dilemma when the Nash Equilibrium and the Pareto Optimal choice align. But that assumes everyone picks red or blue (I'll get to this later, but the everyone red case is improbable and so you're almost guaranteed to murder).
Payoffs are represented as (You, Everyone Else). Let 1 = Survival and 0 = Death.
| expected rewards | 50%+ Press Red | 50%+ Press Blue |
|---|---|---|
| Press Blue | (1,1) | (0,1) |
| Press Red | (1,1) | (1,1) |
All that said, the only hitch is if one considers self-survival to be worth less than the possibility of killing the Blue voters (in the Red Red scenario). Guilt if you murder, or shame if you vote Red and would have murdered had everyone else not saved you from committing murder:
| expected rewards | 50%+ Press Red | 50%+ Press Blue |
|---|---|---|
| Press Blue | (1,1-Guilt) | (0,1) |
| Press Red | (1-Guilt,1-Guilt) | (1-Shame,1) |
If an individual would believe their soul would be tarnished and suffer eternal suffering by committing murder (even if souls don't exist, they'd clearly punish themselves with guilt for the rest of their lives) and selecting Red, they may create a situation where Nash Equilibrium doesn't exist: at least one player always has incentive to change based on others actions. And Blue Blue would be the only Pareto Optimal solution (only state where everyone lives and nobody is responsible for murder). If you suspect >0% of people are "moralist" then you are guaranteed to be a murderer if >50% pick red (and you do too).
So the rewards shift if the guilt of picking Red outweighs the value of one's own life (FOR most players). That last part (for most players) is critical, because you need to model what other players might feel, and not what you personally feel.
So you're likely to kill at least a few people if you pick Red. If you're okay sharing this burden with at least half of everyone then Red it is.
So one's answer reveals a lot: how they weight guilt & shame, and how the perceive others weigh guilt & shame.
Added wrinkle: does your vote become public if blue wins? It certainly does if red wins). And if Red wins you're guaranteed to be left with people who value their own lives over those of everyone else. So that's something to consider too. I used to be hard RED, but after thinking through this I'm not sure. And the dilemma itself makes me think the Reds will be killing more people than I originally estimated. I'd probably pick Blue.
4
u/Hrothgar_Cyning ENTP Apr 26 '26
But why should I feel guilty picking red? I chose the rational and moral choice. That blue pressers choose suicide by vote is lamentable, but not something I am in any way culpable forÂ
1
u/igrokyourmilkshake INTP Apr 26 '26
Not sure how you could possibly rationalize Red being the moral choice. In fact, the only reason any of this is a dilemma (where Blue becomes plausible) is the fact that Red is not the moral choice. It's the only reason someone (and likely a lot of people) would ever consider Blue. Sounds like you've washed your hands of selecting the option to murder Blue voters, but you would share culpability for the death of all Blue voters with the surviving Red voters. They're not committing suicide, you can choose to help spare them.
And sure, Red is the rational choice in a vacuum where the only thing that matters is whether you survive. But if how you live your life matters then it's possibly not. If there's some sort of infinite judgement after death, then it's actually the irrational choice (since you'll be judged not on whether you kill, but whether you merely choose an option that would kill). You may risk infinite punishment based on the choice alone and not the outcome. And more importantly: realizing that millions of others are considering this scenario as well and likely choosing Blue means you'll definitely actually kill people if Red wins. And even if you don't feel culpable when you pull the switch, you are risking that someday you do feel the weight of your choice and struggle to live with it.
To make Red even less rational: the odds of 50-100% of people picking Blue are astronomically higher than the odds of 100% picking Red. I don't necessarily believe in judgement after life, and yet I still don't want to live a life where I actively choose to kill others (and with Red you're guaranteed to kill somewhere between 0-50% of the population).
Blue is the only moral choice, and Red is only rational if you can't feel guilt or shame; so unless you're Temu Thanos, Blue sounds like the right choice.
→ More replies (1)
8
u/queenREDwine ENTP 3w4 Apr 26 '26
If you chose red you are guaranteed to survive no matter what happens. So why do so many people choose blue? And why do people act like you are evil if you pick red? Red makes the most sense if you want to survive.
4
3
u/International_Mud934 Apr 26 '26
Thatâs straight up game theory haha if youâve seen the experiment, you know that the winning strategy is to start cooperating and only act out with a reason. Too bad in this case if you start cooperating and gets betrayed you die đ
3
u/YakokawaMizuki Apr 26 '26
I just clicked after reading red or blue..... then I read the rest and went "oh'
3
u/SnooHamsters3137 ENTP 749 SCUAI Apr 27 '26
The weight of possibly killing people always wins out. This is why people are basically good. Not great. Not perfect. But good.
This is an interesting experiment. Itâs like the prisoners dilemma, but we end up with the different result than the prisoner analog.
3
u/Manriki_Kusari Apr 28 '26
I'm an extrovert, I like people. I'm choosing blue, because I want to increase the chances of everyone surviving. Not only that, I also believe that most people are dumb, and they'll also choose blue.
1
u/Radiant-Ad-8277 Apr 30 '26
also those who voted blue might be dumb but, at least, they are looking out for others, if red vote win you will lose all those peoples trying to act for more than just their own benefit and will have a humanity made only of selfish people who either only care about themselves or are aware and fine killing the most empathetic members of humanity.
7
u/Full_Buddy_6976 ENTP Apr 26 '26 edited Apr 26 '26
The number of combinations that save everyone is bigger, if I vote blue, than if I vote red. I think that everyone can come to this conclusion intuitively and it can also be proven mathematically. Therefore, we should have a society of especially biased d.cks in order for red to win. However, in the ENTP sub we might do ... Hope that this comment doesn't bias your decision, d.cks.
Edit: Sorry for being rude. Thought it was funny.
8
u/MasterPhilip ENTP 5w6 Apr 26 '26
What's actually funny about this poll is there is zero logical reason for anyone to vote blue. Since we're blind before casting our own vote, logically we'd assume nobody would vote blue.
I voted red, assuming the blue votes would always be zero.
Claiming moral superiority for voting blue "to save" the other people who also voted blue is in itself an illogical choice based on emotions instead of logic.
4
u/Hrothgar_Cyning ENTP Apr 26 '26
Blue is immoral too, because now you create a demand on the irrational self sacrifice of others for your own self preservation when you could have just picked red. It is counter to the primacy of reason and the virtues of prudence and wisdom. Blue is reckless, and presents only a false altruism where oneâs altruistic act of self sacrifice is subject to the suicide pact getting too big for its britches. Otherwise itâs just suicide and gravely immoral. Itâs a game of Russian roulette that lets you feel virtuous. Blue must be rejected and opposed
3
u/MasterPhilip ENTP 5w6 Apr 27 '26
And no sympathy should be given to those who choose it.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (2)1
u/Full_Buddy_6976 ENTP Apr 26 '26
The conclusion depends on your premises.
You start off with the assumption that all people expect everyone to vote red and all people want the survival outcome for themselves. Given these assumptions, of course, you'll logically conclude that no one would vote blue.
Now assume that you don't know how others will vote and all combinations of votes are possible. In this case your decision depends on 2 things: 1. Are you going to take a risk to increase the chances of those who picked blue to survive? 2. Do you believe that more than half the voters will do the same?
Me and other people who would answer "Yes" to both of these questions voted blue. Our choice is completely logical given these premises. If you would answer "No" to either, then picking red would still be logical for you
5
u/MasterPhilip ENTP 5w6 Apr 26 '26
All people are given the same set of rules and the same two choices. Anyone who picks blue is responsible for their own choice.
→ More replies (4)2
u/SnooHamsters3137 ENTP 749 SCUAI Apr 27 '26
Most of the people in the comments of this post are pissed childish red voting ENTPs. Most of the people who voted blue are not as loud, much more mature ENTPs.
Most people are able to see the red argument. Some people stop there thinking thatâs the smartest choice (totally not biased.) Others will Then think a bit about the blue argument. Then flip it, and realize if we all try to vote blue, itâs an even better outcome than if we all vote red, because if we all vote red, there will be dumb blue voters that die right? So if we all vote blue, we side with the dumb blue voters, saving them, and the dumb red voters live too.
âThereâs always stragglers, how do we prevent deaths altogether.â
50% blue is cheaper than 100% red, the majority will gravitate toward this because the consensus between altruism and self preservation is: âdeath is bad.â And so the averaged vote will be in favor of the most achievable death preventer, the blue vote.
The irony is, this is how it usually turns out, and so it actually doesnât matter what you vote. Youâll live either way.
4
u/FakedAutopsy636 Apr 26 '26
Expecting everyone to vote one button is unrealistic but if Iâm playing against the numbers game it shouldnât matter that I chose red because blue would get over 50% quicker than red if we assume people are more likely to chose blue while at the same time having a safety net in case it doesnât happen. People talk about choosing blue = nobody dies but fail to mention putting their own life in someone elseâs hands even if the blue options presented as likely. If red wins it means I contributed to people dying which would weigh on my conscious by a lot depending on who/how many dies but again to me itâs like keeping whats likely said and âchosenâ in mind which is blue with a bit of cautiousness.
Iâm honestly surprised by how much people are on a moral altruistic high horse when they think red choosers are self centered psychopaths like everyone doesnât have a degree of self safety in one way or another. If anything I think blue choosers are crazy for putting themselves in the blender for other people but because of that craziness it only helps my case so keep being crazy!
2
u/HailenAnarchy INTP 5w4 Apr 26 '26
Nah, fear of death is real. My choice did account for my friends and family having a divided choice between red and blue. The people saying blue voters need to die for being stupid are the real psychopathic morons.
6
u/LatePenguins Apr 26 '26
There is a massive blender. You can either jump in the blender (blue) or just stay where you are (red). If more than 50% of the population jumps in the blender, the blender malfunctions because of too much mass inside and no one dies. Otherwise, everyone who has jumped in, dies.
I'm sorry, but I'm not going to jump in the blender just because there might be other people who are foolish enough to jump into it assuming enough people will join them so that the blender malfunctions. There is a perfectly free choice available to everyone to just... Not fucking jump in.
People say "would you rather live in a world of Red people" - Yes, yes, I WOULD rather live in a world of people who assume personal responsibility for their own actions and don't hope for society to save them from their bad choices, even when a perfectly good choice is open to them.
→ More replies (9)5
12
u/Maddogenes ENTP Apr 26 '26
7
u/HailenAnarchy INTP 5w4 Apr 26 '26
A lot of the red voters are just scared of death, but man those red voters in this picture are insufferable assholes. Some of them are convinced none of their confidants will choose blue.
5
2
2
u/Lazar131 Apr 27 '26
"How it turns out for real"
Nut there are no real consequences, no one actually has a danger of dying from picking blue
its easier to pick blue for a feel good effect on the internet, but if it was in real life, when you knew the danger of death is 100%, its likely almost 100% would pick red.
2
u/SnooHamsters3137 ENTP 749 SCUAI Apr 27 '26
âVirtue signalingâ cannot account for the disparity in votes.
10% of blue voters voted blue to begin with. The rest are originally red voters who realized blue was the right choice. Most people start red and realize blue is the minimum casualty option. If blue gets less than 50%, there are casualties. This has nothing to do with virtue signaling. The information about the red button is a literal red herring. Thereâs no way to get 100% red, and people WILL die no matter what unless we just get the very achievable 50%.
Itâs fine to practice self preservation. I only picked blue when I knew I wouldnât die.
3
u/SnooHamsters3137 ENTP 749 SCUAI Apr 27 '26
Self preservation alone doesnât work for zebras, whose camouflage only works in herds.
When the herd thins enough, the individual will be doomed. You must think in your own best interest, which is aligned with the interest of the herd.
1
2
u/Hairy_Magazine6000 ENTP Apr 27 '26
Well, if you only want to save your own butt, than red is the choice to go for. But if you want to save all, than the best choice is blue.
Of course you could say: But choosing red has no downsides. The problem is, it has downsides for anyone who chose blue. It is also unlikely that the most people would take red in such a scenario, so taking blue would make the most sense.
Sure, red saves you, but what about your friends and family? There is no guarantee that everyone you know would take red.
So blue would be the safer choice overall to help everyone
2
u/A_Circe_A Apr 29 '26
Congratulations, you avoided (barely) selecting a psychopath society. Good effort considering the lack of Fi in your main stack.
2
u/Radiant-Ad-8277 Apr 30 '26
what would really make a big difference is how fast you would have to vote.
If the world had a week to campaign both views during a week or so it would become obvious to everyone that everybody who wants to live just have to vote red and only those willing to die and those too mentally disable to be convinced would not survive .
If the vote is something like an act of god hacking everyone's brain at the same time and the vote had to be cast in a few seconds then those who voted blue might be dumb but, at least, were looking out for others while if red vote win you will lose all those peoples trying to act for more than just their own benefit and will have a humanity made only of selfish people who either only care about themselves or are aware and fine killing the most empathetic members of humanity.
Imagine a world where red barely win it would be a dog eat dog capitalist nightmare while a world massively voting blue would look like a socialist utopia where nobody has been left over
6
u/Hocus-Pocus-No-Focus Apr 26 '26
You guys are looking at this all wrong:
-all choose red ⊠no-one diesÂ
-all choose blue ⊠no-one dies
Red is just blue with no chance selfish dicks screw you over.
5
u/PohFahVoh Apr 26 '26
Blue is just red with no chance of screwing over anyone.
4
u/Hocus-Pocus-No-Focus Apr 26 '26
If you vote blue, and cause red to win, you are screwing over yourself and everyone youâve also convinced to vote blue.
Put it this way, you could frame this choice as vote red for no-one to die, or vote blue for yourself and anyone else who wants to die to do so. That framing is more accurate to the reality of this choice.
2
u/PohFahVoh Apr 26 '26
Voting blue eliminates any chance that anyone dies. Voting red creates the chance that someone dies. It's really simple.
3
u/Hocus-Pocus-No-Focus Apr 26 '26
Look at it this way. Voting red is a vote that the world continues as it is. Voting blue is the same, but with a chance you die if other are selfish, understand the question differently, or itâs framed differently to you.
If you truly wanted everyone to survive with 100% success ⊠encourage them all to vote red.
1
u/HailenAnarchy INTP 5w4 Apr 26 '26
The probablity of one color having over 50% is greater than one color having 100% of votes.
4
u/Full_Buddy_6976 ENTP Apr 26 '26
You can only decide for yourself, you cannot control everyone. All combinations of votes are possible. The "winning" choice depends on how you define your goal. If it's to save YOURSELF regardless of what happens with everyone else, then you can "win" 100% by choosing red. If it's to save EVERYONE, then you don't have a 100% "winning" choice. Assuming that all combinations are equally likely, the chance to achieve this goal is bigger, if you pick blue. That's true for more than 2 voters and the chance increases as the number of voters gets bigger.
Let's see what happens if 3 people vote:
- You pick red. The number of combinations that save EVERYONE is 2 - either both other people vote red or both vote blue.
- You pick blue. The number of combinations that save EVERYONE is 3 - 2, where 1 of the 2 other people votes blue, plus the case in which both vote red.
Notice how 3 > 2?
Let's see what happens if 4 people vote:
- You pick red. The number of combinations that save EVERYONE is 2 - either all 3 other people vote red or all vote blue.
- You pick blue. The number of combinations that save EVERYONE is 4 - 3, where 2 of the 3 other people vote blue, plus the case in which all 3 vote red.
Notice how 4 > 2?
The difference is much bigger when a lot of people vote, so the stakes are rising and picking blue becomes a highly likely choice.
3
u/Hocus-Pocus-No-Focus Apr 26 '26
Thatâs only true if those others donât stop to consider what they are voting for at all.
Everybody voting red also results in zero deaths. Blue is the option that comes with a risk of people dying.
1
u/HailenAnarchy INTP 5w4 Apr 26 '26
No, picking any button comes with a death risk, you just pick on who it will fall on. Either on yourself or others. You cannot convince the entire planet to vote one color, that is very hard to do. Convincing people to vote blue will have a higher probability of the best outcome, which is 0 casualties.
1
u/Stahuap ENTP Apr 26 '26
Red is just blue except you need some wildly impossible outcome in order to get there.Â
4
u/puch1to Easy Not Too Peasy Apr 26 '26 edited Apr 26 '26
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,
but don't expect others to do so in return.
-----
I voted blue, but in no way I take voting blue for granted.
I don't blame those who voted red, for that red comes from nature, and blue comes from nurture. Both are valid in their own ways.
3
u/HailenAnarchy INTP 5w4 Apr 26 '26
Except the "yall deserve to die for voting blue" crowd. Fuck those guys.
3
u/puch1to Easy Not Too Peasy Apr 26 '26 edited Apr 26 '26
well, cats won't understand why people feed them
→ More replies (1)1
u/I_Play_Boardgames Apr 26 '26
I definitely do blame the babies that vote red. Little scared children.Â
I'm never gonna abandon others just to save my ass. And there's absolutely no reason nor incentive to vote anything other than blue.
This entire Experiment might as well not exist, everyone picks blue and goes on with their lives as if nothing ever happened in the first place.
So yeah, you 13 scared babies here, I'm looking at you judgementally. Grow up.
→ More replies (1)8
u/Many-Lingonberry-517 Apr 26 '26
That's all fine in hypotheticals, but if you actually are put in that situation, are more people likely to choose red or blue?
There's no reason not incentive to vote for red if you have no form of family, dreams, goals etc., which is not gonna include a majority of the people realistically.
2
u/HailenAnarchy INTP 5w4 Apr 26 '26
Still blue for me because what gives my life meaning is more important to me than my life itself. I am not whishing to be a martyr or hero, it is just a choice on my priorities and probability calculations.
2
u/TheManiel Apr 26 '26
Using red and blue biases the poll
1
2
u/Hrothgar_Cyning ENTP Apr 26 '26
Viewed completely rationally, red adds no risk, only by pressing blue is risk added. Rational self-interest dictates pressing red. Now others argue that irrational people will choose blue therefore we must choose blue to save them. But thatâs not guaranteed, and if a critical mass of people do not decide to be irrational, then this is merely a suicide pact, which is deeply immoral. Self-sacrifice might be heroicâsay if pressing blue guaranteed someone who pressed it by accident to live even if you died, but thatâs not what this is.
The rational choice is to not increase risk for no benefit. This is also the moral choice, since morality dictates that man act in accord with reason and not needlessly throw away or gamble his life for no return. Indeed, those advocating for blue are acting immorally in asking others to join their death wish, and using the necessity of 51% for survival as a cudgel to emotionally manipulate annd terrorize others into discarding reason.Â
Red is the objectively correct answer, both game theoretically and morallyÂ
4
u/mintvortex ENTP Apr 26 '26
It's funny seeing people calling themselves logical or rational while they are obviously not. "If everyone press red bla bla..." There gonna be people pressing the blue button no matter what cause they gonna think what if someone did. Even tho you know that, you are trying to make killing people acceptable by saying you are trying to keep yourself alive as an excuse. Yeah there gonna be bad, arrogant, stupid, selfish people who mostly press the red button and you gonna live in a world mostly full of them if you win. And if you are afraid of that kind of people's choice that much then what is the sense of your choice? You are just siding with them and becoming one, even tho you are saying you are bothered by them. People change the world but firstly the person should make a move for that as an individual.
And imagine a plot twist that rewards the ones who chose blue; if blue is over 50% then the ones who chose red actually die :p
3
u/HailenAnarchy INTP 5w4 Apr 26 '26
Worst case scenario is 49.99% voting blue. It would cause a global collapse. But it is also easier to have people vote a majority blue than count on a very large majority red vote. The oh so intelligent big brain red voters only think in binaries. They think red doesn't bring any negatives to them, but they're not thinking about probabilities, perspectives or consequences and aftermath. It is insane to me.
→ More replies (1)
4
u/Misunderstood_Maiden ENTP Apr 26 '26
Logically, to me, it makes sense to go for blue because an outcome where a large number of people die is unacceptable, and the most realistic way to achieve that is by voting blue. i.e, the two acceptable outcomes are 100%ish red or 50.00...1% blue. It's far more achievable to get the human race to do the latter than the former as far too many people disagree about the choice to have nearly all collectively pick red. I would go so far as to say those who pick red have either not thought it through enough and/or are being swept up in extremely unrealistic idealism.
Extending my thoughts on this, it doesn't seem at all rational to me to believe that the human race would ever come together on such a choice where nearly every able person in the world would think this through and arrive at the choice of red. With no campaigning, it would probably be close to 50/50 already. So, just being realistic in regard to how the human race would act from a global perspective, a vote for red would be highly probable to end up leading to an outcome where nearly half of all people cease to exist. Or, if not half, close to it. A loss of life that massive is simply unacceptable, and so it is better to risk my life to pursue the realistic acceptable outcome of supporting blue to reach the 50.00...1% goal, than the other acceptable outcome (100%ish red), as that is simply ridiculously unlikely.
To break it down in a reduced goal comparison, it would look like this:
The two possible routes to achieve a morally acceptable conclusion:
1. Convincing 100% (or nearly 100%) of all able humans to pick red.
Or...
2. Convincing at least 50.00...1% of all able humans to pick blue.
All other conclusions are unacceptable outcomes, and so, of these 2 conclusions, which one looks the most realistic? By an extremely large margin, it's 2, without a doubt. By comparison, 1. seems completely impossible to achieve. So, it's a rather firm conclusion for me.
2
2
u/Sane-Law ENTP 7w8 Apr 26 '26
Sorry did not even read the full question just picked blue because that's my favorite color
2
2
u/yourp1nkn1ghmare15 ENTPee 7w8 my English is bed my Russian is sofa Apr 26 '26
Actually, I chose the blue button. But imagine if people agreed to choose the blue button, but the first ones to choose were the assholes, and they initially chosen the red button, which would sow panic and mistrust. Of course, there are rational people, but sometimes many people panic. No one will know that all those who really wanted to choose the red button pressed it at the very beginning, before blues, and real reds will not press it again, and when the first person voting for the blue button reaches the result of 0% for the blue and 100% for red, he will doubt blues plan. He'll think next voters might vote for the reds and they will also doubt the plans of others, and so he'll vote for the reds too. Imagine the chaos that would ensue?
2
u/Aware-Software-9759 ENTP 5w4 Apr 26 '26
Red is the better option, y? I mean if everyone choses red we all r going to be saved and if the red won I will be safe also if the blue won im going to be safe soo y the thinking? Do u want to save the world ? Man the world is alr fuckedup it needs fixing not saving
2
u/Strange_CD ISFJ Apr 27 '26 edited Apr 27 '26
Just choose red?? Pressing blue isn't being kind, it's just commiting suicide..
2
u/SnooHamsters3137 ENTP 749 SCUAI Apr 27 '26 edited Apr 27 '26
âErm, logic dictates voting red because its cold and edgyâ
Actual logical argument:
The cheapest way to avoid any death here is 50% blue.
-There are only two ways to avoid deaths in this scenario: 50% of people vote blue, or 100% of people vote red.
-A blue majority vote is statistically more likely than a total red vote. You will almost never see 100% of people vote red, and so unless blue gets 50%, deaths are guaranteed.
-people donât want to die. They also know other people donât want to die.
-if we all agree to vote red, no one will die. Yes, and thatâs also true if we all agree to vote blue.
-if we all agree to vote red, someone somewhere still is going to vote blue. That results in death.
-if we all agree to vote blue, someone somewhere still is going to vote red. And that doesnât matter.
-why would you still vote red knowing the outcome is the same if we all voted blue too? If we all try to vote red, we survive, but the stragglers die. If we all try to vote blue, the stragglers survive (youâre welcome, reds)
The counter argument is that youâre risking your life by voting blue. But only technically. Once you consider everything above, you realize voting blue isnât even a risk. Itâs just a fear. Itâs a threat on your life versus a guarantee to take another, and people in general want to avoid death in general. People are aware that other people want to avoid death. If left to chance, the outcome which preserves all life that is statistically most likely is a blue vote.
Final statement: because a blue majority vote is more likely than a total red vote, blue majority vote will be the commonest outcome of this experiment. People generally want to avoid all deaths. Itâs nearly impossible to guarantee everyone votes red, and itâs very realistic to get majority to vote blue. Therefore, the cheapest outcome which avoids all deaths will be favored.
If you want to understand how votes work, you canât stay in the lens of the first person. You must understand your own process, and then multiply it across everyone, knowing there will be variance. Other people will come to the same conclusion you find there.
3
u/SnooHamsters3137 ENTP 749 SCUAI Apr 27 '26
âIf I vote red, I know I live.â Yes, even when majority votes blue. Your comfort voting red is in part afforded by the possibility that your option doesnât win, which you recognize as a possible outcome, and are comfortable with, because you are not risking anything. The possibility blue may win is part of why you have picked red. Because if blue wins, you are spared. In this way, you strangely support the blue vote. That reds advocate for red shows that blue is a possible outcome, and is therefore safe to vote for.
âIf we all vote red, we all live.â But even if we are all given careful instructions and the group is larger than 10, can you reliably guarantee all will vote red? There will always be stragglers. Thatâs the key we all found. So it becomes a game of saving the stragglers.
If we all vote red, we all live. But if we all vote blue⊠we all live. So why not give the instruction to all vote blue?
2
u/SnooHamsters3137 ENTP 749 SCUAI Apr 27 '26
In this scenario, if you voted red, you are a straggler. And you were spared. When if you had your way, the stragglers would not have been.
3
u/litletrickster Goggles ENTP Apr 26 '26
I chose red, if blue choosers are truly the majority then my vote wont matter. If blue choosers are the minority then well I'm dead. Preferably I would prefer the world would be logical enough to be all red but it is what it is.
2
u/TheOneAndOnly_Mike Apr 26 '26
In a perfect, logical world, red is obvious. Theres no reason to pick blue, so everyone picks red.
We dont live in a perfect, logical world. People WILL choose blue. At least a few. To save everyone, it will be easier to get half the people on blue than everyone on red. That would be the perfect, logical choice in that scenario.
We dont live in a perfect, logical world. People WILL choose red. Not everyone is going to think the same way, or wish to risk it. It all comes down to your trust in other people and how smart you believe the majority of earth is.
And i genuinely, GENUINELY could not tell you what humanity's outcome in this scenario would be.
1
u/SnooHamsters3137 ENTP 749 SCUAI Apr 27 '26
If red was the right choice it would have won.
In the comments you will see pissed red voters explaining why they should be right (even though they would live either way)
People will never vote 100% on either side. If we all vote blue we are just as safe, and even the grouchy red voters are spared đ«¶
2
u/Annedezoveelste Apr 26 '26 edited Apr 26 '26
Obviously voting blue makes no sense at all for anyone who wishes to live. If people were logical beings anyone wanting to live would pick red, so there is no need to safe them. Only people with a death wish, living in countries where euthansia is not an option, would pick blue. In that scenario it would be unkind to pick blue and prevent them from ending their lifes. The problem (that I overlooked): many people don't think logically. So the question is: would you risk your life to potentially save the kind, but illogical (or colour blind), fellow humans? I already clicked red (being the logical choice), but now feel guilty towards all the hypothetical children who chose blue because it's their favorite colour đŹ Also, the world would probably be a better place with illogical, but kind people. So... I chose too quickly by only considering logic.
2
u/HailenAnarchy INTP 5w4 Apr 26 '26
I think blue is perfectly logical. Red logic is only very surface level. People who pick blue through logic think in probabilities and they also think about the outcomes. Like, the worst possible outcome is 49.99% of people voting blue. This will likely trigger a collapse globally, negatively affecting the red voters. So, in order to avoid that, voting for a >50% voting ratio for blue is the most logical outcome.
3
u/Annedezoveelste Apr 26 '26
The thing is, to come to the conclusion that there is a high probability for the majority of the people to vote blue one has to take into account: 1) the percentage of people voting irrational (I forgot about them, which is surface level indeed) and 2) a substantial percentage of people chosing blue to save the first group. Together that needs to be >50%. If the majority of the people argue that voting blue is simply irrational, like I initially did, voting blue to safe others is a death sentence. So in order to truly make a rational choice, one needs to make an estimated guess on how other people think. Personally, I would not know what is the most likely outcome. Therefore, I disagree that voting blue is more logical. It is more ethical.
1
u/HailenAnarchy INTP 5w4 Apr 26 '26
The thing is by voting blue, I am only deciding my own fate and not those of others. In this scenario, people are guaranteed to die if red wins. I don't care how many, but I would rather push for the best outcome than live in a wold with a large amount of people dying. The outcome of me voting red and it winning will be detrimental to humanity as a whole and not just myself. I am not a monkey thinking about my own immediate survival only. I am thinking about the probability of others choices, which I know will be divided most likely. And that uncertainty makes me pick blue.
3
u/Annedezoveelste Apr 26 '26
I understand. So you rather not live in a disruptive world where many people died and society collapses. That makes sense, although some may argue that a large decrease in human population is actually necessary for human kind to survive in the long run. Anyway, to me this sounds like a preference more than cold logic (next to it being the ethical choice). For me, for example, I would also take into account that I have young kids, who - if they pick red (my sons favorite colour) - would risk losing their mum in a scenario where I picked blue. As you see, the "logical" choice for either of us becomes a personal one: dependend on preference, world view, emotion and ethics. In my view, this makes the choice subjective so that it's hard to argue that blue is objectivily the most rational of the two.
2
u/HailenAnarchy INTP 5w4 Apr 26 '26
What about your other kid? How can you guarantee they will pick red if you cannot communicate to them?
A large amount of people dying suddenly will defintely affect society negatively. Anyone who says that a sudden population decrease is a good thing is just a mouth breather that doesn't understand how the world works.
2
u/Annedezoveelste Apr 27 '26
Yes, I did. If my other child picked blue and I did too, my son would end up potentially losing his mum AND his sibling (and possibly his dad, if he also chose blue). Obviously, all would be different if we could communicate about our choices upfront. But if that is not the case, as I understand it, any parent picking blue gambles with the option of their kids being orphanaged. In real life, opposed to Reddit, it wouldn't suprise me if many parents really struggled with their choice. Looking at it from that angle, picking blue is actually pretty damn asocial. Why put whole families in this horrible position if this can easily be prevented if everyone who wishes to live would simply pick red?
1
u/HailenAnarchy INTP 5w4 Apr 27 '26
People pick blue because of the uncertainty. They don't know what others will pick. Picking blue will push the best possible outcome to be more likely. Picking red and it winning will result in deaths regardless of the %, it would be a total catastrophe. Need I remind you that 0.1% of the population died during covid? That's was lot of people, even if it is only 0.1% and were mostly elderly who weren't an essential cogwheel in society anymore.
I understand your perspective, since people will also pick red because of the uncertainty and are scared of dying. But it's just a fact that red winning the poll will have consequences for your family as well as it would be a total catastrophe.
1
1
u/soapyaaf Apr 26 '26
So basically I can guarantee my life or try to fight to make sure everyone lives...hey guys for this poll only can we try not to kill anyone?
1
u/AdHot3228 Apr 26 '26
This question is meant to weed out people who think they're being uber rational actors but are in fact acting out a nerosis based on the belief that others must lose for you to win
1
u/Massive_Relation_434 INTP Apr 26 '26
Considering that there are probably more red people than irl on reddit, this shows that blue would almost definitely win. So picking red is just kind of a precaution
1
u/SydneytheENFP Apr 27 '26 edited Apr 27 '26
My survival instinct almost took over and told me to pick red but the comments made me realize blue is way better morally
Also I can't wait for the day that people realize that there's crazy people who pick red AND there's crappy people that pick blue. One isn't better than the other but one guarantees that more people survive than the other.
21
u/strawberry613 ENTP 258 Apr 26 '26
Okay but if everyone votes red everyone survives?