Red or Blue: a variant

In My Humble Opinion
1

Seeing as we are going down the Red or Blue Button rabbit hole for a.second time. I’m going to introduce a variant of it (actaully several variants), to see how The Dope responds…

This is exactly the same as the original red blue dilemma. You are given a red or a blue button, with no opportunity to discuss or strategize with anyone else, and must press the button* If 50% or more people press blue everyone lives. If 50% or more people press red everyone who presses blue dies.

However in this variant you are not pressing for just yourself. You are pressing for a group of people. Your choice decides the response for everyone in the group, as if they had all chosen the same button as you.

How big that group is different in each variant, from 10 people to approximately 1/2 the world’s population. How does that change your response? You don’t know:

  • How you were chosen as the representative of your group
  • How the other groups will choose their button press (though you know the world has been divided into similar sized groups)
  • Whether your group is slightly bigger or smalle than average (in particular in the 1/2 the world case you don’t know if you are in the majority or minority)
  • If the groups are chosen at random or consist of the people closest to you.

At what point do you press red?

  • Never
  • 10 people in group
  • 1000 people in group
  • 1000000 people in group
  • 1000000000 people in group
  • Approximately 1/2 the population of the world
0 voters

‘*’ - in this version not pressing is the same as pressing blue except no one is added to the total blue count (everyone in the group will still die if blue is in a minority)

2

Seems like it should go the other direction. In the extreme if a baseline red button pusher knew that they could control 50% on their own, and just one more, sure to happen, would guarantee everyone lives, then only the most sociopathic person would chose red. How far away from 50% until a not sociopath flips to their red baseline choice?

3

The world has been divided into similarly sized groups. If you control 50% that means just one person gets to choose if you live or die if you press blue.

I’m pressing red in all circumtstances and in the 50% version I just hope my counterpart is rational enough to do the same.

4

But the same is true for a red button pusher, if the other group presses red then everyone lives. It’s just you are not killing yourself and three billion other people if you are wrong.

5

Ah. I didn’t get that the groups are all roughly the same size.

In that case - still.

My assessment of others is that there is a better than 50/50 chance of someone else choosing blue. My choosing red would then kill off half the world. Practically then most of the rest of us die as food production and distribution breaks down. It doesn’t even assure I live, and living in that world doesn’t seem so great a choice.

But it becomes a closer choice.

6

So you really think there is a better than 50% chance the person in charge of the other group will put themselves at risk, even though it boils down the same calculation either way? Whether you choose blue or red everyone survives if the other guy chooses the same as you, otherwise half the world dies or not depending on which group is bigger. The only difference is whether the chooser is at risk or not.

So what if you are told that that the groups are chosen by selecting the people closest to the chooser (either physically or by relationships via a “Kevin Bacon graph”)? Does that change your response?

Even if you don’t care thank you are putting at risk everyone you have ever known (rather than bunch of people you have probably never met). Are willing to bet the other guy won’t care about that?

And if that’s true for the 1/2 the world case it’s also true for the 1 billion case. What are the odds at least three other choosers will be willing to risk the lives of everyone they have ever known by pressing blue?

7

In retrospect I should have made this multiple choice. It seems you can’t edit a poll after the fact but here’s another one..

For these different variants with the given number of people in each group. Would you choose RED?

  • One person
  • Ten people
  • A thousand people
  • A million people
  • A billion people
  • 1/2 the planet (approximately)
0 voters
8

I’m still pressing blue

ETA: I’m not being snarky, I genuinely want to know, what is the point of this variant. Just to try to get people to press red?

9

Even in the 1/2 the world case? Where the moral calculus is the same in both cases (other guy chooses the same, everyone lives, other guy chooses differently half the world may die)? You are betting the other guy will choose to put themselves (and maybe everyone they know) at risk even though it doesn’t change how many people are being put at risk?

10

It moves the descision from just being yourself to now being about a group of people you are deciding for. How does that change your answer?

11

Yes.

I recognize the tribal nature of our cognitive processes and now would be confident a solid majority would choose red.

Outcomes though …

I chose red. I’m the majority. The minority leader chose blue. They die with me knowing my choice caused their death. And living through a world that is now post apocalyptic.

Both red. Great. Sigh of relief.

I chose blue and am the minority group. Their leader red. I’m dead along the rest of those I represent. We don’t suffer at least. No post apocalyptic nightmare for all I represent. No guilt for me.

I chose blue minority group, the majority leader also blue, big sigh and happiness.

12

It doesn’t. I’m assuming that the obvious choice is blue. If more people choose red and I die, so be it. By choosing red, I might have blood on my hands, not something I’m willing to live with.

The fact that I’m voting for a larger group than myself only strengthens my resolve to vote blue.

For instance, if I’m voting for “approximately 1/2 the population of the world” and I vote blue, then only one other person out of a little over 4 billion has to choose blue and we’re all golden.

13

But in the 1/2 the world case you will have blood on your hands either way, if you fail to make the same choice as the other guy, then half the world might die. The only difference between red and blue is you won’t be around to feel guilty about making the wrong.

By choosing blue you are betting the lives of half the world on the fact the other guy will decide to act against their own self interest and put their own life and possibly the lives of everyone they know at risk (without decreasing the number of people who’s lives are at stake)

14

If you stretch the original hypothetical to it’s limits, you might eventually force people to want to press red.

What about this variant…

If you press blue, you die but the rest of the world lives.
If you press red, you live but the rest of the world dies

What would you choose in this scenario?

15

I’m never pressing a button that kills people when there is an option to kill nobody. If I’m in the minority then at least I die knowing I tried to save everyone.

16

One could argue that the only button that kills people is the blue button. If you push the blue button, you might die; if you push the red button, you won’t.

17

Pushing red guarantees blue pushers die if they’re in the minority. I’m not living with that guilt.

18

But pushing blue also guarantees your own group members will die, if they in the minority. You are not making the descision for yourself you are making it for everyone else in your group. You are betting their lives that enough pressers will act against their own interest for blues to be a majority.

19

I’m voting for nobody dies. Period. Pressing red means you are ok with people dying.

20

Pressing blue means your ok with the people in your group dying. There are N people (including you) who could potentially die if you press blue who would definely be safe if you press red.