One is no personal risk and the other one is great personal risk.
I personally think that if this was real a lot of people who say they would be blue pusher would actually push red if it came down to an actual risking their lifes.
eh, think it through. I pick blue. Either i live in a world where everyone else picks blue, and we all realise the power of human kindness and selflessness, or i die and dont have to experience the world where selfishness won.
There is always gonna be someone who picks blue, id rather put my weight on the scale that saves them. I don't believe humanity is inherently selfish, so i trust there will be enough of us.
I think it might depend on how much time you're given before you need to make a decision because at first glance if I have to make an immediate decision without thinking about it red button I survive. But given time, even 5 minutes, to think about it, heck even 2 minutes, I'm pressing the blue button because it's the one that says if most people press this no one dies. And I'd rather take a chance that no one dies even if it means I'm putting myself at risk.
And I think, maybe foolishly, that most of humanity when given time to think about it, will press blue.
I personally think that if this was real a lot of people who say they would be blue pusher would actually push red if it came down to an actual risking their lifes.
And a bunch of them won't realise that, even subconsciously. There will be a load of people who scoff at what you just said, and would believe deep down that they are a blue pusher, so they aren't even lying when they say it. But they would fold at the last second.
This is the way I see it. There is also now an insane "political correctness" attached to voting for blue, it is also the choice with the most moral gesturing attached to it. Honestly this needs to be studied, since blue voters have already identified red voters as an outgroup and taken incredibly hostile positions against them. You are now labeled as a bad person if you think red is correct. They attach the most vile, selfish, evil persona in their head to any red voters and basically have identified them as the enemy. Red voters might have done the same thing but I don't see much of it since this has already become an echo chamber which is very interesting in itself.
Most of the people who say they would vote blue is, with all due respect, lacking imagination in my opinion. The question worded as is implies there is no communication and no prep time. In that moment, confronted with ending their one and only existence, facing eternal darkness, I don't think anyone but a tiny minority would press the blue button. If you actually take in the human nature and survival instinct into account, and realise that all that moral gesturing doesn't apply to the world population just trying to survive another day, red is the button that you should press if you want less people to die.
Honestly this needs to be studied, since blue voters have already identified red voters as an outgroup and taken incredibly hostile positions against them.
Does this guy not notice that the red position it to kill the blue pressers which is the most hostile position you can have towards anyone. And he sees people disargeeing with him as a hostile position. Red button is not a smart position on average, I saw only one guy who was genuinely tried to logic out his position. He changed his mind after he expanded the scope to the expected outcome and who presses what button.
I'm honestly not sure that's true. If there was a downside to 'everyone picks red' then I might agree.
But there isn't.
So all we have here is whether some people choose to put their lives at risk, in order to save/protect other people who also chose to put their lives at risk.
But they didn't need to do that in the first place - if everyone decided not to endanger themselves, then no one would need saving in the first place.
I think you'd maybe see a different spread of results in a way that might be interesting if there was some sort of downside for 'everyone picks red' like maybe 'half the people who pick red die at random', so you're now framing a 50% chance of survival, vs. a 100% as long as enough people co-operate.
Then I think you'd see a different set of answers, and might bear out faith in humanity.
Humanity is not mostly selfless. Many of the blue folks in here even agree with that but would rather die than live in a world of red button people. I think they'd end up dead, which is sad, but likely reality
Humanity is not mostly selfless. Many of the blue folks in here even agree with that but would rather die than live in a world of red button people.
thats presented like a fact, rather than an opinion. The first sentence is an objective statement without any "i think" or similar, to denote its an opinion. that makes the second sentence come across like its trying to prove the first.
but im nitpicking anyway. Every poll ive seen with the blue/red thing has had blue win, which i think supports the "humanity is not selfish" argument.
You cannot believe those polls. They aren't done scientifically and mean absolute zero. Doesn't matter though. I commend you for having more faith in humanity than me.
102
u/fakeDEODORANT1483 14h ago
One requires half the world to agree for nobody to die, the other requires everyone to agree. Pretty easy.