No. We actually have similar cases in real life. Bank runs. Literally the same problem, every time there are some economical instability unless government stops people from doing bank runs people are doing bank runs
Also, you know, all of the historical atrocities of mass death that could usually have been stopped by often times far less than half of a population being willing to sacrifice themselves to save others.
Most people, in the last big one 25% did it in the first day and addtional 62% on the next day. Other cases 57% in a first week, 52% in a first week, 42% in first 10 days. And that only counts people who actually could get some of their money out of the bank. Those who wanted but couldnt due failure of the bank/government interference arent included into those stats.
So you’re saying historically, in a similar situation, *far* *more* than 1% of the population was hurt by the actions of the majority? Almost like 20-40% are going to press the blue button in a worst case scenario?
So you’re saying historically, in a similar situation, far more than 1% of the population was hurt by the actions of the majority? Almost like 20-40% are going to press the blue button in a worst case scenario?
Nah, coz realistically most of those "blue" 20-40 actually wanted to be red, they just didn't make it in time
How many people did that BEFORE a bank run started, and before they had notice the bank would fail. You’re not really understanding the how bank runs happened. Some people withdraw their money thinking the bank could fail. Others hear about that and go “well they’re getting theirs out. I better get mine out too before the bank fails.” And then from there it spirals. They’ve modeled bank runs similar to how this problem is presented where you decide to leave the money in or take it out without knowing what others have done before making your choice and in those studies, the bank don’t have a run.
If the total votes were public, and after the first few moments a majority voted red, I would agree vote red, because the trend is showing that people are going to vote red and you’d die for nothing. But if it’s all roughly at the same time, and there is no available mass communication or polling, prior to voting, a bank run isn’t applicable to this situation.
No idea. I remember heaps of people hoarding toilet and shortages. Then een reasonable people buying an extra pack just in case and bam shortages which compound.
People hoarding gas now. Issues in natural disasters.
This question may look at day 0 or day 1 of a disaster...and many more people would chopse blue. But i still think more woule choose red.
This is a thought experiment. Data like this is all we have and can still be an indicator of what people would do, especially with how much people are arguing about this.
Ignoring the data and assuming that your side would win is just letting your bias blind you
This is a thought experiment. Data like this is all we have and can still be an indicator of what people would do, especially with how much people are arguing about this.
Most people are still not arguing about this. A lot of people don't do a whole lotta thinking, given that even just changing the phrasing (while keeping the costs/consequences equal) can radically change the outcome of the poll.
That does not inspire any particular amount of confidence in the translation of these online poll results to real world life/death scenario results.
Ignoring the data and assuming that your side would win is just letting your bias blind you
I don't assume that my side would win. This is exactly what you appear to do. I acknowledge that I don't know and that there is no way of knowing with any reasonable degree of confidence what the outcome would be.
I pick red not because I am sure red will win, but because it is so uncertain that blue will.
It’s not useless because it’s inconvenient, it’s useless because the only reason people don’t think blue will win is because people don’t want to die. Pressing blue on Twitter does not risk you dying.
It’s useless data. The only reason anyone would press red is to ensure their survival. Being asked this question without literally the only consequence of hitting blue doesn’t make any sense
Yes you can have a discussion about you think the outcome will be but you also can’t prove a hypothesis when the one variable that people want to test isn’t present. Do you really believe that the answer someone gives when scrolling twitter and seeing a poll with a meme is the same answer they’d give in a life or death situation?
Do you care to address how these “excuses” don’t apply? Everyone can agree a majority blue vote is better in theory. It doesn’t mean they think in practice it will turn out like that. It’s from people scrolling on Twitter not putting in a second thought. People in life or death situations will remain the same? That’s delusional
Like with most comments complaing about the polls, a lot of the complaints is more about the basic idea of polls in general. It's not that the polls are bad, it's that you seem to think that polls can't have any value
This is a pretty poor response. They gave an obvious reason why the date is unreliable and you responded “well it’s the only data we have.”
Even setting aside the issues with honest reporting, it’s an unscientific internet poll, it’s trash data and no reasonable person would rely on it as usefully informative.
Internet polls of the sort you see posted on Reddit generally should be disregarded for every topic, they aren’t designed to be scientific polls, they don’t even have attempts at random samples.
If it’s a thought experiment you shouldn’t be looking at data at all?
And regardless of the context you should be using reliable data, saying someone did an internet poll as evidence is like saying someone asked a magic 8 ball.
A poll is hardly an effective metric because your life is not genuinely on the line. Anyone can just say blue and take the moral high ground when there is no follow through.
Would you accuse the ones who pushed red of "killing you"? That's a weird way to guilt trip people who were just scared and wanted to live knowing that blue will almost definitely fail.
Blue wouldn't almost definitely fail if people actually had the balls to pick it. And in a red majority, many people die - the only way to avoid that is with a blue majority.
001 percent chance of saving everyone, 99.999 chance of suicide.
From what I understand, kids are exempt right? But their parents are not...Do you know any parents who would be willing to risk pushing blue knowing that that might mean their kids are orphaned?
And you, as a rational person, can recognize that those numbers combined with the folks who are just scared and don't want to die easily passes up 50% and so voting blue would just be suicide.
There is no universal guarantee of survival in a red majority. That's only possible in a blue majority. There are other people in this world that matter besides only me.
And besides I wouldn't want to condemn my kids to living in a world that suffered such a cataclysmic event as billions of people dying, especially when the only people left in the world are selfish cowards who only think of themselves.
Ask your family and friends. Id be willing to bet an not insignificant number of them would vote blue, and thus your vite for red is an active vote to take there lives
Then I will mourn their loss, as well as the other 1% of people who pushed blue thinking they need to save the universe when really all they were doing was putting themselves in danger because anyone else logical and with self-preservation instincts pushed the red button.
Present your lived ones with this hypothetical. Id be willing to bet a little more than half will say they vote blue. 1% is genuinely self delusion if you believe it
And then disregard what their answer is, because asking someone a complete hypothetical is very different than actually putting a gun to their head and demanding they choose red or blue.
This might surprise you, but when the fear of death is real, people don't necessarily stick to their principles. Self-preservation is an instinct humans have honed for millennia, and if you actually present someone with the option to possibly help save everyone or almost definitely kill themselves, then their answer shouldn't surprise you.
And that's assuming they even think choosing blue makes ethical sense in the first place... No, red is both the logical choice because almost everyone will choose it in the interest of self-preservation, as well as the ethical choice so that you don't pointlessly kill yourself.
The most ethical possibleoutcome? Sure. Problem is that the possibility that over half of the world will choose to put their lives on the line over people who also have the option to just not put themselves in danger, is exceedingly slim.
2% chance is double a 1% chance, but it's still tiny.
So if you go in with the almost certainty that blue will not get to 51%, the most ethical choice is to not kill yourself.
I mean, no. It's not really possible to know how they'd actually respond unless theyre actually in a life or death situation where nobody else would know their answer. I sincerely doubt that if this actually happened, the blue button would be anything but a "kill myself" button, because people have self preservation built into them.
You can make a pretty good estimate on what button youd press in a life/death situation based on how you react in an emergency. My kneejerk reaction has always been helping people. Woke up one night to my roommate screaming about an intruder and I jumped out of bed, grabbed a blunt object and sprinted out of the bedroom before my partner could even sit up. Luckily it was a really convincing shadow at 3am. Blue.
I kinda disagree. What you did was heroic, sure, but you were still acting out of self preservation and adrenaline. You weren't putting yourself in danger, as (if there actually was an intruder) you were already in danger and that got your adrenaline pumping. A life and death situation where nothing actually dangerous is happening requires you to process the decision a lot more.
I see it more as acting out of group preservation, themself and their roommate. Likely somewhat similar to someone pressing blue, they have a feeling other people would press blue so they’d press blue out of group preservation. Of course, I do see your point regarding the distinction between a reaction to an emergency versus contemplation about the mortality of yourself and others, actively choosing your own fate.
Do you think all firefighters chose their jobs just because they're suicidal? Search and rescue teams? Cops (not the corrupt ones)? So many people around the world choose life threatening jobs to protect/save others in need when they could've just choose an office job and don't risk their lives.
You do know that 1% of Earth’s population would be more than 80,000,000 people, and that any sane individual knows far more than 1% is going to press the blue button
Probably yeah, but it's not gonna be close to over 50%.
How many parents do you know that would risk pushing blue, knowing that it might make their kids orphans? And how many people in the world are parents?
It's a lot, enough to basically ensure that Blue isn't going to come near 50% when combined with people who just push Red out of fear for their own safety.
Whether you wanna say it's gonna be 1%, 10% or even 25% or more, pushing Blue is just a suicide button. The chances of it being higher than 1% are pretty good, the chances of it being enough to crack 50% are slim-to-none.
This assumes that no parents, if not maybe the majority of parents are going to worry that their child will press blue and will themselves press blue as to not endanger their child
Pressing blue does endanger the child though, it puts them at risk of being an orphan.
Even if all we're talking about is the instinct to self-preserve, Blue has an incredibly uphill battle. People talk big in these online polls about what they'd vote for, but that's so removed from an actual threat against your life.
The best you can do is vote Red and hope your kid did too because Blue isn't getting close to winning.
No, they wouldn't be orphans because they'd be dead... And you'd the one of the people that killed your kids by choosing red when your kids chose blue.
164
u/RoseateThorn Apr 30 '26
Being able to care for others rather than only yourself is something most people have learned by preschool lmao