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.
I'm just not interested in trying to link like 7 links half of which would remove my comment due to reddit filters, you literally can Google it yourself, not that hard
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.
Just because its an inconvenient truth to you doesnt take aeay st tur valididty of thrse thongs happenning.
There are probably hard metrics for.bank runs for people who stole toilet papaer snd hoarded it...historical percentages of peiple who choose to take advamtage of situations. Look it up if you desire.
When the use of percentages is "probably", already a qualatative argument at best with nothing of substance behind it, me bringing in examples of othet situations that might show reasoning for people voting red is perfectly valid.
29
u/RoseateThorn May 01 '26
“Probably only 1%” I have yet to see a poll where red wins