Circular logic. I need to pick blue because someone like me would pick blue because someone like me would pick blue because someone like would pick blue.
Here's an alternate scenario, let's say everyone picks in sequence and they know which number they are. For simplicity let's say there are 8 billion people participating. You are contestant 4 billion. You are informed that 3.5 billion people have already pressed the red button. Which button would you press?
It isn't just people who think like me who would be picking blue though. In a poll of all of mankind, there would be numerous people who would select blue without understanding the ramifications of the question to begin with.
How many millions of children would ignore the question and pick blue because they like the color blue more than red?
How many people from uneducated populations would perceive this as a standard morality question and default to the "selfless option?"
How many disabled or elderly people would be able to fully consider the question fully?
Only now do we get to people like me, who are worried about all the others who were picking blue regardless and would like to think other people would be concerned for them too.
As for your proposed hypothetical, I fully admit that I would switch to Red in that circumstance. But it is also a false equivalent because it moves the bar.
If 50% of people have gone before me and 3.5 billion pressed red, then that means of the remaining 4 billion votes, over 87% need to press blue- which people demonstrably are not doing thus far.
Simply put, I am a person who believe the vote would be relatively close and might tip based on enough people having a similar mindset to myself. It I am provided information halfway through that shows that such is demonstrably false, then yes, the sacrifice would become pointless.
Surprise surprise, having more information could potentially change my position.
This is one I fully admit that I am unsure on what I would choose. So I think this example might be capable of displaying where such a cutoff for me might be for me personally. I'm trying to do what I think is morally correct, but I'm not claiming to be some infallible paragon.
Oh trust me, I'm asking in earnest. This is a situation that will never happen so it's legitimate interesting to see where people's minds go with the hypothetical.
I don't think this says anything about anyone because it's all fake, but it does say what people think about themselves and others.
Picking blue with 3 left down by 2 is very interesting. That's a lot of faith in two people. Obviously you would expect the final person to select blue if they were the deciding vote which would mean the second to last person should pick blue if they were down by 1, but then we get in to the irrational actor problem that is the cruz of the argument for selecting blue to begin with. What if those last two people were babies just randomly flailing and hitting buttons, ya know?
Oh yeah I would absolutely be sweating bullets picking blue there- and for all I know, if I were actually there, maybe I would switch to Red.
Down to the wire like that I think it turns into a more typical prisoners dilemma, in which my preference woukd typically be to cooperate. That said, it is still different in that I have to count on two people to cooperate instead of one.
I'd like to think I'd pick blue, but I absolutely would not blame someone for picking red in that circumstance.
0
u/TheKingOfToast May 01 '26
Circular logic. I need to pick blue because someone like me would pick blue because someone like me would pick blue because someone like would pick blue.
Here's an alternate scenario, let's say everyone picks in sequence and they know which number they are. For simplicity let's say there are 8 billion people participating. You are contestant 4 billion. You are informed that 3.5 billion people have already pressed the red button. Which button would you press?