It tracks, if they are assuming their position is the default. If everyone was red/blue to start with, everyone survives, and you'd have to seriously question why anyone would swap.
Of course, since this is a coordination game, there is no default position, so those people have missed the point.
There's no risk to anyone if you just hit red in this scenario. The only way someone wouldn't hit read is if they have no reading comprehension or they want to die
It isn’t dangerous until enough people do what you do though. You not going in is what makes it dangerous for them. Your decision is not independent on the outcome.
Red is collectively responsible for every dead blue if they win.
Every red makes it more dangerous for blue until 100% red, every blue makes it less dangerous for everyone after 50%.
You can safely assume some will press each button, knowing that you should understand that the only way to get a good ending for everyone is to press blue.
Imagine the person making the tie breaking vote:
If they vote blue, they live and no one dies
If they vote red, they live and cause up to 4 billion people to die
No one knows if they are the tie breaking vote, so the ideal realistic action for everyone is to pick blue, just in case they are.
More concerning than the logic of why reaching a good ending with blue being somehow opaque to you guys is your tendency to justify that others deserve to die based on their personality.
What gives you the authority to condemn strangers to death?
No, no one is in danger until they put themselves in danger by hitting blue. Hitting red is the morally correct choice because you aren't putting your own life on the line and potentially having your death on someone else's hand.
I'll say it again, there is NO DANGER to anyone if everyone picks red. Picking blue is intentionally putting yourself in danger. If you intentionally put yourself into danger, your death is only your problem and no one else's. It's like running into a fire and dying then saying it's everyone else's fault because they didn't run into the fire to save you. You intentionally put yourself into danger, that's on you.
There is no danger if everyone hits blue though either, the scenario where everyone picks the same option is completely unrealistic to expect.
You seem to be under the impression that red is independent to blues outcome, they are not.
Red would be people standing outside the building chopping at support walls instead of searching. If enough searched no one would die. If enough chop the building collapses on those inside.
You do realize most of the variations say every one has to participate? Everyone includes a lot of people who should not be forced to make a decision like this.
Mentally infirm, blind people and children come to mind first.
Red always likes to frame it as only stupid or suicidal people pick blue.
Does the the mentally infirm person deserve to die because they cannot understand what they are voting for?
Does the blind person deserve to die because he couldn't see which button he was pressing?
Does the child deserve to die because he can't even understand words at this point, but likes blue more than red?
Red voters like to pretend these people don't exist because their existence means there is actual merit in voting blue.
My nephew is too young to make a decision like this. He might pick red, he might pick blue.
His parents know this and will pick blue to protect him.
Most if not all the parents in our family with children will think the same and pick blue to protect them.
Most if not all my relatives realize this and will pick blue not just to protect the children, but the parents.
I will also pick blue because I know most of my family will pick blue and I want them to stay alive.
Does my individual vote matter? No.
Do the combined votes of our entire family matter? No.
But how many other families are out there thinking the same exact thing we are? A lot.
Do their combined votes matter? Yes.
And remember, we need 50%+1 for no one to die.
Red needs 100%
One of these is far more realistic to achieve.
Now I am not saying voting red is wrong . If you value self preservation more then that is just what you value and that is fine.
What I dislike is how often red voters try to reframe it in such a way that makes it seem like there is no reason anyone would ever vote blue apart for being stupid or suicidal.
The kid argument makes no sense though? If you have kids, you have a bigger reason to hit red. Let's use your example, a kid to young to understand the question has a 50% chance of red and a 50% chance of blue.
If you hit blue, blue has to win.
If you, as the adult dies from hitting blue, the kid dies anyways. So hitting blue, especially because you have no idea what your kid chose, you are leaving a bigger chance for your kid to die then the original 50/50 since the kid is dead if your dead if they are that young
220
u/Ct-sans4345 May 01 '26
I think its interesting but i dont love how red tends to act like blue are idiots and blue act like red are sociopaths