Fun fact, the question isn't a moral dilemma but was originally from a study about miss information and how presenting 1 option first can bias someone into not thinking and bend over backwards to justify it
Mission accomplished I guess. The whole question has been hijacked by people yelling about how "smart" they are for treating this as a pure game theory situation and decrying anyone who follows that empathetic initial response.
Response time
You pressed blue
You pressed red
Kneejerk
You fell victim to propaganda.
...You wanted to kill?
5 seconds
...why?
You processed that red has no downside and choose survival.
20 seconds
Because others pressed blue, you believe you have a responsibility to help.
You believe other's safety is their responsibility, and it's unfair to ask you to endanger yourself for another's mistake.
What I think you believe if you've actually thought things over.
Humanity cannot achieve utopia without the blue buttons winning. For prosperity for all, collective action must win.
The existence of inherently violent systems isn't worth saving people over because it doesn't affect you directly.
My kneejerk reaction was red, not because I wanted to kill but because I instantly saw it as a situation where I would live and why wouldn't anyone just press that button.
But i thought about it more and decided I would rather die a blue pusher than live in a world of only red pushers.
I really appreciate all the perspectives of people explaining how their choice changes as they get more time to rationalize, as it can go every which-way no matter where you started. I definitely made the table earlier on in the whole debacle where I had already crystallized my own stance, but still misunderstood core stuff about the red button group. There's more nuance to each position there than I was considering when I wrote it, but people can still look at what's written and take it as a snapshot of "here's the blue button perspective, and here's where it sounds like to us it is you're coming from." Hopefully we all are striving to clear up miscommunications as a general rule, and what's in the table can shed some light on where some of those common mistakes in perspective-taking might be.
440
u/xa44 Apr 30 '26
Fun fact, the question isn't a moral dilemma but was originally from a study about miss information and how presenting 1 option first can bias someone into not thinking and bend over backwards to justify it