Which Button Are You Pressing?

[Carl-Richard]

52 minutes ago, vinc3nc said:

"If more than 50% of people press the blue button, everyone survives."

Just reading this sentence makes you realize that a lot of ppl would press the blue button because of this, not realizing what it actually means. they would be too quick to judge and just press the blue button (along with children etc). and the rest (maybe only 20-30% of the remaining people) just to need to realize what I just said here to make the right choice (pressing blue) in order for nobody to die (to make it 50%+).

That's what I'm saying. They are retarded. They are not able to think. So you would maybe take that into consideration.

 

57 minutes ago, vinc3nc said:

so the way something is written or said is very, very important in these kinds of experiments. imagine it if was said like this: "If every1 presses the red button, nobody dies, if less than 50% press the blue button, every1 who pressed the blue button dies" or something like that. then you're fucked if you try to push the blue button just to help those who made a mistake survive, because you wouldn't have enough support from others.

Yep, again, people have poor reading comprehension, we know that.

 

58 minutes ago, vinc3nc said:

 

Notice again that I never said you should pick any button. I said this is a scenario that would happen if everybody is rational and not retarded. They are not, which is what I continued to explain afterwards.

You had an emotional reaction to me merely entertaining as a hypothetical that pushing the red button could be the most rational thing given a certain scenario, and now you assume I want to push the red button. That's again not true, I said I don't know what I would push given the real situation.

[vinc3nc]

People who don't want to pick, or don't know what they would pick = red button

[Osaid]

Eeny, meeny, miny, moe

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, vinc3nc said:

People who don't want to pick, or don't know what they would pick = red button

You know, it's one thing to have a discussion about something with an open mind and coming from a place of curiosity and trying to approach a difficult question and it's another to be emotional and trigger-happy and shaming people for opinions they don't even hold.

If you think you can accurately assess what you would do in a situation where there is a literal gun pointed to your head just by thinking about it, then sure, believe that all you want, but I don't think that is usually how psychology works.

Edited 10 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Osaid]

Strange loop morality: The "right" decision only exists because of the "wrong" decision.

Look at how conscious and superior the imaginary hypothetical plebeians make me. 🤯

[vinc3nc]

22 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

You know, it's one thing to have a discussion about something with an open mind and coming from a place of curiosity and trying to approach a difficult question and it's another to be emotional and trigger-happy and shaming people for opinions they don't even hold.

If you think you can accurately assess what you would do in a situation where there is a literal gun pointed to your head just by thinking about it, then sure, believe that all you want, but I don't think that is how psychology works.

Yeah, we should all have a third option to choose: “I don’t know, because it’s unrealistic to think about it without having a real stake in it.” That way, we can avoid making decisions when we’re not certain enough to do so, and then accomplish.... what exactly?

maybe you mentioning the gun is the problem here? maybe if you were put to sleep w/o pain, in bliss, then you could decide easily.

[Carl-Richard]

Here is an alternative version (it makes it simpler by removing the percentages and making the consequences more absolute and less reliant on chance): 

"Everyone in the world has to take a private vote by pressing a red or blue button. If everybody presses the blue button, everybody lives. If somebody presses the red button, those who press the red button live, everybody else dies. Which button would you press?"

In this alternative version, it becomes increasingly clear that clicking the blue button is not just a horrible gamble but a completely stupid move and that clicking the red button is the only reasonably safe option. In the original version, you're just making the gamble into a coinflip, which is not exactly good either. Like, why would you gamble your life on a coinflip just to contribute a fraction of a percentage to potentially saving other people who do the same? Is the gamble worth it just to contribute a fraction of a percentage to potentially saving some mentally challenged people (and presumably millions of young children)?

And this version makes it clear that it's not so much the fault of the person taking the egoic and safe option, but it's the fault of the question. It's an evil question to be presented with. So maybe if you refuse to answer the question with a definite answer, maybe it's not you who are evil, maybe it's those who do who are evil.

Edited 10 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[IslandWild]

I'm not sure if I'm just dain bramaged and there is something I'm missing. Isn't pressing the blue button the ONLY tenable answer because you are guaranteeing everyone lives? From the framing of the scenario logically you are essentially throwing it all away by voting to kill people pressing red, when nobody has to die at all by pressing blue.

This seems like low IQ rage bait poll that pretends to be deeper than it actually is.

It's like asking people to pick up a loaded gun to play Russian Roulette, except they don't have to pick up the gun at all in the first place.......................

Edited 9 hours ago by IslandWild

[vinc3nc]

@Carl-Richard I dont see that version as anything special. if its too obvious, it loses its magic.

What makes the original so interesting to me is that many people call it an IQ test or say that people who choose blue are stupid, w/o realizing that it’s really more of an awareness (consciousness) test. It’s about how quickly you recognize that it isn’t just about your own survival. There will always be people pressing blue without fully understanding the situation (toddlers, children, or individuals with disabilities) and once you realize that, there shouldnt be any hesitation. It becomes a question of saving lives vs allowing people to die.

How could you go on with your life knowing that so many people died because of decisions like yours? What would the world even look like if only people who chose red survived? Almos half the population would be gone.
 

Now imagine a different scenario that changes things completely: you and your 2 best friends go into a room, without prior discussion, to vote. What do you choose? Blue requires only 2 votes, while red requires all 3. otherwise, one of you dies.

The game turns into recursive thinking: “what do they think I’ll do? what do I think they think I’ll do?”

@IslandWild Yeah if you assume other people think the same way you do and that they wont defect. A lot of people only care about their own survival, literally not giving a fuck about anyone else, even going as far as saying that if you press blue, you deserve to die. But good luck trying to tell them they’re wrong and that you’re right.

Some people will literally say, “If everyone presses red, nobody will die,” as if that were realistically possible. Out of 8 billion people, that is literally impossible.

[Carl-Richard]

25 minutes ago, IslandWild said:

I'm not sure if I'm just dain bramaged and there is something I'm missing. Isn't pressing the blue button the ONLY tenable answer because you are guaranteeing everyone lives? From the framing of the scenario logically you are essentially throwing it all away by voting to kill people pressing red, when nobody has to die at all by pressing blue.

If you push Blue and 50% of people don't, you die, along with everybody else who happened to also push Blue. If over 50% of people push Blue, everybody lives.

[Carl-Richard]

32 minutes ago, vinc3nc said:

@Carl-Richard I dont see that version as anything special. if its too obvious, it loses its magic.

What makes the original so interesting to me is that many people call it an IQ test or say that people who choose blue are stupid, w/o realizing that it’s really more of an awareness (consciousness) test. It’s about how quickly you recognize that it isn’t just about your own survival. There will always be people pressing blue without fully understanding the situation (toddlers, children, or individuals with disabilities) and once you realize that, there shouldnt be any hesitation. It becomes a question of saving lives vs allowing people to die.

If you want to be real here, ethical altruism and donating all your savings to malaria prevention has something to say to you. Maybe self-preservation in a local sense is something people do all the time anyway while people die around them and they could make meaningful changes in that direction and either refuse or they already are in their own way (e.g. by providing value in their local society in other ways). In the real world, we do assume some basic level of self-preservation, that's how we survive as an individual. Questions about morality, meaningful ones, come on top of that. Engaging fancy hypotheticals about self-sacrifice and epidemiological calculus is just autistic fantasizing about things that matters to no one and changes nothing. It's virtue signalling people do on Twitter to cheer on their political Red and Blue team.

 

32 minutes ago, vinc3nc said:

How could you go on with your life knowing that so many people died because of decisions like yours? What would the world even look like if only people who chose red survived? Almos half the population would be gone.

Those who made the question possible, and those who enforce it, those are the evil ones It's like if somebody threathens your life, and the lives of millions of people, is that now on you to save yourself and the rest, or is it maybe on them to not threathen you? Maybe a responsibility is created in that situation, but the ultimate moral blame, that lies elsewhere.

Edited 9 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[integral]

7 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

I'm saying you don't actually know what you would do with a loaded gun to your head. You could guess and even be right in your guess, but you don't actually know.

Consider the answers to this poll (and the comments in the thread). See how many are supposedly willing to take the egoic option, taking a life even for something as measly as money.

If 66% would supposedly take a life for money, how many do you think would choose to not play Russian Roulette and hope everybody else does the same? I'm saying it's hard to know, and the polls don't actually tell us much.

We can rephrase the question:

• if you press red you live. but 50% of people will die on earth.
• If you press blue you have a 50% chance of death but everyone on earth survives.

So this isnt identical to original but its good enough: If you press red you live and you kill 6 billion people.

That includes your child, your mother, your wife, your girlfriend. Half of your family gets wiped out.

---

So this assumes the result is going to go 50/50 and it's going to be a close match.

So if you're going to go red there's a chance youll kill off your mother if she also didnt pick red.

Basicly all the red people are the killers and the blue people are the sane ones trying to protect the whole (including family).

Picking red is contributing to red and betting against your children, your mother, your gf, leo... who probably pressed blue. 

Edited 8 hours ago by integral

[integral]

40 minutes ago, integral said:

@Carl-Richard If 66% would supposedly take a life for money, how many do you think would choose to not play Russian Roulette and hope everybody else does the same? I'm saying it's hard to know, and the polls don't actually tell us much.

If we rephrase the question to be you press the button you get 100,000 and you kill one random family member. 

It changes everything.

The whole point is we need people to gamble their lives to support blue to save everyone on Earth.

Because it's going to be between 40 to 60% of people that are going to press blue

Edited 7 hours ago by integral

[integral]

On 4/24/2026 at 7:40 PM, vinc3nc said:

Which button would a highly conscious human being press?

 

There's a loophole if you don't vote you don't fall into the category of someone who pressed blue. 

So if you don't vote you don't die and you dont contribute to red.

But you also dont contribute to blue, so if you want you can gamble your life to support blue. 

Edited 7 hours ago by integral

[IslandWild]

2 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

If you push Blue and 50% of people don't, you die, along with everybody else who happened to also push Blue. If over 50% of people push Blue, everybody lives.

Yea I was 2nd guessing myself because I was looking at the poll results. Knowing the parameters it's abundantly obvious it's not a complicated, nor thought provoking test. The fact it's not 90%+ blue votes is astonishing to me. I think most people are just overthinking it.

"Hey if you just press this button everything will be fine. OR you can press this other button that will potentially fuck everything up for no reason."

Edited 6 hours ago by IslandWild

[Carl-Richard]

4 hours ago, integral said:

• if you press red you live. but 50% of people will die on earth.

Easy, solves world hunger (jk). You know, Marvel made a movie about this once, and the villain who pressed the button was not too uncommonly sympathized with.

 

5 hours ago, integral said:

• If you press blue you have a 50% chance of death but everyone on earth survives.

So this isnt identical to original but its good enough: If you press red you live and you kill 6 billion people.

That includes your child, your mother, your wife, your girlfriend. Half of your family gets wiped out.

If half of your family necessarily gets wiped out (and it's not simply dependent on the larger Earth-wide calculus), you're kind of defeating or devaluing the point by making it personal. It's not maximally virtuous if it necessarily involves saving some of your family instead of just some random people.

[Carl-Richard]

5 hours ago, IslandWild said:

Yea I was 2nd guessing myself because I was looking at the poll results. Knowing the parameters it's abundantly obvious it's not a complicated, nor thought provoking test. The fact it's not 90%+ blue votes is astonishing to me. I think most people are just overthinking it.

You are asking people to gamble their lives on a coinflip. That's not overthinking.

 

5 hours ago, IslandWild said:

"Hey if you just press this button everything will be fine. OR you can press this other button that will potentially fuck everything up for no reason."

No, you might die if you press the button. Everything won't be fine then. And the other button won't necessarily fuck everything up. It will only affect those who do not push that button, which is indeed a horrible fact considering how many are apparently supposedly willing to not push that button.

But I will repeat that people may not be good at judging how they would act in a real life scenario when it's life or death from the perspective of merely thinking about it. And people are also horrible at probability calculations and statistical dependencies (forget reading comprehension). And the situation itself is highly unrealistic and hard to translate into a familiar situation.

So all in all, these kinds of polls are not very insightful or useful for anything but indeed virtue signalling how good you think you are or want to perceive yourself to be in a fantasy world where you are a perfectly moral superhero where you care only about what is perfectly moral for all people at all times and your own personal life is only an afterthought or an inconvenient plot hole in the story.

What you can be sure of is you live day to day self-concerned, and these philosophical ideals of "higher consciousness" and "moral actions" are most likely things you merely think about on a Sunday afternoon. If you are truly self-sacrificing, show me any tangible evidence of that in your own life. How much do you work to help others, tangibly, goal-directedly, intentionally, not merely as a biproduct or happy accident? How much of your spirituality is practiced and not just on paper?

Edited 1 hour ago by Carl-Richard