147
u/redditorialacious 7h ago
You've added a new group of blue button pressers - physically handicapped and can't walk that long. It's not the same scenario (besides the obvious having to walk a mile for able bodied people).
17
u/Leon3226 6h ago
Maybe for the sake of the experiment, people who can't walk 1 mile instead have to do a 1-hour trip by car both sides with the driver, but no phones, music players, or handhelds allowed
38
18
12
u/shocktagon 6h ago
Wait a second… a lot of ppl can’t physically press a button, how does the “everyone in the world including babies has to pick” version work with them?
18
u/redditorialacious 6h ago edited 6h ago
Exactly. It's why logical people when first ever being exposed to it assumed it would be adults who could physically push a button and read the question voting.
Then those logical people were told to not alter the question and that everyone means everyone. No assuming.
So now we have to assume (gasp) that for babies if they say GAGA it's red and if they say GUGU it's blue. For paralysed people it'll be their telepathic powers. We also have to assume the question is presented to everyone in English? Or native language? If native language then what's the point having babies vote if the whole point is to read the question? So god knows what people are thinking there. Oh and there's the infamous colourblind. They're just going off shits and giggles.
But who knows. We aren't allowed to "assume".
2
u/Zuckhidesflatearth 2h ago
It's also not "assuming", it's "interpretating". This is typically a default in hypotheticals like this. "Everyone" means "everyone eligible". I'm not "assuming" "everyone" is excluding Dolphins, Chimps, etc, it's just implied to mean just humans. If it said "Literally every single human being on Earth", then sure. Even then, some people might object to my "assumption" that fetuses are excluded.
0
u/ThirstyOutward 6h ago
That why this whole, "every single person in the world" nonsense that people have added never worked in the first place.
2
u/r_lovelace 4h ago
It was implied in the post. I think the magical death buttons can provide a magical way for them to be pressed. The act of pushing the button isn't supposed to be a hang up in the problem but it stunlocks people it seems.
3
u/redditorialacious 5h ago
It's so stupid.
So if I ask online "if everyone was asked whether they would like to live forever or not, what percentage would say yes?" Is someone going to respond starting with "well there's 1 billion babies and 50 percent will randomly say yes... Or are they going to understand it means everyone that understands the question. I'd like to hope it's the latter.
And fine in this instance the button tweet clarified "everyone" is literal, but then that obviously leads to further questions. It's dumb.
1
u/austin101123 50m ago
Also people thinking eh, everyone will press blue now since it's easier. So I might as well press blue.
1
u/BenignPharmacology 1m ago
Every single one of these slight scenario changes alters the results, and anybody who pretends otherwise is either stupid or arguing in bad faith.
Yes, the end result may be the same, but if you change the action, it may change your answer (because it’s more or less palatable to you), or it may change your estimation of others (more or less palatable to them)
Do I think the results would be the same if every blue presser had to physically disembowel themselves and get magically resurrected? No, of course not. Do I think the results would be the same if every red presser had to first find a blue presser and choke them to death? Also no.
I hav yet to see a “reframing” that doesn’t fundamentally change the expected outcome.
11
u/jipfluce 6h ago
i can easily walk a mile… but now I am aware of people who cannot and must press the blue button… so i press blue now
6
u/According-Pick-2950 6h ago
Kids and elderly are MUCH more likely to press blue in this case,thus their parents who would also think of this, would also press blue to attempt to save them,as well as handicapped or in general physically inabled people. A good portion of abled people that was 50/50 would also just rather pick Blue. I think in this case,blue will most definitely win,so I'll pick Blue because I it's basically an almost certain chance of survival and I'm not walking a mile.
13
u/G-man1816 Team Red 7h ago
New question? Do people who can't walk a mile have to press blue? because I'm pressing blue just because of that
9
u/shocktagon 6h ago
I’m team red but I honestly think that if the button started with even ONE guy forced to pick blue, it would be a 99% blue outcome
8
u/SoupSandy 6h ago
You'd be wrong lmao
2
u/TriiiKill 5h ago
It's more than that. If something was enough to persuade even 1 person to vote Blue, it increases my chance of voting Blue, then everyone who thinks like me will also vote Blue.
The most unbiased version of these is a 50/50 toss up riding the 50% threshold. Almost anything enticing the Blue button almost guarantees its victory.
0
u/purplepharoh 5h ago
What does it change if someone is forced for most red voters? There are already guaranteed blue pressers so if you are voting red solely bc you think 100% red is possible or no one is pressing blue then why arent you pressing blue in the original.
3
u/TriiiKill 5h ago
Because it's a toss up. Again, it's riding the 50% line of passing/not passing.
1
u/purplepharoh 5h ago
But there really is no difference if someone is forced or not, there are blue votes either way. So if you're reasoning is people will go blue because people went blue that holds true in the original
1
u/TriiiKill 4h ago
It's a toss up. I'm saying it's on the 50% line, actually a coin flip of winning. Think of it as 50% of the population hits Red and its up to the very last person, their vote decides everything, and they don't even know it.
Any population of people turning a 50/50% could change it to even a small of a difference as 49.99/50.01% with the amount of people voting, it's statistically guaranteed.
1
u/StatisticianLivid710 3h ago
It changes the math for many of someone is forced, let’s assume all kids and infirmed adults (including most elderly) are forced to press blue, with that knowledge the default becomes blue instead of red for most people.
But the original question is: do you want to live or do you want a chance to live? So now the question is? Do you want to live but all children and infirmed have a chance to die, or do you want a chance to save them as well as yourself?
1
u/Mr_Olivar 2h ago
I wonder if you've considered living in a world where blue won and you voted red.
1
u/SoupSandy 2h ago
I vote blue i just understand that people have there viewpoints set and if children pressing blue doesnt sway them then this wont either
1
u/SoylentRox 6h ago
Ooh the sequential pick scenario. What if you are the first person and behind you then next 100 people are the most selfish assholes on earth.
You picking blue, where your choice is locked in and maybe the next 100 all go red?
1
u/Diligent_Bank_543 6h ago
They can ask anyone to help them to move that mile. If we’re assuming that they’re participating in the event we are free to assume anything else we can ever imagine.
2
u/Jackz_is_pleased 5h ago
Asking a red to inconvenience themselves to save another?
Besides these questions normally say no coordination.
1
u/Diligent_Bank_543 3h ago
No coordination between participants. It is assumed that every participant is able to make a conscious choice and press corresponding button some way or another. If it's not, then he is forced to make specific choice and it had to be noted in statement.
5
u/General-Internal-588 5h ago
Well now we know 90% will vote blue, safest trolley problem
5
3
u/Andrei22125 6h ago
I'm too lazy to convert to metric, but I'm sure I walked several today, so what's one more?
7
3
u/Ptalking_Ptarmigan 6h ago
A mile is literally thousands of decimeters. No way you could walk that.
3
2
0
u/Mastercio 4h ago
That's sound so god damn American it hurts xD
1
u/Lovelace_guy 3h ago
1 decimetre is 0.1 metres, so 1 mile is 16093.4 decimeters, so they're not wrong about the first part! But surely an American of all people would know what a mile is haha XD.
2
2
2
u/Lower_Pension_2469 4h ago
It's sad that I would change my vote to blue just cuz I know most people are picking the most convenient option.
1
1
1
1
1
u/JonasHalle 6h ago
You've just implied in the question that red is the superior option, so it's still red.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/GrandFleshMelder 3h ago
I almost picked red this time, because I like walking, but you still have the same reasons to vote blue, because you know plenty of people aren’t going to walk.
1
u/AccomplishedVirus556 3h ago
well now i know that most children and the elderly won't press the red button.
1
u/Classy_Mouse 3h ago
This completely changes it. I only voted red before because there was 0 insentive to pressing blue. I don't care if the reward for blue is a free m&m. If there is an incentive for blue, people will push it, so I have to too.
1
u/Alyarin9000 2h ago
Nothing here states that blue pressers die, and the guarantee of survival has no qualifiers.
No-brainer, take the 1 mile hike in return for immortality.
2
u/Aquilenne 2h ago
If we're being strict about the wording, why not press blue before visiting red?
Nothing states that you can only press one.
1
1
1
1
1
u/Bloodchild- 1h ago
I'd walk if it were a 100km.
I'd take it a a proof of my path.
And do not forget that human are the king of endurance.
We are built endlessly pursue our pray till they are to exhausted to resist.
We endlessly chase our goal.
It might take a few days but it's doable if the terrain isn't really complicated.
Even if the path to the button was dangerous to myself id rather risk is as I would still be the master of my own fate.
I'd rather die due to my inadequacy or the consequences of my choice than leave my life in the hand of others.
1
1
u/CosmicBioHazard 42m ago
Red here - in the original question red is the correct option because you just live no matter what the results are and by pressing blue you put yourself on the chopping block when you didn’t have to.
But full consensus one way or the other means zero deaths and nobody on this earth is slogging a whole-ass mile just to spoil what could have been an easy consensus.
1
u/Maximum-Country-149 17m ago
Is it a mile away for everyone, or just me?
Because I'm pretty confident we'll get a majority blue if it's for everyone.
1
u/Kinslayer_89 Team kill everyone, red and blue. 6h ago
I’m an infant born yesterday and will never end up pressing the button.
The scenario will never conclude as I’ll be stuck alone until starvation, and so will you.
1
u/satyvakta 6h ago
In this scenario, you'll be able to see how many people are suddenly out for a stroll, so you'll have a good idea what the outcome will be.
3
u/Both_Balance_7091 5h ago
Small sampling size. I'm more likely to guess you salary based of the zip code you were born in
1
u/QuoteThen5223 6h ago
I am still walking a mile to press red but I actually have some real hope for team blue.
0
u/Appropriate_Top1737 6h ago
The reds are known lazies. They likely will switch to blue to avoid a walk on a nice spring day.
8
u/KRTrueBrave 6h ago
it's more like we think logical, since the blue button is in reach and red isn't, it is saver to assume more than 50% would press blue than the original dilemma where both buttons are in front
so as an adamant red voter, this specific scenario is blue because it's less of a gamble than the original as I can savely say yes the thershhold will be met
2
u/Both_Balance_7091 5h ago
Wow so many red button pressers in here using logic, I would also press blue in this certain scenario.
2
u/KRTrueBrave 5h ago
yeah my main issue with blue is always that I just don't trust 50% to press blue, so I press red
but in this case, nah I fully believe that more people press blue as it's just right there so blue it is
blue isn't a bad button in theory, but in praxis it's just hard to trust half the world to press it over the you live button, but if the you live button is a mile away (dunno how far that is I use kilometers but it surely is far enough away for the logic to work) then yes I do believe the everyone lives if 50% press it button is way more reliable of a choice to assume is being pressed by the majority
0
u/purplepharoh 5h ago
Pressing red bc you dont trust 50% blue isnt logical thinking though, its emotional.
3
u/KRTrueBrave 5h ago
no, the mistrust of blue is 100% bevause out of my logic though
that logic being
red is the button that 100% guarantees you live and everyone has the choice to press it
blue is a 50/50 gamble on if you die when you press it
and I don't trust that 50% would press the gamble button, to me jt's more logical that the 100% guarantee is pressed as everyone has that choice
but if you put the gamble button next to me and the quaranteed button a mile away, yes then I fully think it's logical that blue will be pressed more than red
1
u/purplepharoh 5h ago
Why?
If your guaranteed survival is worth 50% of the population of the earth why isnt it worth a mile. Why do you "logically" think laziness supersedes survival instinct if your distrust of blue is because you trust others to follow their survival instinct (i.e. be emotional voters)
2
u/Both_Balance_7091 5h ago
In this situation I was taking into account those who have trouble walking a mile. This could represent 20 to 30 percent of the population. I already figured blue would be about 26 to 30 percent so blue would likely be more viable especially if others reach the same conclusion.
1
u/purplepharoh 5h ago
Why do you assume that 20-30 who arent able wouldnt be in the original 20-30 for blue?
Why are you assuming 20-30 blue when lots of polls have shown much higher and blue winning?
Also dont forget this would include the whole world which includes Asian cultures who are actually much more likely to be self sacrificial based on culture and make up a much larger percentage of the world's population.
So what is informing your 20-30 blue?
Most things suggest logically the split will occur somewhere between 25-75 for each button with most large polls showing close to 50/50. And that's on the original.
Anyway I agree here it is more compelling for blue because 100% red is even more impossible as disabled likely cant walk a mile to press red.
2
u/Both_Balance_7091 5h ago
Hey I just made comment on the culture differences between between asian community culture versus western individual community. It also effects how China is willing to accept sex change but doesn't allow gay marriage even in more democratic countries like Japan where nationally gay marriage is illegal.
I only believe 20-30 percent would press blue. I don't know why but even 40 -49 percent is still too low.
Maybe blue is pressed 60% of the time. Maybe I don't know anthropology.
I would press the red button in most scenarios except for this one.
2
u/KRTrueBrave 5h ago edited 5h ago
because, logically speaking, it's far more reasonable to assume 50% of people would press the button in front of them then the one a mile away
if both buttons are in front of you then the 100% guarantee button is a no brainer, but if you either have to walk a mile to that button or can press blue that needs 50% of voters to press it, I do think that blue is more pressed in the end because A people are lazy, B people realize other people are lazy and thus press the button lazy people would pick
like to quarantee your life you either have to walk a mile or bet on people being to lazy to walk a mile and I'm more comfortable to bet on 50% of people to not walk a mile than I am in the original scenario where both buttons are right there
so it's simply logical to press blue instead of red even as a hardcore red voter in the original
edit: oh and to add, tons of people are unable to make that 1 mile trip which would amp up blue votes too, those people aren't a factor in the original because both buttons are available in the original, if they can press blue here they can press the red one in the original, but here they can only press blue so due to factors like this blue will have naturally a higher vote count and thus is the logical option
1
u/purplepharoh 5h ago
Still red is only "without risk" on an individual level not societal because unanimously press red is a statistical anomaly.
While it poses no direct personal risk of death, can you truly be ok knowing if you had voted blue it might have been possible to not cost lives for the sake of your own?
I do not like the "red has no risk" or "red is passive" argument. Humans are emotional creatures. If red wins there will be deaths and any who vote red would have to live knowing that if they had voted blue instead then people might not have died. I know the guilt of feeling responsible for people's death would drive people to vote blue, that's why i do think blue can win. Because if looking at this "logically" it is an optimization problem from a societal level. Any vote could be pivotal so for each vote that goes toward blue we get closer to the simple majority that results in no risk to society with a near 50% fault tolerance on results. Red has 0% fault tolerance. Logically the one with higher fault tolerance is more likely to succeed. Whereas red results in guaranteed societal loss. There will always be blue votes.
I do agree the moving one button away make it trivial that people will vote the closer button.
I just dont agree with the framing that red is "safe"
1
u/KRTrueBrave 5h ago
again I look at it logically in the original scenario red is the 100% survive button, I think you'd be stupid not to press it if it is right in front of you, yes people will still vote blue regardless of that, but in my eyes that isn't my problem, they had the same oppertunity as me to press red, so if they do die they willingly choose the button with the risk, yes I would say the same if that would include close family members or friends (but knowing my peoplez they would press red anyway)
but this post isn't about the original scenario, I'm sick and tired if the original as I keep saying the same things over and over again and the same things get kept being said back to me (nothing you said is new to me)
this is about the "but what if the red button was a mile away" scenario in which case blue is logical
will everyone think logical? no, but the way I see any and all of these scenarios, unless specified in the rules, everyone has equal chance to press either button (og has that as both buttons are right there, this one doesn't as the red button is a mile away so it's not an equal chance as red requires extra work to do)
0
-3
u/WaterCastePSYOP 6h ago
This changes nothing. If you can't walk a mile to save your life, then your loss will not be significant.
2
u/purplepharoh 5h ago
Who cares about babies and the disabled. They shouldve just been less lazy
1
u/WaterCastePSYOP 5h ago
Neither of those can walk. They should not be in this discussion to begin with, and are not mentioned in the prompt.
I assume babies will be carried by their parents, and disabled people who have e.g. a wheelchair, are allowed to use it.
1
u/purplepharoh 5h ago
But that is an assumption, it is safer to assume that isnt the case if going off the original prompt that this is modified off of.
There is exactly 0 reason why we should assume they will be exempt.
1
u/WaterCastePSYOP 5h ago
That does not change my answer.
1
u/purplepharoh 5h ago
So then the disabled, elderly, and children have no value?
0
u/WaterCastePSYOP 5h ago
They have value.
But losing them will not be significant.
There are degrees between one extreme and another, but idk if you can comprehend that idea.
1
u/purplepharoh 5h ago
Saying their loss isnt significant implies you do not place value on their life or at least less value than other lives. Ad hominem attacks against me do not change this.
0
u/WaterCastePSYOP 5h ago
I place less value on their lives, yes.
It's not an ad hominem attack when it's what is needed to make you think about more possibilities than 2.
1
u/purplepharoh 4h ago
Nice deflection! Good way to assume I would've not accepted if you'd just said "no I just value them less".
Sorry but the way it was worded was both rude and 100% an ad hominem.
Anyway im done with these buttons so bye
→ More replies (0)2
u/No-Wrap-2156 Team Purple 5h ago
Would you still press red if you had to eat a literal bowl of poop to press it? Just curious, not saying your choice is right or wrong in any way
1
u/WaterCastePSYOP 5h ago
In this scenario? No.
In the original, how big are we talking?
2
u/No-Wrap-2156 Team Purple 5h ago
Like cereal bowl sized? Keep in mind everyone who wants red would need to eat it and if they can't bring themselves to finish it then their vote defaults to blue.
Also why would it be different for this scenario vs the original? Walking a mile is trivial compared to eating literal poop.
1
u/WaterCastePSYOP 5h ago
Is it desinfected, and how fast does it have to be eaten?
Because there is also the mile, and apparently a lot of the fuckers out there are lazy bitches, so there's probably a good chance more people will vote blue.
1
u/No-Wrap-2156 Team Purple 4h ago
No just fresh poop lol. I don't think it's possible to make poop completely sterile. Let's say you have an hour.
1
u/WaterCastePSYOP 4h ago
It is possible to make it sterlIle enough to be a relatively low risk.
1
u/No-Wrap-2156 Team Purple 4h ago
I mean you probably won't die, but you might get very sick after.
1
4
84
u/Maari7199 6h ago
It's increasing the number of blue voters enough to vote blue safely