samg117

The logical fallacy in the argument for pressing the Blue Button is a classic non sequitur combined with an illusion of control (or more specifically, the "single-voter fallacy"/negligible marginal impact error). Why this reasoning is fallacious: The premise is true but irrelevant. Yes, it's extremely unlikely that literally every single person on Earth picks red. There will almost certainly be some blue voters. That's correct. However, the conclusion does not follow (non sequitur): The fact that millions might pick blue anyway does not mean that you picking blue will "prevent millions from dying." Your single vote has zero meaningful causal impact on whether the global total crosses the 50% threshold in a population of ~8 billion. One vote changes the percentage by ~0.0000000125%. It is statistically and practically irrelevant. If the world already ends up >50% blue, everyone lives regardless of what you picked. If the world ends up <50% blue, all blue voters die regardless of what you picked. Picking blue doesn't "save" the other blue voters. It only determines whether you personally live or die. Blue Button pressers treat your individual choice as if it has collective power it simply doesn't possess. Illusion of control/single-voter fallacy: This is the same error people make in massive elections ("my one vote will decide the outcome!") or tragedies of the commons. The idea imagines your blue vote as a heroic lever that tips the scale and rescues millions. In reality, the outcome is decided by the aggregate behavior of billions, not you. Your vote is a rounding error. Game theory reality check: Rational self-preservation says: "I have zero control over what the other 8 billion do, so I should guarantee my own survival. "If enough people reason this way (and polls + human nature suggest they will), blue stays well under 50% and blue voters die. The Blue Button logic essentially says "because some people will irrationally risk their lives, I should too so I can die with them if they're wrong." That's not altruism saving the world; it's just increasing the body count by one. The only way blue "works" is if everyone somehow coordinates to pick it, but the scenario is private voting with no communication or enforcement. That's why it collapses under scrutiny. It's emotionally appealing virtue-signaling, not sound reasoning.

@cluckthesystem There is no coordination in this vote. It happens in private.

Blue: Easiest win goal, 51% and everyone is golden. 49% room for misalignment, not everyone has to get it. Huge error catch all. Blue is not opposition when you vote with them, they are teammates. Red: You for sure wont die. Alot of your frens and other innocents might.

@hellofamil73975 Nobody is tied to a track in this scenario. You can just opt out. No one has to risk anything.

no it's more like everyone is tied to the track, if you press the red button you untie yourself and nobody else, but if 50% of the people on the track press the blue button everyone is untied? not the same but closer i think - it matches the collective help thing

@shunnedmorlock This assumes a coordinated vote.

If 100% of people vote blue, no one dies. If 100% of people vote red, no one dies. This is true. If 51% of people vote blue, no one dies. If 51% of people vote red, 49% of people die. If our goal is to minimize death, it is far easier to get 51% to act in concert than 100%.

@MooseHamilton It's not "I'm smart". It's "I'm not sure why everybody is choosing to kill themselves"

@KingOfTrident They are the “I’m smart!” signalers, which is why the midwit meme is so applicable.

Red is indeed the midwit button. Everything people are posting trying to change the wording of the question, making statistical charts, and trying to make claims of game theory is just crash out cope from those who thought they were virtue signaling their logical prowess.

@icybrain5 @it_a_me_knowlzy Then most likely people are talking past each other. Because most red pushers are operating on the assumption that everybody in the hypothetical is an informed party.

@icybrain5 @it_a_me_knowlzy The hypothetical is much older. He added on unnecessary modifiers.

Is this some weird ass litmus test or something? Everyone pressing red solves the whole thing I think? Am I being punked?

@BitzelYT There is no way you can frame the blue button as do nothing. That's insane.

so the premise is “Vote blue to do nothing. Vote red to kill blue voters” (and simulations of the poll turn up blue every time) and there’s still a million chuds earnestly calling people stupid for picking the right answer

@nigrasaurus @Austin_Aulem @LumLotus Okay retard

@Austin_Aulem @LumLotus @KingOfTrident I've never hid this. Nothing new has been exposed. You're talking to someone that firmly believes that 90%+ of "humans" are NPCs that have no souls, and that Africans aren't even human to begin with.

Empathy was never a part of it until someone asked if children, disabled, and people unable to understand the question was involved. A good portion didn't even see that because it wasn't part of the original test.

@BigSteveOG2 If the blue button pressers are informed of the danger they are in and choose against all reason and logic to recklessly endanger their own lives then red absolutely cannot be help responsible.

Blue button is the moral choice because picking the red button holds you culpable for the deaths of those who picked blue. Removing all ethics, red would be the safest choice because most people instinctively will choose the blue button.

@Biast12 The aggressive moralizing is so funny.

The chance is either: Blue: More than 50% votes for everyone to live. or Red: Exactly 100% votes for everyone to live. If you vote red then you're objectively a moron and a danger to society.

@suited_summoner Older version with different wording. New posts added unnecessary modifiers that muddy the hypothetical. Logically, the hypothetical only works with informed parties taking part in the vote.

“Everyone.” Children. The elderly. The otherwise incompetent. Those who press red are selfish. Rational, yes, but selfish. In an ideal world, where everyone was rational, everyone would indeed pick Red. But that’s never gonna happen. There will always be someone who picks Blue.

@RandomSprint My brother in Christ in this scenario you would be fighting yourselves

If over 50% of us hold the line, we all live. "No!!! But if I run away, I'll definitely live! I'm so rational!"

@Pablo_Chacon67 @LumLotus Three years ago. Different wording. Womp womp.

@KingOfTrident @LumLotus It’s not a retarded hypothetical. It’s interesting to see how many people would misinterpret and call everyone else stupid. Multiple times in a row 🤣 fucking Mr beast posted it

@GiddyOnGaming @LumLotus I'm just some dumbass of twitter arguing over a fake scenario. No hard feelings.

@KingOfTrident @LumLotus I liked your post at first, but then you decided to be disparaging. Completely unnecessary but totally unsurprising. Interesting how the results were essentially the same. You shouldn't be so hard on yourself for not understanding the premise of the most recent poll.

@GiddyOnGaming @LumLotus I found a much earlier example of the scenario, btw, which does not have the ultimatum of "everyone on earth" I will not engage in the gamble to save the babies simulator lmao. Everyone makes an informed decision fuck you and goodnight.

@KingOfTrident @LumLotus Ok. You're free to have an opinion on the scenario. But that IS the scenario. You'd be surprised at how many people would say:

@XR47P @Absrev @LumLotus People took it as literally as possible instead of engaging with the spirit of the hypothetical. And then the OP of the scenario confirmed that headcanon. Fucking mental. No wonder we're all fighting over this dumb bullshit.

If it were relevant to the hypothetical it would've been stated directly in the hypothetical. And what do you mean with me being wrong?? I literally cannot be wrong. The hypothetical I assumed based on how hypotheticals are ALWAYS treated within philosophy and ethics, I still answered the question accurately under those assumptions. Do you think I just pressed red but never thought of children? Yes I did and I dismissed the point because it defeats the purpose those hypotheticals typically have. You simply stretch the hypothetical too far for it to be reasonable. A fetus is also a human being. Does the fetus also participate in the vote? How would it do that? It physically cannot really do anything, can it? Naturally you would assume the fetus out of the equation too because that's how hypotheticals work.

@GiddyOnGaming @LumLotus I maintain that it's reasonable to assume the participants are all informed decision makers. Plenty of people other than me are operating on the same logic, because that's it's only real use as a hypothetical. OP is still a flaming retard.

@GiddyOnGaming @LumLotus Sure. I'll press blue to save the thousands of fucking children and babies who didn't get a say. This is such a dumbfuck scenario.

@KingOfTrident @LumLotus The premise wasn't "introduced". It was not assumed to be part of the hypothetical. It was literally the introduction to the hypothetical. The guaranteed blue-button pushers is the POINT of the hypothetical. Now that you know this... you pressing blue?