same rules but 3rd option means you are no longer in the dilemma, basically you dont die if more than 50% of people pick red and you also dont get counted as part of the total people

red is still also guaranteed safety but you're actually adding danger for people picking blue

View Poll

everyone has different ways they see the problem and that's why we all disagree

most obviously people see the question differently in terms of red kill blue or blue suicide

but also people see all rational actors or some irrational

but also individual interest/group interest, trust/human nature

then there's also whether blue is virtue signalling on polls but red in real life

then there's what would actually happen if some percent of the world got wiped out if red wins

then there's also if we treat this as a real problem, who put us in this situation and why

honestly this has been more mind-numbingly miserable than looking at actual politics. can't we just shake hands, say good game and go outside to touch some grass?

title

I feel like everyone has been saying the same things about their choice and the other option and I haven't seen anyone admit they would choose a different answer without modifying the question or situation.

From red's perspective: A world where everyone pressed red would be a world where we all have reading comprehension, completely rational, and understand there's no point in taking meaningless risks that threaten to pull others down with them. Everyone is responsible for their own actions.

From blue's perspective: A world where everyone felt the best option is to take the one that doesn't put anyone at risk, a world where there wouldn't be anyone who would feel the urge to take that safest option because we wouldn't put each other in an unsafe position in the first place. A place where nobody needs to die because they chose the "wrong" option.

preface: i'd actually pick blue but i just wanted to write some speculative fiction as a shitpost. I think seeing the amount of people saying blue button is an IQ test fucked with me a bit lol.

Everyone has seen the dilemma by now, I dont need to restate it.

Assume that only people who can make informed decisions were allowed to participate. Children, disabled, impaired, sleeping/coma people are excluded or have a legal guardian pick for them.

Assume 5-10% of people picked blue and died.

Everyone who picked red falls into one or more of the these camps, they are not mutually exclusive. I think this covers all red categories unless I'm missing some.

1. Rational Logician

Most of the people seeing that blue is the only one risking death and presumes everyone else is equally rational, making red the stable choice

2. Defensive Altruists

People that still have empathy and altruism but believe by staying alive they are able to help more people than if they died.

3. Anti-Matyr/Eugenicists

The ones that believe blue pressers are stupid and deserve to die for picking the die button.

At the very baseline we can conclude that most people believe people are responsible for their own informed mistakes, the rest are people in category 2.

Start by broadcasting on the media.

You are still standing because you have the capacity to understand the stakes and you chose the preservation of the human species. You are the truly Rational.

Next, rebrand the button event as The Great Cognitive Threshold Filter

Nature has always filtered the fit from the frail. For the first time in history, we have purged the intellectual weakness that has held us back. Those who chose Blue didn't just 'lose', they demonstrated the inability to process reality. Their removal is the first step to our perfect utopia.

Next weaponize responsibility and "informed".

Everytime you try to save someone from their own poor decisions, you risk the stability of the collective. You are an Enabler of chaos. Intelliigence is the ability to choose what is safe. Those that choose otherwise are not "informed" and can't lead or even participate. Their desire to 'bail others out' is a contagious disease that drags us down with them.

1. Provide everyone with "tutorials" and "educational materials" about why the regime is necessary. Once someone has seen the materials, they are legally "informed".

2. Use a universal defined logic test designed to categorize only people aligned with your rationality as "informed" participants. Even use rewritten button problems as necessary.

3. Legally codify that you are not responsible for the consequence of someone else's informed decision.

Now you can purge all the secretly altruistic people by turning everyone into your own volunteer police force where no one tries to "bail out" a dissenter as they succumb to their own "informed" decisions to revolt. If the core population believes the revolters are jumping off a cliff and dragging them with them, they would call for the purge to protect the rational collective.

The critical component is using the children/disabled as a shield. By showing empathy to dissendents, the secret altruists are sacrificng resources meant for those who are incapable.

In the first few years, morale is high, resources left behind by blue is redistributed and efficiency skyrockets, everyone wants to prove they were chosen and blue's suicidal attempt to collapse the world failed.

Next few years, in a world with no bailouts, a single mistake is treated as a personal failing which deserves no help, the economy stagnates because risk takers have been deemed a liability and innovation is dead.

After that some high ranked official realizes they can coup by turning the dictators logic against them; their failings are proof of their own obsolence and they are the irrational to be purged. GG, the end of that particular run.

Good run, I'd give it 20 years?

Run it back

This time we use different techs

1. The state is an organism, people are components. A mistake by the dictator is a temporary lapse that must be absorbed to prevent total collapse

If a single citizen fails they may be purged to remove weakness, but the government can't fail or everyone will die.

2. Present that rational decisions can only be measured over time, a single failure can still pay off in the future

3. Fall guys. Every major project is lead by a Chief Rationality Officer. If it fails, they are purged as the source of error while the dictator remains the observer who identified and removed the flaw. Redistribute the CRO's resources as necessary.

Rewrite history. Blue was the chaotic gamblers who risked their lives hoping others would save them trying to force the world's hand, they bet everyone's lives including those of children whose parents wouldn't be able to take care of them if they chose blue.

From birth to Age of Rationality, every child is a Ward of the State and serves as their Proxy in decisions. Wards do not "age out" they must instead "logic out" by undergoing a Rational Threshold Exam, basically a bunch of questions like the other one I mentioned, basically red-blue button questions. If they pass with 100% red they become "informed participants" with the right to vote, own property and a job, otherwise they are treated as "cognitively compromised" and go to the mines or care facilities. This is an act of mercy, they are protected from the consequences of their own inability to consent.

Using the alternate history and reporting peers behaving in blue manners, by the time a Ward reaches the RTE, red is no longer just correct but the idea of even choosing blue is physically revolting.

A chance to take the RTE again would be offered to reduce the possibility of Martyrs and optimize capital but to make sure the person doesn't fake it, the dictator puts them on probation to force them to show they are consistently rational. If they fail again, they are purged as an example of "incurable error".

All that aside, it'd be pretty much impossible for this to happen, hence hypothetical scenario. IRL, I think the government/CEOs would just consolidate all the power instead rather than a random dictator.

If anyone has any tips for optimizing this speedrun more, lmk.

Also sorry for poor grammar/switching from 2nd person pov to 3rd and such, just a bit lazy on my phone and was never the best at writing.

The ORIGINAL problem:

There is a blue button and a red button.

If more than 50% press the blue button, everyone lives.

If more than 50% press the red button, only the red button pressers live.

Everyone must participate and is informed and can only press one button.

Red button is clearly correct for staying alive. However it is impossible to guarantee 100% consensus on it, there will be people who are mentally deficient or children/babies who might've hit blue.

I've seen people being way too comfortable with saying people who pick blue are too stupid/suicidal to live so therefore they deserve to die.

This question can be framed as blue putting themselves at risk or red putting blue at risk.

My NEW version:

We set a nonparticipant group aside.

There is a blue button and a red button.

If you press the blue button, you are adding a person from the nonparticipant group along with yourself to the "blue" group.

If more than 50% press the blue button, everyone lives.

If more than 50% press the red button, only the red button pressers live.

Everyone aside from the nonparticipant group must participate and is informed and can only press one button. No justice/punishment

/retribution can be dealt to red or blue voters after.

This balance patch adds 2 things.

1. Blue is now responsible for the lives of people aside from themselves by taking the risk.

2. Red now has the weigh the lives of innocents who are not "too stupid to live".

We can assume that other than suicidal people and babies, there are also evil people who want to kill themselves and an innocent, therefore it is impossible for everyone to choose red.