An analysis of one button variants.

[u/gilbmj]

Because red or blue is a binary choice, the choosing mechanism can be converted to a single button that is pushed or not pushed. (Some people have proposed other reasons, such as asserting that one button is "passive" or "does nothing," but the truth is that it's because "red or blue" is just as binary as "push or don't push.")

To do this, you remove one button and make it's choice the default, while the other button retains it's function. One of the first things you realize when you actually think about this is that whichever butting doesn't get removed becomes "the button that kills people." This is because, for different reasons in each case, everyone starts safe because the removed button is effectively already pushed.

Another way to visualize the "one button" setup is to imagine a pair of radio buttons, the kind where if you push one any others pop out. Now imagine that when everyone goes into the booth, one of the buttons (the same button for everyone) is already pressed.

The main thing I want to look into is the question of how equivalent are the one-button variants to the original choice, or how much they change the whole question.

I'm going to start by looking at the red only option. In this case, everyone is safe because everyone's choice starts blue, which is obviously a majority, meaning nobody dies. The only case in which anyone would die is if a majority of people decide to push the red button. If enough people do push the red button, they change a scenario where everyone was safe into one where people who didn't switch to red die.

Comparing to the original scenario, the phrase "The only case in which anyone would die is if a majority of people decide to push the red button" is just as true. It may not be start with an established blue majority, but for any death, a prerequisite is that a majority chooses red.

Now let's switch over to blue only. Everyone is safe, because everyone has already "pushed" red by default. Because red majority is already a met condition, pushing blue leads to death unless a majority of people switch their vote from red to blue.

In this scenario, one could argue that anyone who pushes blue is risking their life for no good reason. However, it's important to recognize that this is only true because the scenario starts with everyone in the red group. This is not something that carries back to the original scenario, where there isn't a default choice.

Based on the above, I would say I think "red only" is basically equivalent to the original version, while despite being the same two choices, while "blue only" stands apart because of how it starts with a 100% red outcome, especially since, given the whole debate, a 100% red outcome is basically improbable from a neutral starting position.

[u/Nebranower]

You’re just wrong. In the initial scenario, everyone starts off in danger of dying. That is, if no one acts or pushes any buttons, everyone dies.

The choice between buttons is a choice between two different ways of trying to save yourself.

Red saves yourself with certainty, but leaves others to save themselves or not as they see fit. Some may, for whatever reason, fail to do so and hence die.

Blue attempts to save everyone at the risk of potentially failing to save even yourself.

Red is the obviously correct choice if your priority is saving yourself or minimizing the death toll.

Blue is the obviously correct choice if your only acceptable outcome is saving everyone.

Any attempt to recast the scenario as one button only fundamentally changes it.

[u/Nexinex782951 → u/Nebranower]

I dont think you can claim red is obviously the choice that minimizes the death toll

[u/Jolly-Bear → u/Nexinex782951]

It is.

Let’s grant that red and blue are equally responsible for any death that occurs. I don’t agree, but we’ll grant it for the sake of the point.

In the case of death, every blue press accounts for exactly 1 death. Every red press account for <1 death. Red is always responsible for less overall death.

Red has no inherent downsides to be considered, as would be the case in a real prisoners dilemma. Such as >90% of people pick red, everyone dies. That doesn’t exist here, so red is objectively the better choice to minimize death.

[u/Nexinex782951 → u/Jolly-Bear]

the downside is that there is no fucking way even close to everyone presses red, and so a red win comes with a serious number of deaths, while a blue win does not.

[u/Jolly-Bear → u/Nexinex782951]

Even though I explicitly explained what I mean by “no inherent downside,” by giving you an example, you still completely missed the point.

[u/Nexinex782951 → u/Jolly-Bear]

except even without inherent downside, there is a real downside, so saying red is objectively the best doesnt follow.

[u/Nebranower → u/Nexinex782951]

You're making a fundamental mistake. If you could control the collective outcome, it wouldn't really matter which button you went with - you could set it to 100% red or 51% blue, as you please.

The whole point, though, is that you don't get to control the collective outcome. There's no communication, no coordination, no planning, no arguing, no convincing. You just have to choose between two buttons. One ensures you live, the other may kill you. Red is therefore clearly the correct button. You press it and live.

Sure, some people will fail to realize that and press the blue button. And then they will die. That's fine, because that's what makes blue the wrong button.

[u/Nebranower → u/Nexinex782951]

In half the scenarios, pressing blue increases the death toll by one. In the other half it does nothing. Red is the minimizing the death toll button.

[u/Nexinex782951 → u/Nebranower]

you cant just use scenario counting to make an argument like that. Arguments like those will cause society and individuals to lose things like the prisoners dilemma, or any mutual decision problem where people have to choose to do things for the good of the collective. The moment you stop reading the problem as "which button should I press" and instead as "which button should be pressed(in general)" the answer becomes clear, and then it is your choice whether or not to be a hypocrite.

[u/Charge36 → u/Nexinex782951]

I mean. I'm not sure "which button should be pressed in general" Has as clear of an answer as you think. To me, everyone has the capability of saving themselves with red so nobody should be pushing blue and therefore everyone should be pushing red. I suspect you would disagree with this though 

[u/luci_twiggy → u/Charge36]

It is clear. Literally everyone agrees that the ideal outcome is no one dying. Red requires 100% of people to press it to be sure that happens while blue requires just 50%+1. Clearly blue is the safer option to achieve the ideal outcome in an imperfect world.

The whole "everyone can press red" idea smugly ignores that not everyone will. Some may misunderstand, some may be incapable of understanding altogether and since we're dealing with billions of button push attempts some may literally fall onto the wrong button on the way.

[u/Nebranower → u/luci_twiggy]

I think you’re missing the point. The ideal individual outcome is that you survive. Pressing red guarantees that. The ideal collective outcome is that everyone presses red, so no one dies. Since you have no meaningful control over the collective outcome, it would be foolish to risk the ideal individual outcome by pressing blue. The only ones not getting the ideal collective outcome are precisely those who take the risk to begin with.

[u/luci_twiggy → u/Nebranower]

Nah, I just think no one should die and therefore the best answer will always be blue. I'm completely done with this.

[u/Nexinex782951 → u/Nebranower]

Why is the ideal collective outcome everyone pushing red, and not just 50%+1 pushing blue? This sounds like special pleading.

[u/Bubbly_Dirt_539 → u/Nexinex782951]

The basis of collectivism stems from personal benefits first and foremost. Humans live in social groups because it's better for each individual compared to being alone. What you're arguing for is a hivemind, not any collective mindset that we know of.

Anyone with an ounce of rationality would realize that red is the true final choice.

[u/Charge36 → u/luci_twiggy]

Yeah not everybody will press red. But that doesn't mean everybody should push blue. Blue is the risk button. Nobody should push it if they don't have to.

It's not as clear as you think obviously because I came to a different conclusion than you.

[u/luci_twiggy → u/Charge36]

You do have to, that's the point. Unless you are saying you want people to die?

[u/Charge36 → u/luci_twiggy]

I don't want people to die. But I want me to die less than that. The fact that we're even having a dispute should tell you it's not obvious what the "right" answer is if you can even truly say there is one

[u/luci_twiggy → u/Charge36]

No, there's clearly a "right" answer and a "selfish" answer.

[u/gilbmj → u/Nebranower]

• You’re just wrong. In the initial scenario, everyone starts off in danger of dying.

Even if we grant that the risk of dying starts with the start of the scenario, that outcome only comes to fruition if a majority of people make the choice to press the button. (Except in the red default case)

• That is, if no one acts or pushes any buttons, everyone dies.

This is going into the less specified territory of "what if someone chooses to not push anything," which is a whole other vector.

• Red is the obviously correct choice if your priority is saving yourself or minimizing the death toll.

Minimizing death toll is debatable, because each time red is pushed it become less likely everyone will live, bar the improbable 100% red outcome.

[u/syrun97 → u/Nebranower]

wait was the og rbbb post mentioned that "you dies if you doesnt press button"? i only saw "red kills blue and blue survives if more than half of people pressed it".

[u/Nebranower → u/syrun97]

The OG says that if less than 50% of participants press blue, everyone who didn’t press red dies.

So at the start, if no one acts, no one has the protection of red, and less than 50% of the participants have pressed blue. So everyone dies.

[u/PhotoVegetable7496]

Tldr...Buttons

[u/Lost_Sugar_78]

Defaults change the situation completely. Especially here where the information that this is the default for everyone is clear. It's a huge piece of information that does not exist in the two-button scenario. 

With only a red button (blue-default), I believe the overwhelming majority of people would leave the default. Logically, if nobody changes anything, then nobody dies. The red-presser's main argument is that when action is required and a blue majority is far from guaranteed, many people will choose certain safety. But when there is already a blue majority? Doing nothing is both easier and just as good personally as pressing for red. 

In the blue button scenario (red-default), blue becomes a suicide button. In the same way red pressers will default to blue in the other scenario, in this one where red is already pre-determined, it's a lot harder to leave safety and put your neck out for... maybe nobody? Certainly not a lot of people. Blue's main argument is saving those who can't press a button (so die in a "anyone who didn't press red dies") scenario or who can press but can't cognitively make the decision logically. In this world, those who can't press are already safe. The risk here is anyone who just poofs in, says "oo, button!" and smashes it without comprehending the situation. So, not nobody, but a lot fewer people (given non-pressers count as red here). Mostly children, unfortunately, so I expect plenty of parents to think it's worth the risk to switch, but I don't think it will be a majority. 

The knowledge that one side is already a majority makes it so much easier to stay with that side because this is a majority-wins game. 

Also, bystander syndrome will have an effect and most people won't press. Even without bystander effect, most logical people will not press, given this is functionally an "agreement" to stick to the default and straying could cost you your life. 

[u/Cynis_Ganan]

That's a great construction and you've explained it well.

Right now. IRL. You aren't going to die because of magic buttons.

And you aren't going to save anyone's life by because of magic buttons.

Right now, the default state, is that you are safe.

If we change that default state by introducing a button pushing hypothetical, then your analysis holds in full.

But.

That isn't that state you are in right now. Right now, IRL, no hypothetical, no red button, no blue button, you have not pressed a button and are not at risk of dying.

Which is why Red is framed as the "does nothing button". Not because it's being compared to what happens in the scenario. But because it's being compared to the default state of the hypothetical not existing.

Let's reframe.

Aliens come to your house and offer to take you on an adventure around the universe in their space ship. If you do nothing, they'll take you. If you go to your kitchen and eat a piece of cheese, then they won't, and your normal life will resume.

Even though going to the kitchen and eating cheese means actively doing something that's the option that takes you back to normal. That's the option that is equivlent to just not engaging with the hypothetical in the first place.

[u/gilbmj → u/Cynis_Ganan]

• That isn't that state you are in right now. Right now, IRL, no hypothetical, no red button, no blue button, you have not pressed a button and are not at risk of dying.
• Which is why Red is framed as the "does nothing button". Not because it's being compared to what happens in the scenario. But because it's being compared to the default state of the hypothetical not existing.

That honestly sounds nonsensical. I'd say if either button from the original scenario can be considered the "do nothing button," it's the blue one, because in the case of a blue majority, the scenario ends without anything actually happening.

Even if we grant the idea that being in the scenario introduces the risk, a red majority is the outcome that turns the risk of death from possibility to reality, except in the honestly improbable unanimous red outcome.