[troglodytetrain]

Your entire logical chain, and your self importance, well, it explains why I'm always picking red. If you win and most pick blue, I'm safe, otherwise, I'm also safe.

You get to feel intellectually superior choosing the only option that can lead you to die. The simple answer is everyone should pick red.

[DetroitThrow]

>The simple answer is everyone should pick red.

The simplest answer is that everyone should pick blue, actually.

This is because choosing blue results in no consequences, but choosing red does result in consequences. Why not choose the simple option? It's literally the "no consequences" button.

Seems like these reds are overcomplicating a simple question.

[troglodytetrain]

Please explain. Red guarantees safety. Why wouldn't everyone pick red? The only option that leads to a statistical chance of death is blue?

[troglodytetrain]

I think this hypothetical captures a sort of hero complex. You think everyone is too stupid to choose the right choice so you will save us all...

Except we all chose red because its the obvious choice and now you are dead.

[gpm]

The only option that leads to a statistical chance of murder though is red.

[NekkoDroid]

Different framing:

The only option that leads to a statistical chance of suicide though is blue.

[gpm]

Being murdered is not suicide.

[NekkoDroid]

And where in the original post is specified who does "the murdering"? As far as I see blue pressers are explicitly putting themselves in harms way and red pressers have fuck all to do with it.

Just because someone jumped infront of the train and died doesn't mean the conductor is a murderer.

[DetroitThrow]

Different framing:

A single button labeled "Murder" appears out of nowhere appears, and if more than the majority of people press it, then the people who didn't press will die.

I'm pretty sure most people would just ignore and keep going with their day since why would everyone in the world be so cheesed to press the murder button?

Anyways, these are all reductive scenarios once outside of game theoretics (like this one partially is) - I find this ragebait question really funny because every minor reframing shows significant biases in how you map the theory of mind for the public, and makes the reductive question entirely different.

[blargey]

The framing leads many people to pick blue for its altruistic framing. Enough, in fact, that 50% quorum is honestly not difficult. A lot of red-advocates seem to have a False Consensus Effect going where they're convinced way more people than in reality will interpret this "dilemma" as "do you step in the human grinder in hopes of jamming it", and act accordingly.

A 70% or 90% requirement, or just explicitly framing it as "do you step into the human grinder" would make it vastly easier to aim for 100% red, but we're dealing with the literal words of the "everyone lives button" here.