Button Poll #2: Only those with normal cognitive capacity are given buttons.

[Emily's Cat]

Prior version here.

Thread 'Everyone on earth has to press a red or blue button. If <50% pick blue, only the red survive. If >50% pick blue, everyone survives. Choose wisely.'

Apr 30, 2026

Everyone on earth has to press a red or blue button. If <50% pick blue, only the red survive. If >50% pick blue, everyone survives. Choose wisely.

This is from the dreaded twitter, but it spawned a surprising amount of discussion, and some really interesting assumptions made by each side. I'm very interested in what assumptions you're making that lead to your choice, and what assumptions you're making about the other side.

I have some speculation of my own, that I'll bring up once a fair number of people have voted. I'm hoping to daisy-chain some slightly altered polls as well...

• Emily's Cat
• Replies: 348
• Forum: Social Issues

Similar situation, with some added information. Everyone on earth who is capable of reading and thinking about the choice must push either a red button or a blue button - no babies will be given buttons! Everyone's buttons magically appear before you, all at the same time, and you're each shut off from everyone else until you push one or the other of the buttons. You're unable to discuss the matter with anyone else, and you can't see what anyone else has chosen; you're completely ignorant of everyone else's actions.

Anyone who is incapable of understanding the questions or is cognitively incapable of making an informed choice will live, regardless of the outcome of the button-pushers.

If less than half of the candidates push the blue button, everyone who pushed the blue button will die. If more than half of the candidates push the blue button, all of the candidates live.

Which button do you push?

 

[Rolfe]

Bored now.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You know you could have simply opted to avoid a snippy comment, rather than take the risk of kicking off an escalating series of snippy comments?

 

[Rolfe]

OK. Red forever.

If blue is set for an overwhelming win then fine, my vote isn't going to make any difference anyway. If it isn't, then we'll just have to cope.

 

[Emily's Cat]

OK. Red forever.

If blue is set for an overwhelming win then fine, my vote isn't going to make any difference anyway. If it isn't, then we'll just have to cope.

FWIW, I also picked red. But I really am intrigued by how much the unstated assumptions influence both people's choice and their assumptions about the other side's motivations. I really wish I had the means to do a truly robust force choice survey on a large group of people. Designed appropriately, it could provide some good insight into the balance between risk aversion and altruism.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

First, do no harm.
Second, don't be a dick

 

[Myriad]

I don't feel cognitively capable of making an informed choice, not because of any cognitive deficit but because there's not enough information being provided (to wit, what everyone else will do) to make an informed choice. I understand that's the whole point but it's still a wicked loophole in the wording.

The other "extraneous" (but not really) factor that's enhanced in the new scenario is that no advance warning and no communication means no confirmation that the terms of the test are honest, and no confidence that other people are even experiencing the same thing as me. Hoax or hallucination are as plausible as worldwide magic buttons (if not more so) as explanation for what I would be experiencing. Anything you add to the scenario to convince me to believe the stated consequences (e.g. this happens in the context of an ongoing alien invasion) is, well, a change to the scenario that could affect my decision.

There's one more nuance I want to bring forward: if any deaths result, the agents responsible would be murderers. Does anyone disagree with that? There's no "they chose" or "they volunteered" defense because the victims pressed a button, right? Nor is it less than first degree, because though the structure of the test overall might appear to muddle the specificity of intention, at the point where the buttons have been pressed and it's time for the consequences to happen, any deaths become intentional and premeditated.

So far, I'd go with blue. Mostly because the rescue argument still applies (and I thought that through, so changing the wording or the details slightly don't change it) but also because "I don't believe you, but if you really are immoral and omnipotent and unaccountable and feel like killing me for some stupid reason, just do it already."

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Anyone who is incapable of understanding the questions or is cognitively incapable of making an informed choice will live, regardless of the outcome of the button-pushers.

...snip...

How is that to be assessed?

 

[Darat]

Still seems the same to me - I'll still choose the option that doesn't directly kill other people.

 

[SteveAitch]

How is that to be assessed?

The same way the buttons appear- 'magically'?

 

[Darat]

The same way the buttons appear- 'magically'?

Well in one of t'other threads some folk seemed to be indicating those not choosing the option they would were being irrational, I was wondering if those people would be stopped from choosing as being "cognitively incapable of making an informed choice"? ....

 

[Thermal]

Still seems the same to me - I'll still choose the option that doesn't directly kill other people.

Shhhh... they like to gloss over that.

 

[Thermal]

"Normal cognitive capacity" doesn't really mean anything. It was pretty much assumed in the first round.

 

[Myriad]

"Normal cognitive capacity" doesn't really mean anything. It was pretty much assumed in the first round.

It wasn't consistently assumed. Some versions of the rescue model were explicitly predicated on the expectation that because the original scenario said "everyone," that would include toddlers, depressives, elders with dementia and so forth, who would press blue at random or due to misunderstanding the rules and were depending on the rest of us to act morally and courageously to save them from the potential consequences.

It is moral to rescue even when that involves risk, but it's immoral to jeopardize oneself on purpose and then demand rescue. (That's why professional rescuers discourage untrained bystanders from getting involved; "you'll likely end up in need of rescue yourself, making our task harder or our risk greater.") But pushing the blue button implies both. That's why I emphasize my current social expendability, and have mentioned that although I would choose blue I would hope my loved ones choose red.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Unfortunately I'll have to define "Normal cognitive capacity" as "Those who agree with me."

And I don't think that advances finding a definitive answer at all.

 

[Emily's Cat]

How is that to be assessed?

It's magically assessed by a reputable third party with no bias, who has a magical psychic connection to every single person on the planet and simultaneously with 100% accuracy.

Can't you simply take it as given?

 

[Thermal]

Really interesting article from Reason dot com on this. They also thought you should push Red, and kind of soft pedaled that you are directly voting to kill Blue voters by doing so. They say it's for the same reason that the editor in chief of Reason doesn't think you should bother voting in a presidential election, because your individual vote doesn't matter. Yes, that was Reason dot com, claiming to not understand how collective voting works.

You should press the red button, never the blue button

Most voters chose blue, but incentives and probability suggest the safer, more rational choice was red.

reason.com

 

[Myriad]

Really interesting article from Reason dot com on this. They also thought you should push Red, and kind of soft pedaled that you are directly voting to kill Blue voters by doing so. They say it's for the same reason that the editor in chief of Reason doesn't think you should bother voting in a presidential election, because your individual vote doesn't matter. Yes, that was Reason dot com, claiming to not understand how collective voting works.

I've decided I would definitely pull the switch that sends the trolley onto the siding where it pushes five red buttons, rather than allow it to continue ahead and smash open the box with $1000 that if the supercomputer predicted I'd open it would leave my $1million box empty.

 

[Helen]

I've decided I would definitely pull the switch that sends the trolley onto the siding where it pushes five red buttons, rather than allow it to continue ahead and smash open the box with $1000 that if the supercomputer predicted I'd open it would leave my $1million box empty.

Can I come with you?

 

[Darat]

Next question: you can pick up a red gun or a blue flower, if you pick up the red gun you get to gun down anyone who picked a blue flower.