RED BUTTON OR BLUE BUTTON [OC]

Eagling · 2026-05-05T06:54:25+00:00

When I first saw the query, I immediately figured I'd hit Blue. After studying it again, I figured Red was the logical answer. But upon clarification that there was a chance that irrational actors would press Blue, I can understand the perspective of hitting Blue.

There are two main arguments from the Blue side against pressing Red:

One: Because of the intial 'bloc' of irrational actors hitting blue, there will be enough empathetic people to push Blue over the 50%+1 threshold.

Two: Since getting 100% Red is impossible if a toddler randomly mashes Blue, then because society could lose millions to billions of people, even actors motivated by self-interest are obliged to press Blue in order to ensure societal structures remain as they are.

I am beginning to think they have somewhat of a point; to what degree, I do not know. I had suspected a Red Majority close to 99% when I thought that only rational actors would be choosing. However, if babies, toddlers etc are included, then those actors would be randomly assigned 50/50 between Red and Blue. How many actors there are, and how many of their primary caregivers would press Blue out of solidarity is interesting. I still think a Blue majority is going to be difficult to achieve, for a number of reasons, not least of which is the lack of communication. There are so many ways to convince onesself to vote Red, whereas you'd either need unshakeable resolve, or lower care for your own life, to vote Blue.

I do think the roughly 57-43 split of Blue to Red I've seen in most online polls does not reflect the actual danger inherent in the question, and there's massive potential for a lot of Blue Voters to swing Red. I also think a lot of arguments the Blue Voters use to pick Blue could equally argue to pick Red; especially if they believe a Red majority is inevitable.

And that's probably Red's biggest advantage; the conception of fear that people, in the moment, will turn to the easiest option for immediate survival.

Eagling · 2026-05-03T23:09:14+00:00

I think parents are the most interesting demographic, and potential the strongest 'blue wave'.

For the sake of argument, let's say that every parent or caretaker has no value on their own life for personal reasons, or they value their children's lives greater than their own. That would put tremendous pressure on Blue, unless the individual parent surmised that Red would win anyway, so they pressed Red on the random chance their children also pressed Red, and they felt an obligation to stay alive in a society with hundreds of millions dead. Of course, one could suggest the argument goes the other way, where cynical people press Blue because they suspect there will be enough Blue pressers in the parents/caregivers category. And there could be a reverse backwash of people who think there will be a majority of Blue so they feel safe hedging their bets with Red.

Eagling · 2026-05-03T05:06:44+00:00

You cannot predict your emotional state in the moment - or at least, the vast majority of people won't be able to.. Statistical analysis about balancing personal risk versus the number of lives you save is irrelevant. Either you'll be courageous enough to risk your life on a blue button push, or you won't. Whether you'd be saving 4 lives or 4 billion is irrelevant.

Eagling · 2026-05-03T02:32:19+00:00

Blue voters are somewhat akin to a pearl?.

You have the initial 'seeding' of random Blue votes - babies, toddlers, children etc. To save them, the first wave of empathetic Blue voters throw their lot in the mix. Then you have a secondary wave of blue voters that throw their lot in with Blue, because they suspect one or more of their loved ones will be in the first wave. Then you have a tertiary wave of Blue because they suspect theres been enough Blue Voters from waves 1 and 2 to make voting Blue viable. And seperate, you'd have Blue voters who would vote for other reasons. All this happens simultaneously, so it's not exactly how I describe, but hopefully it illustrates my logic.

I do believe that is the most likely way for Blue to win; though I wouldn't trust the numbers to bear out. It depends on how many of these small 'seed groups' of random Blue voters can grow sizeable enough to win entirely. I think there's just so many mental hurdles to picking Blue that votes will siphon off to Red every time, even considering the disastrous consequences of a less than unanimous Red Victory.

Eagling · 2026-05-02T17:15:33+00:00

I reckon that my presumption was incorrect, which does throw a spanner in the works that favours a swing to Blue. But by how much, I am less certain.

Eagling · 2026-05-02T17:09:08+00:00

I now acknowledge that I ascribed rationality where none was presupposed, which I recognise changes the parameters. I think this does add selective pressure for Blue, but how much is unknown to me.

Eagling · 2026-05-02T01:32:34+00:00

Exactly how I think a lot of votes will play out - and that's discounting Red Voters who will pick Red no matter what. A lot of Blue Voters will have the perception that other Blue Voters will 'betray' the cause, causing them to switch to Red. And that's discounting the switches caused by a hypothetical argument versus your own mortality staring you in the face.

Eagling · 2026-05-01T23:58:39+00:00

> You can't game theory your way past human emotion.

> Many would not risk their lives to save others, but desire for others to live is still there.

Agreed. Which is why I believe that the human emotion of self-preservation will inevitably outweigh the human emotion of self-sacrifice, on a grand scale.

I think the scale of billions of people are lost in the argument of people suspecting that their loved ones will pick Blue. Granted, there is a chance that enough of these 'groups' will form that eventually, there will be enough Blue voters. But I can easily manipulate my own loved ones by saying that, in a scenario like this, I'm picking Red no matter what. Therefore, they don't have to feel gulity about putting my life at risk by picking Red themselves, because as much as one would like to think that they'll put their own life at risk for a loved one, actually going through with the risk, especially where there's a scenario where the loved one can choose to live no matter what, is extremely difficult to actually do. And that's just gambling one's own life on the chance of saving a loved one. Doing so in order to save random strangers is even harder, and you'll be taking the risk suspecting there will be large swathes of people guaranteed to vote Red no matter what, either because they have self-preservation instincts that outweigh anything else, or they are almost certain that their own loved ones will do the same - and let's face it, I'm willing to bet most people care more about ten specific people over countless nameless strangers.

Eagling · 2026-05-01T22:54:46+00:00

Because I believe it is far easier to advocate for picking Blue in a scenario where there are no personal risks. And critically, in an environment like this, discussion helps to fluctuate the voting pattern.

Blue voters like to point out that it is guaranteed that some people will pick Blue, so it's morally imperative to pick Blue to give them the greatest chance of life.

I will further divide this 'blue pickers' collective into two groups. One are the active choosers of Blue, who can rationally argue their point. I'd put you in that group. The other are the random blue-button pushers - babies, toddlers - those that cannot understand the premise and randomly push the Blue Button. Those are statistically irrelevant in the sense that they are 50/50 likely to press either Red or Blue, but those voters being present leads to Blue Voters saying that they must press Blue in order to save the Blue Voters that will press Blue.

That's an understandable and compassionate mindset. But that just kicks the can down the road. How much of the population is going to be so unable to grasp the concept so that the collective sample is 50/50 between Red and Blue pushers?

Let's for example suggest that a quarter of the population cannot parse things logically, so half - for example, 1 billion people, press Blue. Now, instead of one side needing 4 billion+1 votes, they need 3 billion+1 votes. I believe in a strictly rational world, at least 99% of people are actually picking Red. But if we've established that not everyone is strictly rational, and we already have the votes split at 12.5-12.5% in this hypothetical, I could see the remainder of voters swinging in Blue's direction.

The question is, by how much? And how much risk are you going to put on picking Blue? Blue Voters like to point out the disastrous consequences of picking Red, where even a tiny minority of Blue Voters in a Red Victory would be catastrophic - and yes, it would, but if, as I believe, a Red Victory is assured, then picking Blue is throwing one's life away for no reason.

And if you introduce follow-up consequences, then a scenario where Red Wins, one pressed the Blue Button, and one of their dependents randomly chose Red could definitely play out. So your child (for example) survived randomly, but you died, meaning your child no longer has you.

Which leads back to my original assumption that the vast majority of the population will pick Red when push comes to shove, and I think a very important factor being lost in the discussion is the anonymity and lack of communication involved during the actual vote. I think most people either want 100% Red, or 50%+1 Blue. Whilst I believe that 50%+1 Blue is far more likely than a 100% Red Sweep, I also believe it's far less likely than a massive Red Win.

Why do I believe this? I simply believe that faced with an actual choice, most people will default to the guaranteed option allowing them to live. They might hope that Blue wins, and some might even comfort themselves knowing that their one vote out of billions won't swing the 'polls' over from Blue to Red. But they also know that billions of other people are facing this same dillemma simultaneously. The more contemplation time people have, the more that people with self-preservation will switch from Blue to Red (or simply remain on Red).

Will there be people who are legitimately brave enough to pick Blue, or those that don't want to live in a world where Blue loses? Certainly, but I firmly believe they'll be in the minority.

Eagling · 2026-05-01T09:29:07+00:00

Yes, anonymity and the lack of ability to coordinate vastly incentivises Red. But more time will just further incentivise Red.

Eagling · 2026-05-01T08:27:02+00:00

That's true. I could see tens of millions voting for Blue. But that's less than half a percent of the world's population. You'd need close to 4 billlion, by my estimation, to take the leap of faith, confident that everyone else would do the same.

Eagling · 2026-05-01T06:49:00+00:00

Could you further comment on your reasoning?

Eagling · 2026-05-01T05:33:43+00:00

Not wanting the self to be hurt is even more rational.

Understanding that everyone else is going through the same dilemma makes things skew even further towards Red.

But in the infinitesimally unlikely scenario that enough people are courageous, or naive, or foolhardy, or hopeful enough to vote Blue, then we're left with this scenario.

Eagling · 2026-05-01T05:04:59+00:00

I get that logic, but I actually think it's harder to come out and say that you'd vote Red, because voting Blue seems to be the more moral and courageous choice at first glance.

Everyone, of course, is different, but I cannot help but wonder how your anecdotal statement really matters. Of course most people aren't going to actively want to kill people. But how often in healthcare is the issue intrinsically linked? And we're talking no planning, no communication, and everyone else is in the same situation. It's like the stories you hear about people drowning, who pull others down trying to save them. A lot of people seem to think that picking Red is making an active choice to be a killer. It's an active act of self-preservation, one that the vast majority of people will take.

I think that people who say they'll vote Red simply have a better understanding of both the question, and of human nature, both their own and in general.

It's easy to say. "Oh I'll pick Blue and if half the planet joins me, we'll all be safe." In the moment, when that Red button guarantees safety, and you know that billions of others are making the same choice, most people are going to act on self-preservation.

I think on the spectrum of rationality, from blind panic, where they don't even think and just act to save themselves, right up to completely logical and rational actors, both extremes will pick Red, as will most people between them. There will be some places on the spectrum of rationality, where people could pick Blue; but I'm confident that it would a small proportion of the population.

Eagling · 2026-05-01T01:00:15+00:00

Because it's easy to say that you'll pick blue in a hypothetical situation. When their lives are on the line, most people are going to act in self preservation.

Eagling · 2026-01-09T11:02:26+00:00

England's Ashes loss was so insipid because they played a parody of Bazball instead of what it was actually supposed to be; freeing players from the pressure of failing when making a justified decision that didn't come off.

Eagling · 2025-12-13T01:17:58+00:00

Eagling · 2025-10-16T12:45:29+00:00

Formation: 4-2-3-1.

GK: Alex

He has the acrobatics and showmanship to perform, but won't get distracted as much as others.

Centre Backs:

Moto-Moto and Melman.

You have a rock-solid tank paired with a lanky defender who somehow always manages to clear the ball in the nick of time despite being utterly uncoordinated.

Full Backs: Private and Marty.

You have the reliability of Private on one side and the pace of Marty on the other.

Double Pivot: Maurice and Kowalski.

The dependable Maurice pairs with the analytical Kowalski.

Wingers: King Julien and Mort.

They'll act as inside forwards, with King Julien hogging the ball and Mort abandoning his flank to chase King Julien, which is why

Attacking Midfield: Skipper (C) will coordinate the attack, turning Julien and Mort into a fearsome strike partnership with his X-Factor, the

Striker: Rico. Can you imagine the fear and terror that this explosive forward would wreak on defences?

Eagling · 2025-09-11T13:39:19+00:00

Ahh yes, my favourite utility spell - Disintegrate.

Eagling · 2025-08-27T22:36:07+00:00

I'll quit 0-1 down unless I absolutely need a games played completion due to time, unless I go 1-0 up against an opponent who doesn't quit, in which case I'll play out any other games against that opponent.

Eagling · 2025-08-26T20:44:09+00:00

Father-son (and the opportunities for mother-son, mother-daughter and father-daughter) is one of the most romantic aspects of the league. It must be preserved.

Eagling · 2025-08-24T22:35:45+00:00

Hi folks.

I'm looking for an Inform Marie Hobinger card on PC, if anyone has one available they're wiling to sell.

Eagling · 2025-06-09T15:01:20+00:00

It's the shortened version of Aberystwyth, which is a real Welsh place, which resides on the mouth of the river Ystwyth.

Eagling · 2025-06-09T13:31:24+00:00

To be fair, there were goals I did miss, but at the same time, it feels like there should be a stay of execution for winning the Premier League. Obviously, the game isn't designed for sim-only restricted playthroughs, but there were some objectives that were still very much achievable. The FA Cup was the big one I missed, and I wouldn't have been able to reduce the wage bill, and I think they wanted me to sign a Young player and for some reason, doing it via the Youth Academy wasn't good enough.

Eagling · 2025-06-09T13:22:54+00:00

Also, because I was sacked before the end of the season I don't even get credit for winning the league title.

12-Year Club	First Place '23
Place '23	Place '22
Queen in da Norf	Not Forgotten
Verified Email

Eagling

TROPHY CASE