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.

▲

3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

DetroitThrow 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

>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 9 hours ago | parent [-]

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 9 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		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 7 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		The only option that leads to a statistical chance of murder though is red.
	▲	blargey 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		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.