Do you press the red or blue button?

[Ghost Econ]

This "thought experiment" has been making the rounds online. To me, there's one objectively correct answer, but people's misunderstanding of altruism makes it the right choice for you but the wrong choice as a whole.

Also, the question isn't really expanded upon, like do people know ahead of time what is being asked, how do we account for intelligence/understanding/age, if they know ahead of time can it be discussed before, what do we do with the colorblind...?

Everyone in the world has to take a private vote by pressing a red or blue button. If more than 50% of people press the blue button, everyone survives. If less than 50% of people press the blue button, only people who pressed the red button survive. Which button would you press?

— Tim Urban (@waitbutwhy) April 24, 2026

[NobodyHere]

[Passacaglia]

Red and I won't even feel bad about it, because I'll assume that's how everyone should vote, and if we all just vote to protect ourselves, we all win. If you want to vote blue, I'll be pulling for you to get your 50%, but it won't be coming from me.

[QuikSand]

Intrigued by the "people's misunderstanding of altruism" reference, above. I'd welcome an elaboration.

[Kodos]

Seems pretty clear everyone should just push red.

[Thomkal]

Blue is my favorite color and red is my least favorite, so BLUE all the way

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Intrigued by the "people's misunderstanding of altruism" reference, above. I'd welcome an elaboration.

Part of me wondered if that was the psychological ploy going on here -- something like "if you mention altruism before asking, does that get more people to vote blue?" But it's not in the original tweet, so I dunno.

On that note, do the results of the poll in the tweet affect results? Does anyone see that over 50% voted blue there, and think "I want to be like them, and if results come out like these, I can get away with it and not die" - similar thoughts on the colors related to political parties. Does anyone think "I'm a Democrat, I'm blue, I should vote for the plan where no one dies" even if it puts themselves at risk?

[Ghost Econ]

It was more just riffing, wasn't intended to sway in any way.nill explain it by saying the generally the people seeing it as altruistic because they're risking their lives to save others who put their lives at risk. But altruism is not expecting anything in return. These people are choosing to save others because they are assuming enough people will also be willing to save them from their mistake.

I also don't believe the poll results are accurate despite it being the same across multiple sites. We literally live in a world where people can go on living their life or risk throwing it all away to help others... and well under 50% of the world does that, myself included

[dubb93]

So this is probably supposed to relate to Dem/Republican in some way right? It makes no sense anyway.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by dubb93

So this is probably supposed to relate to Dem/Republican in some way right? It makes no sense anyway.

fwiw, I've seen this (the actual choice question) mentioned a few times on socials in recent days but have seen very little politicizing it (or suggesting it was politicized). If that's an element, it isn't one I've seen being played up much.

This has been treated more along the lines of the old ethical/moral dilemma "trolley problem", at least in what I've seen of it.

[Danny]

The question is more nuanced. Do children have to independently choose or is it only for adults and your children are safe?

[AlexB]

Depends on whether you want to take control of your destiny, or let it rest in the hands of others.

Guaranteed to survive if you press red, so why would you press anything else?

[Mota]

Everybody picks red and everybody lives. Easy answer.

[Racer]

Originally Posted by Mota

Everybody picks red and everybody lives. Easy answer.

I had to read the question a few times but this is the conclusion I came to as well so I voted for the red button.

[Izulde]

Red, but not for selfish reasons (indeed, my instinct is to push Blue). It's because I don't trust people to, at a critical enough mass, push blue.

[dubb93]

Originally Posted by Izulde

Red, but not for selfish reasons (indeed, my instinct is to push Blue). It's because I don't trust people to, at a critical enough mass, push blue.

Why would they? It boils down to:

Option 1: Take your safety into your own hands.

Option 2: Place your safety into the hands of others that you do not know.

[NobodyHere]

So now 9 FOFCers are dead now...

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

So now 9 FOFCers are dead now...

Yeah, thanks guys!

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

So now 9 FOFCers are dead now...

I've been thinking about that, despite saying "I wouldn't even feel bad about it" earlier. I If this were real, and the vote was something like we have here, just over 50% red (its currently 12-9), that's pretty terrible. When I first saw the thread, it was 3-0 blue, and my vote for red didn't feel like it mattered.

That said, I'm pretty shocked that anyone voted blue. My suspicion is that these are votes made quickly and theoretically, and that if the situation were real, and people took more time to think about it, the vote would come out much differently. The fact that it was 3-0 blue after like an hour when I saw the thread is a little bit of data to back that up, maybe. Although maybe my first vote for red was an "oh crap" moment and swayed future voters.

Danny's got a good point about kids. I've been meaning to show this one to my kids because I'm curious -- but they're teenagers, so probably older than the kids he's thinking of. I still think they're naive enough that at least one would say they'd vote blue.

I'm also curious if the outcome changes if it were positive instead of negative. If the vote were "If over 50% vote blue, everyone gets a million dollars, but if less than 50% vote blue, only the people who vote red get a million dollars" does that change anything for anyone?

[larrymcg421]

Game Theory says to pick red. Humanity says to pick blue.

I pick blue and if I'm on the wrong side of it. I wouldn't want to continue living in a world without the people who are more likely to pick blue.

[albionmoonlight]

I picked blue.

Even though Red makes sense, some non-zero number of people in the world will push blue.

I don't think that not understanding game theory should be a death sentence, so I'll do what I can to try and save them.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

I'm also curious if the outcome changes if it were positive instead of negative. If the vote were "If over 50% vote blue, everyone gets a million dollars, but if less than 50% vote blue, only the people who vote red get a million dollars" does that change anything for anyone?

Totally. Like I said above, I'm not willing to impose a death sentence on people for not understanding game theory.

But I'm fine with people not getting bonus money for not understanding game theory.

The horrible irrevocable consequence of death is central to my answer.

[Ghost Econ]

Does the feeling change if the question is rephrased as:

Everyone is transported to their own room with one button. They can either press the button or walk out. They're told if over 50% of the world presses the button, everyone lives when exiting their room. If over 50% of the world walks out without pressing a button, the people who pushed the button die when they exit their room.

Maybe it's just me, but having only 1 active option (pressing 1 button) vs. 2 active options (choosing between 2 buttons) feels even less like a choice. Just walking out doesn't feel the same as actively pressing the red button.