I see the red/blue problem discussed extensively elsewhere in this sub as
A test of your ability to make a rational choices,
given your ethical priority, and
what you believe about other people.
Conceptualizing the problem this way permits differentiating between 5 subgroups who might exercise one of the two possible options, as summarized in the table below:
| Ethical Priority | Belief about others | Aspirational Choice | Actual Choice |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to others | Red will win | Blue | Hard Blue |
| Duty to others | Blue will win | Blue | Soft Blue |
| Duty to others | Red will win | Blue | Reluctant Red |
| Duty to self | Blue will win | Red | Soft Red |
| Duty to self | Red will win | Red | Hard Red |
The five groups are:
1. Hard Blue: They are willing to literally stake their life on their choice because they expect the outcome not to be in their favor and press blue anyway.
2. Soft Blue: They feel the duty to others is compelling enough for them to press blue, but they are comforted by the expectation that this choice will likely not cost them their life.
3. Reluctant Red: They feel the duty others as a priority, but their expectation that red will win and thereby cause them to lose their life compels them to reluctantly press red, in contradiction to their ethical priority.
4. Soft Red: They feel the duty to self as a priority, but are also comforted by the expectation that they won't bear any culpability for any other persons death.
5. Hard Red: They feel the duty to self as the overriding priority, and tend to either compartmentalize the outcome they expect or frame it
A few remarks on these subgroups, based on my observations of discussions on this topic:
a. The "hard" subgroups for each color tend to be the most "ideological" about their choices: they tend to be the most likely to regard pressers of the other button with animosity, they are most likely to commit the reverse is-ought fallacy ("because of my ethical priorities, x ought to be the case, therefore x is the case") or other faulty arguments, they tend to be the ones who have the most difficulty in relating to people who press the other button, and they are more likely to trivialize this problem by focusing on only a single aspect, which is, not coincidentally, that aspect that supports their view.
b. The reluctant reds, acting against their ethical priority, constitute the key subgroup which poses a danger of failure to coordinate an outcome that ensures that blue wins
c. the 'soft" subgroups are the most "comfortable" ones because their ethical priorities are not actually tested by their epistemological beliefs.
My hope is that this brief analysis can help further elucidate this problem a bit further. Above all, my goal is to help people, no matter what color they choose, to better understand and empathize with the choosers of the other color. We need to get serious about fighting division, polarization and tribalism.