Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
    • Reason TV
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • Free Media
    • The Reason Interview
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • Freed Up
    • The Soho Forum Debates
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Log In

Create new account

Politics

You Should Press the Red Button, Never the Blue Button

A MrBeast post is going viral on X, and the correct answer is obvious.

Robby Soave | 4.30.2026 4:10 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
YouTuber MrBeast | Illustration: Midjourney/Sthanlee Mirador/Sipa USA/Newscom
(Illustration: Midjourney/Sthanlee Mirador/Sipa USA/Newscom)

Let's talk about something silly, but quite revealing: Would you press the red button or the blue button? A version of this puzzle goes viral on social media from time to time; this week, writer Tim Urban kicked things off, and YouTube giant MrBeast, who often sets up competitions in which participants have to play prisoner's dilemma–style mind games for money, soon followed suit.

You are reading Free Media from Robby Soave and Reason. Get more of Robby's on-the-media, disinformation, and free speech coverage.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

The setup, per MrBeast, is this:

Everyone on earth takes 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? BE HONEST.

— MrBeast (@MrBeast) April 28, 2026

You can see from the above poll results that the blue button won, and everybody survived. Yay. However, it strikes me that this is wrong and frankly distressing.

I suppose I can appreciate why people would pick the blue button, especially if they don't think about the question for more than five seconds. Due to the highly suggestive phrasing, it sounds like blue-button pushers are conscientious and red-button pushers are psychotically self-involved. Don't we all want to do the right thing, believing that we live in a world where our fellow human beings will prioritize the good of everyone over narrow self-interest?

But that framing breaks down when you consider the following: If everybody presses the red button, everybody lives.

It's true that if everybody presses the blue button, everybody also lives. But blue-button folks are putting themselves in danger by gambling that enough people are also going to take the risky option. That is a very bad bet. Red-button pushers are guaranteeing their own safety, at zero cost to anyone else, providing other people also made the rational choice. It's not as if there's some finite supply of red buttons, and it's not as if everybody doing the self-interested thing actually lowers the overall survival rate, as with some versions of the prisoner's dilemma (i.e., both criminals informing on each other). On the contrary, if every single person does the thing that is best for him, he will guarantee his own safety and everybody else's. When an individual's incentives are perfectly in line with the common good, it should be obvious that this is the ideal scenario and other options are suboptimal.

Moreover, in a world of 8 billion humans, the odds that any single person's choice will be the tipping point is so low that you would actually have to be crazy to pick blue. Your vote can't influence the outcome, statistically speaking. All you can do is guarantee your own survival. This is why Reason editor in chief Katherine Mangu-Ward does not vote in presidential elections; your vote has no practical effect on who wins. If you're voting, it's mostly about making yourself feel good.

Blue-button pushers keep insisting that red-button pushers are being selfish, but really it's the other way around. The blue-button pushers are imposing an obligation on everyone else: They are needlessly placing themselves in harm's way and counting on enough other people making a risky gamble to save them. This becomes more obvious if you word the question slightly differently: If you press the red button, you live, but if you press the blue button, you die unless 51 percent of people press the blue button. I suspect the poll results for this question would be different, even though the scenario is exactly the same.

Or consider the following: There are two paths through the jungle. One path is perfectly safe, and the other path has quicksand that might kill you. If you take the quicksand path, you have to hope enough people will decide not to take the safe path and instead come to rescue you, even though they could sink in and die.

Are the rational human beings who take the safe path being selfish? No. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they felt a certain resentment toward the quicksand people.

The whole blue and red button drama is basically this summarized

If everyone clicked red, nobody would die. Those that click blue have suicidal empathy pic.twitter.com/g9Jk57bx5X

— Chibi Reviews (@ChibiReviews) April 29, 2026

I dare anyone who's made it this far to disagree with me! And yet, the blue button won on MrBeast's poll and Urban's poll. I also failed to convince my Rising co-host, Lindsey Granger. It's a lonely world for us libertarians.


This Week on Free Media

Amber Duke joins me to discuss the walls closing in on Anthony Fauci and the fallout from the thwarted White House Correspondents' Association dinner assassin.


Worth Watching

I have moved on to the next Miss Marple mystery, 4.50 from Paddington. After that, I intend to take a little break from Agatha Christie and would appreciate good fantasy recommendations.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: The Marriage Gap Is America’s Most Overlooked Source of Inequality

Robby Soave is a senior editor at Reason.

PoliticsPollsSocial MediaTwitter
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (50)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. JesseAz (RIP CK)   2 months ago

    Red in this case must mean communism due to their long history of starvation and deaths.

  2. Don't look at me! ( Is the war over yet?)   2 months ago

    Are we expected to take Mr. Beast seriously?

    1. Stupid Government Tricks   2 months ago

      As serious as everybody who pushes blue.

  3. Stupid Government Tricks   2 months ago

    That original poll smacks of politics. I had to reread it several times to be sure it was as devious and dumb as it was. Robby summarizes it perfectly. Push red to survive. Push blue to tell the world you are not only dumb and suicidal, but willing to risk everybody else's death too.

  4. Zeb   2 months ago

    So kind of an idiot version of the prisoner's dilemma.

    1. mad.casual   2 months ago

      The Prisoner's Dilemma is more malicious or morally unambiguous and less circumstantial. One prisoner has to testify against the other and both prisoners are aware of the crime and the various circumstances or lack of ambiguity of the dilemma.

      I always thought Newcomb's Problem was the more fun version:

      In the standard version of Newcomb's problem, two boxes are designated A and B. The player is given a choice between taking only box B or taking both boxes A and B. The player knows the following:

      Box A is transparent, or open, and always contains a visible $1,000.
      Box B is opaque, or closed, and its content has already been set by the predictor:
      If the predictor has predicted that the player will take both boxes A and B, then box B contains nothing.
      If the predictor has predicted that the player will take only box B, then box B contains $1,000,000.
      The player does not know what the predictor predicted or what box B contains while making the choice.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newcomb's_problem

      In our current "AI predictors are gonna replace us all." age, I'm still in the "I'm taking both boxes." camp.

  5. Mickey Rat   2 months ago

    Yet Reason almost always counsels pushing the blue button IRL.

  6. GOD OF PENGUIN ISLAND   2 months ago

    The dress is white and gold.

    1. mad.casual   2 months ago

      Which button lets me stab people in the face over the internet?

  7. IceTrey   2 months ago

    The people who take the safe path ARE being selfish and that's a GOOD thing. Libertarianism advocates for selfishness.

    1. MasterThief   2 months ago

      I want to press the blue button. I don't want my participation to doom others to death for their idealism and faith in humanity. Unfortunately, I don't trust humanity and am not going to gamble that more than half won't also choose the certainty that they will live.

      1. Mike Parsons   2 months ago

        ive got kids and a family that depends on me, we are all pressing red. And I hope everyone elses family does too

  8. Liberty_Belle   2 months ago

    All red, everybody lives. All blue, everybody lives.

    So the real dilemma is knowing that there is no way in hell that everybody is going to agree; and do you value the lives of people that may think different than you. Pick red and anybody that doesn't agree with you dies, pick blue and even "those people over there" get to live , too.

    Blue. (Though I wish they had changed the colors to green and orange or something, so people wouldn't get stuck on politics.

    1. Social Justice is neither   2 months ago

      Of course we already knew you were one of the suicidal empathy gang. No cost for others is too much for you to demand.

      1. Liberty_Belle   2 months ago

        If I am suicidal empathy, then you are murder-amenably selfish. Your choice guarantees death to anyone who disagrees with you.

        You are willing to survive at the cost of others lives.

        No cost for others is too much, indeed ?

        1. tennvol   2 months ago

          Anyone who disagrees is choosing their own fate. By pressing red, you are not causing anyone to die.

        2. Social Justice is neither   2 months ago

          So agree with you or you'll guilt trip and lie...seems right for you.

    2. Marshal   2 months ago

      I wish they had changed the colors to green and orange or something, so people wouldn't get stuck on politics.

      This is the real point of the thought experiment. Will left wingers theoretically risk their lives for no benefit other than virtue signaling. Surprising no one who understands them they will.

    3. Azathoth!!   2 months ago

      You are not seeing the choice correctly.

      The choice is

      Choose red and you WILL live.
      Choose blue and you MIGHT live.

      If everything goes wrong, those who are mentally defective will die, and those who aren't get another shot.

      If everything goes right everyone lives. AND they've all shown they're not mentally defective. Win-win.

      Honestly this whole thing is a win for red button pushers because at the end there are no blue button pushers.

      1. Liberty_Belle   2 months ago

        You aren't seeing the Cost of your choice.

        Choosing red and you WILL live ... and anyone who chooses different WILL die. That is the cost ; you are willing to live at the expense of anyone who disagrees with you guaranteed dying. This is the selfish path, and that works great so long as you dgaf about anybody else.

        Until you run into something you can't do yourself , like fight a foreign power, and suddenly you wish you had a lot more people who were willing to cooperate with you to achieve the end goal. Civilization succeeds because of cooperation; no society has ever left the stone age without cooperative effort.

        If I'm wrong, name one.

        1. EISTAU Gree-Vance   2 months ago

          “……and anyone who chooses different WILL die.”

          Um, no. Lol. Idiot.

          1. Liberty_Belle   2 months ago

            51 % choose red , what happens to the 49% who chose otherwise ?

        2. DesigNate   2 months ago

          Yeah, that’s not how the scenario is laid out.

  9. Rick James   2 months ago

    It's true that if everybody presses the blue button, everybody also lives. But blue-button folks are putting themselves in danger by gambling that enough people are also going to take the risky option.

    *thinks* I'm wondering if this "gambling that enough people are also going to [agree with you]" applies to a lot of things that end up being uncomfortable subjects around here.

    1. mad.casual   2 months ago

      Red button... blue button... what's really important is if you're wearing a mask when you do it.

    2. EISTAU Gree-Vance   2 months ago

      I’m wondering what happens to black people who can’t get to the button pushing place, or who “have never heard of the internet”?

      This has to be racist somehow. It just has to be…..

      1. See.More   2 months ago

        This has to be racist somehow. It just has to be…..

        You must present a valid and accurate ID to press a button.

  10. Social Justice is neither   2 months ago

    How much of the results of that poll as presented (costless and potentially saving others) is just virtue signalling? Make voting on it cost $5, poll operator takes 10% and an even split to everyone if blue wins, even split among red only if red wins. Wanna bet the outcome changes?

  11. mad.casual   2 months ago

    JFC, the obvious solution to too many people pressing the red button is to open the borders, reduce ID requirements to push buttons, and extend mail in voting until 51% of people press the blue button.

    1. EISTAU Gree-Vance   2 months ago

      Yes! Finally! Duh.

  12. TJJ2000   2 months ago

    Pretty sure the point of the blue/red button game is you shouldn't place BETS that 'blue socialism' will save you.

    Never-mind the major flaw in the assumption itself that make-nothing dependency can somehow survive everyone.

  13. Krenn   2 months ago

    The best argument in favor of blue that I've seen so far is that, taken super-literally, we have to assume that persons who have no capacity to play the button-game still have to press something, likely at random. Infants, the senile, the insane, the blind, the color-blind, the comatose, everyone.

    Therefore, it's reasonable to assume that some minimum fraction of earth's population is going to press the blue button accidently or without knowing what it means. That suddenly makes your ability to estimate everyone else's willingness to engage in dangerous altruism a lot more important.

    1. MasterThief   2 months ago

      The math changes based on the composition of the group. If the group is my family then I'm pressing blue. In that instance I have a high likelihood everyone goes blue. A blue vote gives my child a higher chance of survival.
      Once you start getting to a point where you don't know all the other people and aren't invested in their wellbeing, it shifts to red.

      I wonder if Robby and Reason realize this distinction and understand democracy fails when you lose that homogeneous high-trust society.

      1. Azathoth!!   2 months ago

        My family would all press red knowing that we would all press red because pressing blue is idiotic. In any situation.

        If YOU are gone YOU are no help to anyone.

        It's the plane thing--secure YOUR oxygen FIRST, then try to help.

      2. See.More   2 months ago

        A blue vote gives my child a higher chance of survival.

        But a red vote absolutely guarantees your child's survival, because regardless of the outcome, red button pushers survive.

        1. Krenn   2 months ago

          Think of it this way... You have to push a button now, your child will push a button LAST. You can't push the button FOR the child or otherwise compel the child's choice.

          Being honest with yourself, there's about a 1% chance that your child is going to press the blue button because the kid tripped, or wasn't listening to the instructions, or came up with a twisted piece of logic at the last minute that was incorrect but the kid didn't wait to fully think it through, or any other reason why a child might wind up pushing the blue button. 1% chance.

          The only decision YOU get to make NOW, is whether or not you ALSO push the blue button ahead of time, to improve your kid's odds of surviving if the kid DOES mess up and press the blue button.

          It's an interesting little moral question... the social science math on that sort of question gets... complicated.

          1. MasterThief   2 months ago

            Correct. I'm also working off the presumption that you can't coordinate the vote prior to each individual making their choice.
            My kid is very empathetic. She is pressing the blue button. Simplify the decision down to my life or hers and I'm giving her the best opportunity to live. I'm not interested in suicidal empathy for strangers, but I can get there for family.

  14. MWAocdoc   2 months ago

    "I dare anyone who's made it this far to disagree with me!"

    In the iterated Prisoner's Dilemma, the "modified tit-for-tat" strategy is the clear winning strategy. On the first iteration, trust (choose the blue button); if your adversary betrays you, on the next iteration you should not cooperate (push the red button); on subsequent iterations return to cooperation in response to your adversary's recent choice(s). Since the example in the article was not listed as "iterated" choosing the blue button is the correct response and did, in fact, win. The two horns of the dilemma here are not balanced. Choosing the blue button is the MOST LIKELY to be beneficial to the MOST PARTICIPANTS. Only fifty percent plus one need to choose the blue button for everyone to survive but ALL participants must choose the red button to result in ALL participants surviving. Anything less than fifty percent choosing the red button also results in ALL participants surviving so choosing blue yourself is a safer bet for everyone surviving - so personally choosing blue is indeed an altruistic strategy. Choosing red is the safest personal bet but is more likely to result in more people not surviving. Trying to connect "surviving" a single push of the button with designing an entire social system that rewards iterated cooperation is spurious and misleading in the context of libertarianism.

    1. Krenn   2 months ago

      I've heard good things about Tit-for-tat with random chance of forgiveness as the winning strategy instead... You basically do tit-for-tat, but if you get caught in a loop where both of you are just tit-for-tatting each other for the previous betrayal, you set some randomized event for yourself to 'forgive' the opponent 'irrationally', and check before each turn to see if the low-probability forgiveness event has triggered this time.

      The other winning strategy is mafia-boss. You flood the group of automated agents with two kinds of bots: a mafia-boss and sacrificial henchmen. The henchmen always start the game by making a very specific and highly improbable series of 20 or so pre-recorded moves. The mafia-boss always starts by playing tit-for-tat or tit-for-tat with forgiveness.

      Then, if the mafia-boss recognizes that the bot-player on the other side must be a henchmen, the mafia-boss sends a different, highly unlikely, pre-recorded series of moves for the next 20 moves, proving that the mafia-boss is a mafia-boss, which the henchmen recgonizes.

      After that, the mafia-boss always betrays the henchman, and the henchman always sits there and takes it. It really messes up the bot-scoring for that kind of tournament.

  15. Truthteller1   2 months ago

    Mindless sheep do mindless things.

  16. BYODB   2 months ago

    I rather think it's important to consider that the blue button has a lower threshold for everyone surviving than the red button. If HALF hit blue, everyone lives. If half of the people hit red, half the people die. Since the survey met the threshold required of blue button pushers, congrats, everyone would have lived in the example. This is actually expected.

    The red button might be the more rational choice, but it also requires universal agreement which notably is a nearly impossible result even from a rationalist point of view. It's a curious situation where, rationally, one should choose the irrational option because as rational people we realize most people are not.

    Not that any of that matters, it's basically a trolly problem. The only thing it's really meant to illustrate is reasoning and ethical/moral sensibilities. Is selfish survival of a few the right choice, or is altruism based on trust where everyone survives the right choice.

    1. mad.casual   2 months ago

      The red button might be the more rational choice, but it also requires universal agreement which notably is a nearly impossible result even from a rationalist point of view.

      You mean pressing the blue button is 100% safe and effective, with no downsides?

      The whole point of the red button is that it *doesn't* require anything even remotely close to universal agreement. That's just your own irrational projection. It, at most, requires the people who press the red button to be aware that they might have a horrible mess to deal with.

  17. ducksalad   2 months ago

    So it's a "private" vote but after the election they'll know who to kill? Not possible. If one corrects the question to make it possible to implement, it becomes:

    Party A's policy is to not engage in mass killing.
    Party B's policy is to kill all A's if they win.

    Robby Soave: Rationally, you must join the B party.

    1. Azathoth!!   2 months ago

      Sad child, you're trying to add culpability to this magic button puzzle.

      The red button pushers aren't doing the killing. They were faced with the same monstrous choice as the blue button pushers.

      And they saw the truth--

      Choose red and you WILL live.
      Choose blue and you MIGHT live.

      And it illustrates who leftism always fails.

      I don't care more about YOUR life than I do my own.

      I don't care if you die. I don't care if every blue button pusher dies. I will mourn where needed and rebuild.

      And I will be there to rebuild.....whereas the blue button pushers are now corpses in need of safe disposal.

      1. ducksalad   2 months ago

        I was thinking more about this puzzle, and a better solution occurred to me, based on historical parallels. To rephrase it a bit:

        The Kumbaya Party says if they win, they won't kill anybody.
        The Soavista Party says if they win, every non-Soavista will die.

        The solution: Don't let Robby Soave out of Landsberg Prison in December 1924 and then he can't force this choice on people in the election of 1932.

  18. BigFish92672   2 months ago

    What is the name of the mental disorder that makes you imagine everyone on earth could agree to press Red?

  19. Agammamon   2 months ago

    Soave - you know the blue button is voting for the Democrats and the red button is for Republicans?

  20. Morbaine   2 months ago

    Fantasy recommendations:
    Gentleman's Bastard series by Scott Lynch
    First Law and Age of Madness trilogies by Joe Abercrombie
    Books not TV/Movie

  21. Mike Jarvis   2 months ago

    This button contraption sounds a lot like it's a government action. So then the choice is:

    Red: Support the government's murder of anyone who defies it by pressing the blue button.
    Blue: Reject the government's intent to murder people. Let everyone live.

    With this framing, the choice is pretty obvious. I'm an anarchist.

  22. minus the clever name   2 months ago

    I know that I would press neither red nor blue button and if forced would rather die an honest man there and then

    This is Jesuitical or Pharisaical moral theology, take your pick. The real question is whether as ARistotle and others say : is it better to die or to live?

    Save me from sickness so I can be sent to the Gulag? You know the old moral joke. Two spinsters die same day in their late 90's and go to Heaven, then one says to the other : Dammit we'd have been here a lot sooner if we hadn't eaten all that health food

    PURE SILLY TRIVIA

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Archives: July 2026

Reason Staff | From the July 2026 issue

Brickbat: TMI

Charles Oliver | 6.30.2026 4:00 AM

In Chatrie, Neil Gorsuch Reiterates His Critique of 2 Dubious Fourth Amendment Doctrines

Jacob Sullum | 6.29.2026 3:05 PM

ICE Warns Syracuse Poll Worker To Delete a Political Instagram Post

Reem Ibrahim | 6.29.2026 2:24 PM

In Big Win for Fourth Amendment Advocates, the Supreme Court Says 'Geofence Warrants' Count as a 'Search'

Damon Root | 6.29.2026 12:50 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS Add Reason to Google

© 2026 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

I WANT FREE MINDS AND FREE MARKETS!

Help Reason push back with more of the fact-based reporting we do best. Your support means more reporters, more investigations, and more coverage.

Make a donation today! No thanks
r

I WANT TO FUND FREE MINDS AND FREE MARKETS

Every dollar I give helps to fund more journalists, more videos, and more amazing stories that celebrate liberty.

Yes! I want to put my money where your mouth is! Not interested
r

SUPPORT HONEST JOURNALISM

So much of the media tries telling you what to think. Support journalism that helps you to think for yourself.

I’ll donate to Reason right now! No thanks
r

PUSH BACK

Push back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.

My donation today will help Reason push back! Not today
r

HELP KEEP MEDIA FREE & FEARLESS

Back journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

STAND FOR FREE MINDS

Support journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.

Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanks
r

PUSH BACK AGAINST SOCIALIST IDEAS

Support journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

FIGHT BAD IDEAS WITH FACTS

Back independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

BAD ECONOMIC IDEAS ARE EVERYWHERE. LET’S FIGHT BACK.

Support journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

JOIN THE FIGHT FOR FREEDOM

Support journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

BACK JOURNALISM THAT PUSHES BACK AGAINST SOCIALISM

Your support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

FIGHT BACK AGAINST BAD ECONOMICS.

Donate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks