Comments on: When the Logical Go Fish http://yaserzt.com/blog/archives/390 Shadowlessness, and how it feels. Fri, 30 Dec 2011 19:29:04 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: yzt http://yaserzt.com/blog/archives/390/comment-page-1#comment-18902 yzt Tue, 12 May 2009 15:32:12 +0000 http://yaserzt.com/blog/?p=390#comment-18902 OK. Let's wade down through the stack. I have to agree that the masses voting without knowing and weighing the candidates might push the result towards randomness. However, what's more likely is that those kind of people would vote based on their emotions or on the hollow and meaningless promises of the candidates. What I'm hoping to happen here is that because the people are under so much pressure and the status of the country is so bleak and hopeless, people would emotionally vote for some change. I'd be the first one to admit that it's a long shot, but it may actually happen. The other reason that I think people should vote no matter what, and that I try some (weak and informal) logical argument is that I'm hoping to convince the upper half of the society to vote. The average idiot will either vote (for the wrong person) or not and I don't think I can convince her with anything except a promise to pay him 50K per month! I'm trying to make sure that the upper half of the society (or those among my friends who belong to the upper half) that the lower half will vote anyway and if they don't, their voice won't be heard. I'm again hoping that these people are at least more likely to vote better. About the role of uncertainties, well... I'm no expert on this, but they are there anyway specially in these complex real-world situations. It's quite improbable that every voter would go and research and read and investigate. I myself certainly don't. I don't kn ow what can be done to remedy that, except to try to discourage the people who are likely to vote with more thought from boycotting the elections. Yes, I didn't mention these group that hope to topple the regime with an election boycott, but I don't count them as logical people! Or maybe they are, but they should be more realistic. You said what I would want to say perfectly, and I don't see the need to add anything. OK, I did not consider this group. I also forgot about the people who are in a coma, or a full-body cast! ;) Are you sure there is no way for you guys to vote in your own city? Isn't there like a few thousand Iranians there? On the other hand, why would the current government want a bunch of bright people to have easy access for voting?! OK. Let’s wade down through the stack.
I have to agree that the masses voting without knowing and weighing the candidates might push the result towards randomness. However, what’s more likely is that those kind of people would vote based on their emotions or on the hollow and meaningless promises of the candidates. What I’m hoping to happen here is that because the people are under so much pressure and the status of the country is so bleak and hopeless, people would emotionally vote for some change. I’d be the first one to admit that it’s a long shot, but it may actually happen.
The other reason that I think people should vote no matter what, and that I try some (weak and informal) logical argument is that I’m hoping to convince the upper half of the society to vote. The average idiot will either vote (for the wrong person) or not and I don’t think I can convince her with anything except a promise to pay him 50K per month! I’m trying to make sure that the upper half of the society (or those among my friends who belong to the upper half) that the lower half will vote anyway and if they don’t, their voice won’t be heard. I’m again hoping that these people are at least more likely to vote better.

About the role of uncertainties, well… I’m no expert on this, but they are there anyway specially in these complex real-world situations. It’s quite improbable that every voter would go and research and read and investigate. I myself certainly don’t. I don’t kn ow what can be done to remedy that, except to try to discourage the people who are likely to vote with more thought from boycotting the elections.

Yes, I didn’t mention these group that hope to topple the regime with an election boycott, but I don’t count them as logical people! Or maybe they are, but they should be more realistic. You said what I would want to say perfectly, and I don’t see the need to add anything.

OK, I did not consider this group. I also forgot about the people who are in a coma, or a full-body cast! ;) Are you sure there is no way for you guys to vote in your own city? Isn’t there like a few thousand Iranians there?
On the other hand, why would the current government want a bunch of bright people to have easy access for voting?!

]]> By: MatGill http://yaserzt.com/blog/archives/390/comment-page-1#comment-18887 MatGill Tue, 12 May 2009 06:40:39 +0000 http://yaserzt.com/blog/?p=390#comment-18887 And there is always that group of people who can potentially vote, but are too lazy to travel to another city to vote at the embassy. But seriously, you forgot to mention a key group of people who strongly believe that the act of voting itself is a measure of supporting the government. It is however, a stupid bet to assume that a huge percentage of people will not vote and the government will lose its support and collapse. What will happen is that the conservatives will take the power in all branches of the government, destroy whatever national resource they touch, and then force us to vote in large numbers next time so that we get out of our own crap. I know I'm gonna outrage you again by saying this, but I just finished a whole thesis on this topic: Your argument has a big flaw. Logic is meaningless if you don't consider uncertainties. It is true that there is definitely one candidate that is no worse than others, given any fixed measure of comparison. However, it is _not_ true that you are better off voting if you _think_ someone is a better candidate. I'm not talking about different evaluations based on different priorities. But rather on the fact that no matter how you define a good candidate, if you are not _sure_ about it, then it _might_ be meaningless (technically statistically meaningless) to assume the best you can do is to vote for the one you think is better. Weather or not your measure of comparison is any better than the average idiot, it matters if you are sure about it or not. Sometimes there is just too much uncertainty involved in the decision making process. In fact, I would rather see most people not vote, as they are ignorant about the candidates. Ignorance, when fed into the election process, biases the result towards randomness. Thus _anyone_ who suggests that people should vote _must_ ask them to get educated about the candidates' policies first. And there is always that group of people who can potentially vote, but are too lazy to travel to another city to vote at the embassy.

But seriously, you forgot to mention a key group of people who strongly believe that the act of voting itself is a measure of supporting the government. It is however, a stupid bet to assume that a huge percentage of people will not vote and the government will lose its support and collapse. What will happen is that the conservatives will take the power in all branches of the government, destroy whatever national resource they touch, and then force us to vote in large numbers next time so that we get out of our own crap.

I know I’m gonna outrage you again by saying this, but I just finished a whole thesis on this topic: Your argument has a big flaw. Logic is meaningless if you don’t consider uncertainties. It is true that there is definitely one candidate that is no worse than others, given any fixed measure of comparison. However, it is _not_ true that you are better off voting if you _think_ someone is a better candidate. I’m not talking about different evaluations based on different priorities. But rather on the fact that no matter how you define a good candidate, if you are not _sure_ about it, then it _might_ be meaningless (technically statistically meaningless) to assume the best you can do is to vote for the one you think is better. Weather or not your measure of comparison is any better than the average idiot, it matters if you are sure about it or not. Sometimes there is just too much uncertainty involved in the decision making process. In fact, I would rather see most people not vote, as they are ignorant about the candidates. Ignorance, when fed into the election process, biases the result towards randomness. Thus _anyone_ who suggests that people should vote _must_ ask them to get educated about the candidates’ policies first.

]]>