= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
MendelSchmiedekamp comments on Tell it to someone who doesn't care - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (34)
These models aren't as different as they first appear. Just different formulations of the concept of cognitive volatility.
In either case, you want to exert your effort on the largest portion of the population most likely to change in the most significantly beneficial way (for some balancing of optimality). The clever point about re-envisioning these fence-sitters with the second model is that they may not be sitting on any fence you recognize, but the fact remains they are on an unstable equilibrium in the cognitive/social space.
Of course the hard problem is how do you measure the critical susceptibility to having minds changed as a group, before it happens?
It might be a stable equilibrium before the introduction of your opinion.
Not if you consider opinions to be perturbations.
Now if you have opinions that are specially geared to be earth-shattering revelations to your target audience, that is an entirely different matter, with its own set of problems.