Eugine_Nier comments on Any existential risk angles to the US presidential election? - Less Wrong

-9 Post author: Stuart_Armstrong 20 September 2012 09:44AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (213)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 21 September 2012 01:45:17AM 1 point [-]

But if you use TDT to actually make the decision to vote, you are now very different from the people who have not heard of it and you are not controlling their decision.

Fortunately thanks to evolution most people (at least the ones who haven't reasoned themselves out of it) have an intuitive understanding of TDT even if they haven't heard the term.

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 21 September 2012 03:28:58AM 1 point [-]

Yes, it is reasonable to analyze normal people's voting in terms of TDT, at least to some extent. If you were going to vote anyways, you can use TDT to justify it.

But if you explicitly use TDT to decide to vote or to decide to put more effort into choosing your vote, you are not normal and your vote becomes less correlated with the large block of normal people. I was very serious about the economist example. Many economists don't vote for CDT reasons. If an economist uses TDT to reject that line of argument, that doesn't cause other economists to vote. Similarly, most people can't use TDT to decide to invest in more informed vote.

If you were swayed against voting only by arguments found in the same place you found TDT, it is reasonable to let them cancel out and consider your vote entangled with the votes of people who have heard of neither.