Larks comments on Voting is like donating thousands of dollars to charity - Less Wrong

32 Post author: Academian 05 November 2012 01:02AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (210)
Tags: instrumental voting rationality

Comments (210)

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

Comment author: Larks 06 November 2012 05:14:03PM *  4 points [-]

You are pattern matching to a straw-man version of a belief which is not even the one I was relying on.

All the relevant part of my argument requires is for

  • Taking an action (voting) to reduce the amount of money one person who is not you has (whether they be an ex-recipient of state funding or a new taxpayer) and increases the amount another has (whether they be an ex-taxpayer or a new recipient of spending)

to be more similar to

  • Taking an action (stealing and donating) to reduce the amount of money one person who is not you has (the victim) and increases the amount another has (the beneficiary of the charity)

than to

  • Taking an action (donating to charity) to reduce the amount of money you have and increases the amount another has (the beneficiary of the charity)

which is I think clearly true.

edit: formatting. Also I'm not American

Comment author: DaFranker 06 November 2012 05:25:51PM *  0 points [-]

It was indeed very strawman, of that I was aware. The strawman version is easier to get across and requires crossing less inferential distance in most cases I've experienced.

Thanks for straight-up telling me that I was pattern matching to the wrong belief. Upon reconsideration, this is clearly true. The grandparent deserves the downvotes.

Comment author: TimS 06 November 2012 05:47:01PM 2 points [-]

The strawman version is easier to get across and requires crossing less inferential distance in most cases I've experienced.

I've never found that to be true. It's an absence of evidence issue - if the best you can do is explain a faulty version of your opponent's argument, maybe you can't actually explain the real argument. Thus, there's no reason to trust the accuracy of your explanation.

Comment author: DaFranker 06 November 2012 05:55:28PM *  1 point [-]

Hmm, that's something I hadn't considered. Yes, maybe the real factor was that I wasn't explaining the real arguments as well, even after multiple attempts (which is probably because I don't understand them well, if true, because the lack of this common cause would imply statistical weirdness and that I should expect my next attempt at explanation to go remarkably well, right?).

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit