You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

owencb comments on Polymath-style attack on the Parliamentary Model for moral uncertainty - Less Wrong Discussion

22 Post author: danieldewey 26 September 2014 01:51PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (74)

Comments (74)

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

Comment author: owencb 30 September 2014 09:45:24AM *  1 point [-]

If every voter's preference between X and Y remains unchanged, then the group's preference between X and Y will also remain unchanged (even if voters' preferences between other pairs like X and Z, Y and Z, or Z and W change).

This is the condition I want to give up on. I'm not even convinced that it's desirable.

Comment author: Sarunas 30 September 2014 01:19:09PM 2 points [-]

Something like independence of irrelevant alternatives or, at least, independence of clones is necessary to avoid spoiler effect, otherwise one can get situations like this one.

Comment author: owencb 30 September 2014 01:37:56PM 1 point [-]

Yes I think independence of clones is quite strongly desirable.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit