If education, IQ, political-informedness, etc. matter >0, ppl w/ more of these should beat average. Are you saying all literally 0?
Let's be clear about which problem we're addressing. I have a two-pronged critique of the Nate Silver doctrine:
-
-
1) As framed, it fails bc you should have very low confidence in your beliefs about global welfare *if a vote is 50-50*.
-
2) If you punt to a calculation on local welfare, you don't get a $300B denominator to offset 1/60M odds.
-
You might know, with some reliability, that Hillary's worth $1M to you personally. Expected value still < 2 cents.
-
This is all an entirely separate matter from my claim that voting is itself immoral, which I am not pretending to justify.
-
https://twitter.com/slatestarcodex/status/788119722340548608 … We're not arguing about whether to vote *on whether to vote*. You're the guy who hates meta, yeah?
-
https://twitter.com/slatestarcodex/status/788119483550461954 … The Hayekian knowledge argument is astronomically weaker than the efficient market hypothesis.
-
In this context, Hayek says "you don't know anything, & presuming to direct a society from such ignorance is catastrophic."
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
. Banned in Sweden. SubGenius, Zhuangist, white-hat troll. Defrocked mathematician. Brain problems.