Announcement: I have changed my argument for why voting is useless (but not my claim that it is useless.) @DanielPryorr take note. 1/
-
-
Replying to @St_Rev
St. Rev ☯️ 🏴 😻 Retweeted St. Rev ☯️ 🏴 😻
Original argument here: https://twitter.com/St_Rev/status/781334763370082308 … My mistake was getting distracted by the N-counting argument. The real point is the EV. 2/
St. Rev ☯️ 🏴 😻 added,
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @St_Rev
So: let's suppose you know with certainty that a vote, not counting yourself, will split 50-50. 3/
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @St_Rev
Then, *unless you have genuine secret knowledge* -- for example, you have an ancient book of prophecy that proves Donald = Lucifer -- 4/
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @St_Rev
...you should have zero confidence in your own belief that one candidate is better than the other. 5/
1 reply 2 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @St_Rev
This is analogous to the Hayekian information argument about trying to beat the market, although there's no price signal in sight. 6/
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @St_Rev
Rather, politics acts as a giant swarm of runaway feedback loops generating anti-knowledge. The effect is similar: you don't know shit. 7/
3 replies 2 retweets 12 likes -
Replying to @St_Rev
In sum: If the vote goes 50-50, you should be suspicious of your belief that Hillary - Trump ~= $300 billion. You're just another mark. 8/8
4 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @St_Rev
If education, IQ, political-informedness, etc. matter >0, ppl w/ more of these should beat average. Are you saying all literally 0?
3 replies 0 retweets 4 likes
Chaos Retweeted leon
Chaos added,
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.