Agree with your point. But notice that if we consider the case in which you actually win, which would be GuySrinivasan’s proposal, then those 4 millions you win in the lottery could be invested in things that will have much greater proportional impact, for you’d be investing in the curve’s tail....
Just a reminder. The post is NOT about politics and voting. It is about overdetermination and decision theory.
A probability of 1 in 10 million is tiny but, as discussed by Edlin, Gelman, and Kaplan (2007), can provide a rational reason for voting; in this perspective, a vote is like a lottery ticket with a 1 in 10 million chance of winning, but the payoff is the chance to change national policy and improve (one hopes) the lives of hundreds of millions, compared to the alternative if the other candidate were to win.
(it was 1 in 10 million in New Mexico, Virginia, New Hampshire, and Colorado)
If you want to make a post about overdetermination, I’d say don’t use the voting example, since here’s one person at the very least who thinks the example’s far from clear-cut. The movies thing is fine—the probability enough people go to ruin everyone’s experience times the experience ruined is still tiny, not plausibly large.
Agree with your point. But notice that if we consider the case in which you actually win, which would be GuySrinivasan’s proposal, then those 4 millions you win in the lottery could be invested in things that will have much greater proportional impact, for you’d be investing in the curve’s tail....
Just a reminder. The post is NOT about politics and voting. It is about overdetermination and decision theory.
A quote from the linked article:
(it was 1 in 10 million in New Mexico, Virginia, New Hampshire, and Colorado)
If you want to make a post about overdetermination, I’d say don’t use the voting example, since here’s one person at the very least who thinks the example’s far from clear-cut. The movies thing is fine—the probability enough people go to ruin everyone’s experience times the experience ruined is still tiny, not plausibly large.