Phil- clever heuristic, canceling idiots..though note that it
actually applies directly from a bayesian expected value
calculation in certain scenarios:
Assume you have no info about the voting issues except who the idiots are and how they vote.
Now either your prior is that reversed stupidity is intelligence in this domain or it’s
not. If it is, then you have clear bayesian grounds to vote against the idiots.
If it’s not, then reversed stupidity either is definite stupidity or it has 0 correlation.
In case 1, reason itself does not work (e.g., a situation in which god confounds the wisdom of the wise, I.e. You’re screwed precisely for being rational).
If 0 correlation, then the idiots are noise and provided you can count the idiots to be sure multiple of you don’t cancel one idiot, you reduce noise, which is the best you can do.
The doubtful point in this assessment is how you identify “idiots” about a voting situation which
Ostensibly you know nothing else about. In your examples, the info you used to identify the idiots seemed to require some domain knowledge which itself should figure into how you vote.
Assuming idiots are “cross-domain incompetent” may be true for worlds like ours, but that needs to be fleshed a lot more for soundness, I think.
Phil- clever heuristic, canceling idiots..though note that it actually applies directly from a bayesian expected value calculation in certain scenarios:
Assume you have no info about the voting issues except who the idiots are and how they vote. Now either your prior is that reversed stupidity is intelligence in this domain or it’s not. If it is, then you have clear bayesian grounds to vote against the idiots. If it’s not, then reversed stupidity either is definite stupidity or it has 0 correlation. In case 1, reason itself does not work (e.g., a situation in which god confounds the wisdom of the wise, I.e. You’re screwed precisely for being rational). If 0 correlation, then the idiots are noise and provided you can count the idiots to be sure multiple of you don’t cancel one idiot, you reduce noise, which is the best you can do.
The doubtful point in this assessment is how you identify “idiots” about a voting situation which Ostensibly you know nothing else about. In your examples, the info you used to identify the idiots seemed to require some domain knowledge which itself should figure into how you vote. Assuming idiots are “cross-domain incompetent” may be true for worlds like ours, but that needs to be fleshed a lot more for soundness, I think.