zeke5123
2yr ago
Not as bad, but we took my MIL with us on a very expensive kids vacation to a certain place in Florida.
It was amazing how negative my MIL was most of the time and how little she seemed to want to interact outside of taking “photos.” Her grandkids were having the time of their lives but she seemed incapable of connecting. I just don’t get it.
zeke5123
2yr ago
But in the year of the shadow war it became something better. Our last best hope for victory.
zeke5123
2yr ago
I was really hoping that hyperlink was to a story about some idiot wearing flip flops at a foundry because that would prove to me the multiverse theory!
zeke5123
2yr ago
The question is does game theory model accurately model human behavior. If yes, then regardless of whether people know what a Nash equilibrium is, it will still exist. If no, then it won’t.
zeke5123
2yr ago
Same. It makes it a lot harder. It’s also crazy how unwilling my MIL is to help.
zeke5123
2yr ago
Disagree. Picking blue is painless in the Twitter poll. There is zero harm to them. So they can posture with zero consequences.
zeke5123
2yr ago
It could also be that voting on Twitter is just fundamentally different from “voting” where picking blue may actually kill you.
zeke5123
2yr ago
Just because people don’t understand game theory terms doesn’t mean game theory cannot explain actions.
zeke5123
2yr ago
The arguments of the anti suffragists are actually quite complex. One interesting thing is that it turned women’s activities into political instead of apolitical.
zeke5123
2yr ago
Quite the contrary. I’m not trying to pick apart your words. I’m assuming you are using words in their ordinary English usage to convey meaning. But you seem to keep shifting what your words mean and therefore what you are saying isn’t obvious and it is hard to nail down exactly what you mean.
I’m arguing your premises are wrong and then you keep responding that I’m not understanding your implication but I’m looking at the words to understand your implication.
zeke5123
2yr ago
It just seems so obvious yet some people are arguing against it. I honestly cannot model their thought process (outside of them treating the thought exercise solely as an exercise instead of thinking — how would people actually vote if voting the wrong way could lead to their death).
zeke5123
2yr ago
As explained above, this requires trust in strangers where the punishment for breaking trust differs on which agreement is made. If the agreement is “we all pick red” the agreement breaker suffers. If the agreement is “we all pick blue” then the agreement keeper suffers.
Thus, it seems more logical to explain this and get everyone to vote red.
zeke5123
2yr ago
You keep making claims that don’t seem to reflect reality. Knowing nothing else (ie not knowing what other people pick) it is far from obvious that blue is maximizing EV.
zeke5123
2yr ago
Then try writing precisely. You voting blue absent cooperation doesn’t guarantee anything. It only guarantees the possibility of a good outcome if you condition good outcome as “everyone lives.”
If you are so sure some might fuck up the decision, then perhaps we could reframe good outcome to mean “the most lives saved.” In that case, neither option ex ante guarantees anything.
zeke5123
2yr ago
Not just no reason to lie but no need to trust. The cost of trusting that someone will vote blue is that if they vote red you may die if you vote in accordance with the agreement. The cost of trusting that someone will vote red red is that if they vote blue they might die if you vote in accordance with the agreement.
Lying is punished when the agreement is voting red; lying isn’t punished when the agreement is to vote blue.
zeke5123
2yr ago
Knowing nothing else doesn’t add anything to your argument. Your argument seems to be that there are enough blue pill takers that your vote makes a difference. I doubt it.
zeke5123
2yr ago
And my guess is that something like 97%-99% of an adult population actually faced with this absurd decision would pick red and therefore it is EV negative to pick blue.
zeke5123
2yr ago
The scenario provided was you can choose blue or red.
You then said “well the only way to guarantee a good outcome is by choosing blue.”
I pointed out that isn’t true. You then said well conditional on everyone knowing that a kid took the blue pill and cooperation then the only way to guarantee a good outcome is blue.
But that changes they hypo.
I think there needs to be a distinction between boorish behavior and sexual assault. We should condemn the boorish behavior but it is different in kind; not just degree from sexual assault. Feminism has sought to blur the distinction.
More options
Context Copy link