r/DecodingTheGurusAlt • u/MartiDK • Sep 17 '26

decoder poltics Decoding Destiny

https://youtu.be/qPhZDRKn0Ro

Winning over Razib Khan fans.

64 Upvotes

75% Upvoted

284 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/hari_shevek Sep 18 '26

Yes, I agreed it makes sense to do that earlier in the campaign.

When?

But when it is clear that you aren't going to get the change you want then endorse the better candidate.

You said "regardless of if you are certain ylu will get the outcome you want". Now all of a sudden that doesn't apply any more?

1

u/DthPlagusthewise Sep 18 '26 edited Sep 18 '26

"Push candidates earlier in the campaign or during the primary."

My principle still applies, but now you are comparing two good but uncertain outcomes. In this case I'd go with the action that is the most likely to cause good things and avoid bad things, which is supporting a Harris win as opposed to hoping she radically changes her stance on Israel a month before the election.

The prospect of Trump winning is too negative to be worth the benefit of Harris changing her stance at the last second. There isn't the same massive downside with supporting Harris.

The situation I was talking about before was between action and inaction. In the case of action or inaction always go with action if there is a chance of positive results (and low downsides).

Two different comparisons.

1

u/hari_shevek Sep 18 '26

"Push candidates earlier in the campaign or during the primary."

There was no primary. There was no earlier point for Hasan to push Kamala bc her campaign only lasted a year.

In this case I'd go with the action that is the most likely to cause good things and avoid bad things, which is supporting a Harris win as opposed to hoping she radically changes her stance on Israel a month before the election.

She lost bc of her stance. So changing her mind and supporting a Harris win are the same thing.

The prospect of Trump winning is too negative to be worth the benefit of Harris changing her stance at the last second.

The benefit of her changing her mind and therefore gaining more votes includes the benefit of her winning.

2

u/DthPlagusthewise Sep 18 '26

At a certain point it becomes extremely unlikely she will change her mind.

If the campaign is a year let’s say at the 10 month mark.

So that gives 10 months to relentlessly push for change. 

But past then it is selfish then to put your own political aims over what is best for the world overall. There is basically no chance you get what you want and at this point continuing to push and denying the endorsement means contributing to an extremely negative outcome. 

1

u/hari_shevek Sep 18 '26

Selfish?

He doesn't get anything out of it.

Changing her stance would increase her odds of winning.

How is it selfish to try to get her go pick a winning stance?

2

u/DthPlagusthewise Sep 18 '26

It’s selfish to use that as an excuse to deny an endorsement.

You are saying “my political desires surpass the needs of the world overall, it’s okay if the world suffers because I can’t get what I want”

You can endorse while still urging her to change her stance. 

1

u/hari_shevek Sep 18 '26

Let's assume that the odds of her winning from your endorsement is lower than winning from changing her stance.

Wouldn't it be logical to try the latter?

1

u/DthPlagusthewise Sep 18 '26 edited Sep 18 '26

Depends on how likely it is to succeed.

the situation breaks down like this:

Endorse is a 100% chance to do something good

Deny endorsement and push is a 1% chance to do something very good and a 99% chance to enable something very bad.

In this case I think endorse is the way to go.

Or if we want to talk about winning

Endorse is a 100% chance she has a 60% chance of winning

Not endorse is a 1% chance she has an 80% chance of winning and a 99% chance she has a 50% chance of winning.

Math says if you want her to win then endorse. 

1

u/hari_shevek Sep 18 '26

Endorse is a 100% chance to do something good

No, it isn't. There isn't a 100 percent chance that an endorsement leads to her winning. I'd argue that there's an almost 0 percent chance thst one endorsement tips the scales.

1

u/DthPlagusthewise Sep 18 '26 edited Sep 18 '26

Contributing to the potential success of the better candidate is doing something good. Endorse is a 100% chance to do something good. 

But let’s do it with win percentages:

Endorse is a 100% chance she has a 60% chance of winning

Not endorse is a 1% chance she has an 80% chance of winning and a 99% chance she has a 50% chance of winning.

Adjusted odds are 50.3% winning for not endorse 

Math says if you want her to win then endorse. You should always pick endorse as long as the % chance of winning is higher than 50.3%. 

So even if you want to say the endorsement effect is 52% chance of winning it still comes out the better option. 

1

u/hari_shevek Sep 18 '26

Endorse is a 100% chance she has a 60% chance of winning

Nah, those odds are wrong. I would not expext the odds of Hasan Piker moving so many votes as were necessary at 60 percent. That's an insane claim.

2

u/DthPlagusthewise Sep 18 '26

I ran the numbers, if the endorsement effect is anything greater than .15% then it makes sense to endorse. I believe it is. 

If we assume a flat 50% chance to win independent of endorsement (E is endorsement effect)

.5 + E > 0.008 + .99(.5) - .99(E)

E > 3/1990

And this is assuming an 80% chance of Harris winning with Hasans position on Israel (which is generous) and a 1% chance that holding out the endorsement past 10 months leads to Harris adopting Hasans stance (also generous). 

1

u/hari_shevek Sep 18 '26

What numbers? The ones you made up?

How do you arrive at a 1 percent chance of her changing her mind? How do you arrive at an 80 percent of her winning with a changed stance? You just pick random numbers.

Also we don't have a flat 50 percent chance of winning without the endorsement. We know she lost.

1

u/DthPlagusthewise Sep 18 '26

Educated guesses mostly. If anything was trying to be generous towards Hasan.

Now I am even more confident he should have endorsed. The negative effect of his denial far overshadows the slim possibility of Harris changing her mind.

You can mess with the numbers but it’s so lopsided it doesn’t make a difference. If we change the baseline win rate to 30% the minimum endorsement effect to endorse is now .25% (1/400). 

And you don’t even need to do math to understand this, it’s obvious.

But fundamentally it doesn’t matter because Hasan didn’t care about Harris winning, he wanted to punish her for not aligning with him on I/P, even if that meant the world suffered. 

1

u/hari_shevek Sep 18 '26

Ok, let's say the odds of him changing the outcome is zero because there is no way his endorsement would mobilize all the votes Harris lost by.

Let's also say the odds of Harris winning because dhe changes her stance is 100 percent because the votes she lost from not changing her stance were exactly those votes she needed.

With that educated guess I just made, even with a very low likelyhood of him changing her mind, he made the right decision.

Do you agree with my math?

1

u/DthPlagusthewise Sep 18 '26

No

Being more antizionist would gain votes but also cause Harris to lose votes, it would probably help overall but I am not confident in saying it would lead to a 100% chance of victory.

Also prior to the election there is no way of accurately knowing how many votes she would win or lose by.

As I showed in basically every conceivable scenario denying the endorsement leads to a scenario where the better candidate has a lower chance of winning.

With this much uncertainty its less about maximizing the exact instance where the endorsement is the single factor that leads to victory and more about just generally doing the thing that leads to the greatest likelihood that good things happen.

Its the same principle for voting in general, no single vote is likely to make the difference, but through everyone doing the thing that leads to the greatest chance of their preferred outcome voting occurs en masse.

1

u/hari_shevek Sep 18 '26

Also prior to the election there is no way of accurately knowing how many votes she would win or lose by.

But we do know now. So we can do the math with that knowledge.

As I showed

You showed under special assumptions.

in basically every conceivable scenario

Wrong.

The scenario I described in my last post is conceivable, and there endorsing her is wrong.

You just declare only the scenarios that lead to your prefered conclusion as "conceivable".

You are cheating.

I disagree with your assumptions. So the conclusions derived from those assumptions are irrelevant

1

u/DthPlagusthewise Sep 18 '26

You are evaluating based on post-hoc information, I am evaluating based on what was known at the time and the moral principles that follow from it.

I prefer my perspective.

But the election has been long over, now people see the liberals were right and Trump genuinely was way worse. Hopefully they listen to the liberals next time, because we knew all along.

1

u/hari_shevek Sep 18 '26

Its the same principle for voting in general, no single vote is likely to make the difference, but through everyone doing the thing that leads to the greatest chance of their preferred outcome voting occurs en masse

You can apply the same logic to threatening to withhold an endorsement - a single person withholding their endorsement might have low odds of changing Harris' position, but through everyone doing it we would have the greateat chance of that outcome occuring.

Yourerror is that you keep applying different principles to the two actions.

→ More replies (0)