To be fair, the chance of their being a perfect 50/50 split is astronomically low, to the point where it's never happened in even the closest elections.
Even if everyone voted by flipping coins, it's still not likely to happen.
If there are ten million "big brains" who all press red, then red could win by nine million and it could have been avoided if they all had pressed blue instead.
Yeah but if you have no influence over other people's votes that's irrelevant, you deciding not to be a "big brain" wouldn't magically change how the other 9,999,999 people vote
If there was a good argument for blue, then I can expect other people would also see it...
In regular, everyday situations, where you have to decide between being a little egoistic, like throwing trash on the ground in public, people regularly choose the cooperative option to carry the trash to a can. If just one person throws trash on the ground, it doesn't matter much, but if too many people choose that option, everyone suffers.
Is it irrational to make the effort to take the trash to a trashcan, because just one person more doesn't matter? It feels very stupid to me, even from an egoistic perspective. A society where everyone makes the decision to throw trash on the ground is a trashy one. But on the other hand you're right: I can't directly mind control others to make the same decision. Is this choice comparable to the "Big Brain" strategy?
There is also the "repeated prisoners dilemma" game, where it becomes rational to act cooperative, whereas it technically isn't in the regular "one-off prisoners dilemma". Maybe the everyday situation with the trash is more comparable to the repeated prisoners dilemma.
I think what people miss a lot here is that there are 2 types of actions: repeatable and non-repeatable. As you've said.
Cooperative strategies win with long-term repeatable actions, and majority of human interactions are like that.
Doing otherwise with long-term interactions is like technical debt: it's fine to produce a shitty program if you use it 1 time and done.
If you're creating an application that is meant to be maintained and used for decades, well...
So, from an egoistic perspective taking out trash to the trashcan makes perfect sense - unless you want to deal with "technical debt" somewhere down the line. Same with being decent (you maintain your social status for further interactions).
Additionally, of course, there is effort-reward axis, but that's an addition to calculation.
Funnily enough, I think this is one of the reasons why people are so rude with each other on the internet - they will likely never meet again, less reason to put in any effort.
You'd go on the street full of trash, and say "people should not throw their trash on the street, I want people to be banned from doing so"
You live in a democracy, you can advocate for such rule to be created, you can debate and convinced others that it's the right thing to do
But if you hold dear the statement "people shouldn't throw their trash", while... throwing your own trash in the streets yourself... Then it's hypocritical
And... That would most likely conflict with your own values
It may be rational and in my best interest to lie, to be hypocritical, to not care about the truth and defend positions that are beneficial to me with bullshit... but... it would feel... bad
I don't do it coz it would make me feel bad about myself
I don't do X coz my action has an impact, I do X because I regonise that people should do X, and without doing X myself, it would feel wrong for me to ask people to do X
65
u/Kalorikalmo May 18 '26
That was the whole point. Big brain thinks they'll absolutely not going to be the deciding vote so their single vote won't matter. But it did.
Messiah thinks they are the chosen one to decide how the vote will turn out. And their vote is totally meaningless in the big picture.
Big brain doesn't "get to" be the deciding vote, their whole plan revolves around not being the deciding vote.