[EM] Anthony on mathematics and logic

[Anthony Simmons]

>> From: MIKE OSSIPOFF
>> Subject: [EM] Anthony on mathematics and logic

I'm not going to respond to each paragraph individually.
There are too many, and too much of it is devoted to
pointless machinations.  I will just respond to each topic.

On whether Richard's diagram shows something of interest to
voters:  I no longer even recall the details of Richard's
argument.  What I do recall is that it concerned how many
votes have to be moved, and how far they have to be moved, in
order to create a configuration that qualifies as a win.
Thus, Richard not only dealt with the overwhelming concern
of voters -- how their votes are reflected in the outcome --
but he even quantified his argument, and offered proof.

About this:

  >> By the way, are you one of the mathematically-trained
  >> people that Blake referred to, the ones whose words are
  >> especially valid? :-)

Accounting is training.  Mathematics is education.

If you mean, do I write haiku in Fortran, yes, I'd have to
admit that's me.


On namecalling:  Here is the definitive line:

  >> You see, that's the repetition that finally caused me to
  >> say things like twit, jackass, and idiot.

-- that it was my actions that caused you to be abusive.

No, I did not make you do it.

  >>Namecalling? When someone keeps repeating the same thing
  >>for long enough, on an issue that's been settled long
  >>ago, it's reasonable for someone else to finally lose
  >>patience and say things like "idiot".

Aside from the fact that this is an attempt to blame the
victim, I don't know how anyone could get the idea that
verbal abuse is reasonable just because it's a response to
having heard something repeated.  Nor was it merely a passing
comment.

  >> Anyone can lose patience with the kind of person who
  >> endlessly repeats the same blather about a long-
  >> concluded issue from a long-concluded discussion.

Anyone?  I was subjected to repeated name-calling, and did
not respond with abuse.  Neither have others.  I hardly see
that being subjected to a repetition qualifies as
overwhelming provocation.  Or any provocation at all,
frankly.

  >> . . .  But you must understand that after a certain
  >> amount of your inane repetition about concluded issues,
  >> those words just have a way of eventually slipping in.  ...

Verbal abuse doesn't just slip in by itself.  It is not
caused by a virus.

  >> First I try to subtly and politely answer that you
  >> needn't keep repeating it, and then eventually I really
  >> have no recourse but to try something less subtle to try
  >> to make it sink in.  . . .

You had no recourse???  That is a truly bizarre claim.  You
could also have declined to answer.  That was a recourse.
You could have been civil.  That was a recourse.  At least
most people had those options.

  >> . . .  I guess the namecalling was intended
  >> to get your attention, to direct your attention to the
  >> matter of whether it's really necessary to keep up the
  >> repetition on an issue that was settled a long time ago.

It was intended to serve the same purpose as any other name
calling.


On the value of Richard's remarks:

  >> Anyone can say that their mathematical approach is what
  >> accurately measures the will of the voters. The IRV
  >> advocates say that. The Margies say that. The Borda
  >> advocates say that too. It's a worthless claim unless
  >> it's supported by showing how the arguments relate to
  >> concerns expressed by voters. But someone as
  >> mathematically-trained as you are would understand
  >> that...right?

Richard quantified deviation from the will of the voters,
defined in terms of the ballots, and then used the diagram to
demonstrate his claim precisely.  How can knowing how the
outcome deviates from the will of the voters be of no
concern?

And then there's this:

  >> Now, you've said that I'm wrong about the voters wanting
  >> IRV because it has never been officially adopted.

  >> I reply:

  >> I said that? That's odd, because IRV has been officially
  >> adopted in Australia & Ireland.

Of course, you left out what I was responding to, as it
specifies the U.S., making it clear exactly what "not
officially adopted" means:

  >> I have no idea what you're talking about. In the U.S.,
  >> the voters haven't chosen IRV. In Australia they adopted
  >> IRV at a time when Condorcet was computationally
  >> infeasible and Approval was unknown. So what?

You respond to many small pieces in similar fashion.  The
strategy is to do what someone has called something like
"quoting out of context".  Like I have said before, I choose
not to be drawn into such shennanigans.


------Original message------
Anthony said:

Perhaps to see the real purpose of Richard's use of a
diagram, all you need is a little more explanation of the
purpose of geometric diagrams.  People use the diagrams
primarily not because of the aesthetic consideration.  If you
remember high school algebra, then you recall that if you
have two equations represented by lines, their common
solution is the point where the lines cross.  That can also
be explained entirely in algebraic terms, but so much of
human intuition is visual that diagrams are often understood
more quickly and remembered longer.  That was the reason why
Richard's diagram was useful.

I reply:

Anthony, we've been all over that a number of times. If you could
take the trouble to read the messages you're replying to, then you'd
notice that I said that Richard's diagram demonstrates some
numerical relations that Richard likes. I thought that we'd long-ago
gotten past the notion that I'm saying that Richard's diagram is
only artistically aesthetic to him. Its purpose is to show numerical
relations that Richard considers important. I said that already.

Namecalling? When someone keeps repeating the same thing for long
enough, on an issue that's been settled long ago, it's reasonable
for someone else to finally lose patience and say things like "idiot".

It's just a passing comment that's made when the person being replied
to doesn't seem to be able to get the message any other way.

By the way, are you one of the mathematically-trained people that
Blake referred to, the ones whose words are especially valid? :-)

Anthony continues:

LIkewise, Richard's use of mathematics in general is hardly
unusual.

I reply:

I didn't say that mathematics is unusual.

Anthony continues:

Nor does that mean his considerations are not
important to voters.

I reply:

Nor does it seem that they are important to voters. Maybe that's
what you need to consider more carefully.

Anthony continues:

Richard was talking about accurately
measuring the will of the voters.  Contrary to certain
assertions, that is indeed of concern to voters.

I reply:

Anyone can say that their mathematical approach is what accurately
measures the will of the voters. The IRV advocates say that. The
Margies say that. The Borda advocates say that too. It's a worthless
claim unless it's supported by showing how the arguments relate
to concerns expressed by voters. But someone as mathematically-trained
as you are would understand that...right?


Anthony continues:

Actually, I should point out that aesthetics and utility are
not entirely divorced.  One point of connection is based in
the fact that the people who are doing the math and using the
diagrams are human, and aesthetics does contribute to
understanding.  So even if someone makes an aesthetic
observation, it can't automatically be dismissed as
impractical.


I reply:

I didn't dismiss anything because it's aesthetic. I dismissed it because
it didn't relate to voter concerns.


Anthony continues:

Basically, that's my point.  I can understand that if you
want to disagree with me, you have to find something else to
disagree with, since I'm clearly right.  But if it's clearly
correct, why argue?

I reply:

If you're clearly right, then that settles it :-)

Now, on to less important things ...  When you objected to
Richard's use of the diagram, your objection had nothing to
do with voters.  It was just a mistaken belief on your part
that he was concerned about the aesthetics.


I reply:

Wrong. I made it clear from that start that Richard's reasons
for liking Margins, whether they're related to his diagram, whether
or not they're aesthetic, haven't been shown to speak to the concerns
expressed by voters. Richard said he doesn't care, and that's fine
too. You're the only one with a continuing problem about that
discussion, and a need to keep repeating the same statements about it.


Anthony continues:

Richard's
argument was concerned with what the voters want

I reply:

I missed that part, the part where Richard related his argument to
expressed concerns of voters.

Anthony continues:

; your
objection was not.  And I pointed that out.

I reply:

You pointed that out, and that's why I did the namecalling. I
made it clear from the start that my criticism of Richard's
argument was that, as important as it is to Richard, it doesn't
speak to concerns expressed by voters.

Anthony continues:

But you have managed to quote me as saying that Richard was
not concerned with what voters want.

I reply:

I didn't quote you. I merely said that again you've gotten it right.
Are you now saying that you didn't get it right?

Anthony continues:

That was, of course,
incorrect, but it was very clever.  Of course, a trick, no
matter how clever, is still just a trick.  Still, it is more
impressive than calling people twits and jackasses.

I reply:

Anyone can lose patience with the kind of person who endlessly
repeats the same blather about a long-concluded issue from a
long-concluded discussion.

But you're right: I shouldn't call you a twit or a jackass or
an idiot. But you must understand that after a certain amount of
your inane repetition about concluded issues, those words just have
a way of eventually slipping in. First I try to subtly and politely
answer that you needn't keep repeating it, and then eventually I
really have no recourse but to try something less subtle to try to
make it sink in. I guess the namecalling was intended to get your attention,
to direct your attention to the matter of whether it's
really necessary to keep up the repetition on an issue that was
settled a long time ago.


Anthony continues:

But it
would have been more impressive if you'd simply recognized
that your objection to Richard's use of the diagram:

   >> Richard has written about how one thing he likes about
   >> margins is that it looks nice on a certain diagram.

was mistaken and left it at that.

I reply:

You see, that's the repetition that finally caused me to say
things like twit, jackass, and idiot. As we've covered several times,
I said that I understood that Richard's diagram is merely an
illustration of relations that Richard considers important. And I
emphasized that I don't deny that they're important to Richard.
I also said that Richard's reasons, whatever they may be, might not
be merely aesthetic to Richard. I guess what I'm trying to get
through to you with is: You keep posting statements that were
answered long ago.

Anthony continues:

I notice you have also managed to put more words in my mouth:
"Twit Anthony is saying that if I don't want millions of
voters forced to dump their favorite because of the lesser-
of-2-evils problem, then I have to agree with the majority on
everything."  This is not nearly as clever a trick as your
other one.  It's merely a simple misrepresentation, and I'm
sure everyone caught it immediately, so nothing more need be
said about that.

I reply:

If you didn't mean that, then it's probably best if I don't ask
you what you did mean, because I might get you started on another
repetition. If you didn't mean that my concern about addressing
voters' concerns means that I should support IRV and everything
that wins majority support, then I admit that I have no idea what
you were trying to say. But I'm not asking you to say what you
meant.


Anthony continues:

Then there is the business of your criterion of only
considering what voters want.

I reply:

Anthony, do you know what a criterion is? I don't believe that I've
ever defined a criterion such as the one that you refer to.

Never mind what the voters want? What I repeatedly said was that
I'm concerned about strategy problems that make so many people
have to dump their favorite. I said that arguments about method merit
should address expressed voter concerns--like the lesser-of-2-evils
problem.

If you don't do that, then you have something that's very important
to Anthony, or to Richard, but that's all.

Anthony continues:

Now, you've said that I'm
wrong about the voters wanting IRV because it has never been
officially adopted.


I reply:

I said that? That's odd, because IRV has been officially adopted
in Australia & Ireland.

Anthony continues:

On the other hand, you insist that they
do want to avoid the lesser-of-two-evils problem

I reply:

I said that they're cowed & dominated by the lesser-of-2-evils
problem. It's pretty stupid to debate that here. If you don't talk
to voters yourself, then how do you expect me to convince you about
that?

But yes, advocates of single-winner reform usually say that they
want to get rid of the LO2E problem.

Anthony continues:

, so that is
relevant.  Need I point out that there is nothing official
about that either?

I reply:

Did I say that I consider LO2E important because it's official?

Anthony continues:

So, the one consideration is irrelevant
because it is not official, but the other unofficial
consideration is important.  Perhaps next time a brief
explanation of logic is in order.

I reply:

LO2E is important even though it isn't official (whatever "official" means)
, because, as I keep having to repeat, it cowes & dominates millions
of voters. IRV is official in Australia & Ireland. IRV isn't
official in the U.S. Do those IRV facts have some relevance to
my reasons for saying that LO2E is important, official or otherwise?
Or are you just invoking logic now, the way you've been invoking
mathematics, as a sort of magic word, an appeal to what you regard as
authority and
officialdom, by someone who feels a need to identify with those things?

Mike Ossipoff