[EM] Listening, and answering people's points of view

[Michael Ossipoff]

Richard says;

Jameson, I support your move to ignore someone who doesn't listen.

Debate is supposed to involve actually wanting to understand other
points of view.  But some people aren't really interested in understanding.

[endquote]

This vagueness--implications about unspecified instances of not
listening or disinterest in understanding the other person's point--is
hardly surprising, coming from someone who has shown himself to be not
so good at saying what he means in physics.

I'm going to comment on the above-quoted statements, because they
refer to, and exemplify, some of the most typical and common
deficiencies in EM discussion.

Richard says that I don't listen.   ...to what? I'm not just kidding
when I say that saying what you mean, and knowing what you mean, are
really all-important in discussions at discussion forums, including
EM. It's tempting to want to make angry noises, to imply errors or
wrongdoings. But specifying what one actually means or is referring to
is a bit more demanding, and so many people, including Richard, are
tempted to delude themselves that they've adequately made their point
when they've been entirely vague about what they mean.

I've sometimes been criticized, at various forums, on various topics,
for introducing new definitions...sometimes of new terms, sometimes
supplying a clear and precise definition for a term already in use.
Sorry, but clear, complete and precise definitions are needed for
discussions.

For example, Richard complained that I'd defined new criteria, and
introduced new terms (to refer to new distinctions). Some of the
criteria that I've defined are in wide use. The winning-votes
Condorcet class of methods, introduced and initially advocated by me,
has widespread popularity (...unfortunately. I no longer recommend
it).

But it isn't important what definitions we use, as long as we're
consistent, and as long as we're quite clear about what definition
we're using. That's the problem, of course--we often aren't.

Anyway, when you want to say that someone doesn't listen, that
statement is entirely without meaning unless you can be a bit more
specific. What, in particular, hasn't that person listened to?

Richard continued:

Debate is supposed to involve actually wanting to understand other
points of view.  But some people aren't really interested in understanding.

[endquote]

Another instance of flinging charges around, without any support,
justification, or specification of an instance of what the speaker is
referring to.

Because Richard made that comment in regards to a discussion with
Jameson, then I'll point out that I've made as much effort as can be
reasonably expected, to try to find out what Jameson was trying to
say, to try to find out what his point was, and how he justified it.
How many times did I ask him for that justification?

Several times  I clarified, and re-clarified, that it would be great
if a method as easily-counted as Majority-Judgment (MJ) could
significantly avoid, alleviate, ameliorate or solve the chicken
dilemma. So, interestedly, I asked Jameson to tell how it would do
that (He'd previously claimed, a few times, that MJ accomplishes
that).

Evasion doesn't accomplish anything worthwhile. The only worthwhile
way to answer an argument is to answer in terms of what the person
meant, in terms of what that person believes &/or means.

I've always answered in that way. And, unlike Richard and Jameson, I
haven't evaded answering. I've answered everything. And whenever
someone claimed that I didn't answer what he meant, I asked him to
better specify what he meant.

Richard says I don't try to understand other people's point of view?

Before starting my "Properties" article-series at Democracy
Chronicles, and for the purpose of that article, I asked some
questions at EM. Wanting to give a fair opportunity to state their
position, to advocates of traditional unimproved Condorcet (TUC), I
asked them, at EM, to answer some questions about what advantages TUC
has, to counter some specified disadvantages that TUC has, in
comparison with Approval, and in comparison with Symmetrical ICT.

I asked. But only you can answer. I did my part by asking. Receiving
no answers for a fair amount of time, I began the article-series
without the TUC defenses that I'd invited.

Afterwards, one person did cite two advantages of (some but not all)
TUC methods: Clone Independence and Reversal Symmetry. I immediately
answered that. I told why I didn't consider those criterion-failures
to be important for Approval, Score, ICT and Symmetrical ICT. Citing
criteria isn't enough. Someone should always be prepared to tell why
the criteria that he cites are important...specifically what problems
must result from failing those criteria. Telling why I didn't consider
the criterion-failures to be important is an essential part of the use
of criteria to evaluate methods. I briefly mention here that Kemeny
fails Clone-Independence.

I took the time, and devoted the article-space, to answering that
person's statements about criterion-failures.

Have I neglected to make the effort to understand Richard's point of
view? Regarding what? If Richard would be more specific, then I'd
answer whatever point of view he's referring to. I can't very well
answer it without knowing what he's referring to.

My main point at EM has been that drastically preference-distorting
strategy-needs shouldn't be disregarded. Favorite-burial need makes
nonsense of election-results--now, with Plurality, but also with other
FBC-failing methods.

Some of us discussed the matter of how often TUC will fail FBC. I
listened to the claim, the point of view, that TUC's FBC-failure won't
be a problem,  because the failure doesn't happen often. Instead of
ignoring that point of view, I respected it enough to reply to it.
Always reply to someone where they are, speaking to the beliefs that
they have.

So I pointed out that our mass media consistently hammer home the
belief that the winner will always be a Democrat or a Republican, and
the assumption, constantly supported by the media, that, though
there's corruption, it's universal and inevitable, and therefore
acceptable, and that, in particular, the Democrats are acceptable,
even if (to a Democrat-preferrer) a Republican might be unacceptable.

I pointed out that , given those beliefs, promoted by media, and
continually expressed by voters, the optimal strategy with TUC is to
vote the Democrat alone in 1st place.

We could argue endlessly (as some TUCists have) about how people will
vote with TUC. But what we _can_ say with certainty is what the
optimal strategy is (given the beliefs that voters are known to have).
So I pointed out that what we can say isn't something favorable to
TUC.

TUCists continue to try to wriggle, make optimistic self-serving
assumptions, etc. but the fact is that a look at optimal strategy
doesn't look good for TUC. One must wonder why some want to devote so
much effort to evasion about that, when there are methods that don't
fail FBC. Simple and particularly easily-counted ones, like Approval
and Score. Approval is the uniquely simple and elegant voting system,
and the most easily counted, after Plurality.

Additionally, there are methods that additionally meet CD, and
automatically avoid the chicken dilemma. Symmetrical ICT is a
Condorcet method that, while meeting FBC, also meets
legitimately-defined Condorcet Criterion, and automatically avoids the
chicken dilemma, and effectively share's Approval's Later-No-Help
compliance (by complying with 0-info Later-No-Help).

Additionally, for the general case, TUC's optimal u/a strategy is unknown.

Comparison of strategy and strategy-incentive doesn't look good for TUC.

I mention this topic because it's the main thing that EMers and I
disagree on, and so that makes it a good example, to bring out
discussion-ethics.

I've made every effort to elicit and reply to the arguments and points
of view of others.

In particular, I've asked Richard how he expects anyone to accept a
voting system for which his definition requires several pages. I've
asked him what about it is importantly good enough to justify Kemeny's
NP Hard count computation. I've asked him how long it would take to
handcount it, with 100 count-workers in each precinct, and 1000 at
central count headquarters, in an election between 20 or 25
candidates, with 100 million voters.

In fact, how long would it take to count a 25 candidate, 100 million
voter, election, using a typical home computer?

I don;t ignore people's point of view. I often ask for it. But some
people would rather just make angry noises and unsupported assertions.

Mike Ossipoff