I’m currently doing research into political candidates to decide how I’m going to vote. It’s tedious because I don’t know of a good system that prescribes how much research to do and what exactly to factor into my voting decision. I’m wondering whether the information in Yudkowsky’s “We Change Our Minds Less Often Than We Think” would justify a lazy approach: once I start leaning one way or the other, assume that more information won’t change that (because We Change Our Minds Less Often Than We Think) and move on.
That seems like the wrong take away to me. Why do we change our minds so little?
1.)Some of our positions are just right.
2.)We are wrong, but we don’t take the time and effort to understand why we should change our minds.
We don’t know which situation we are in beforehand, but if you change your mind less than you think you do, doesn’t that mean you think you are often wrong? And that you are wrong about how you respond to it?
You could try to figure out what possible things would get you to change your mind, and look directly at those things, trying to fully understand whether they are or are not the way that would change things.
I have spent many hours on this, and I have to make a decision by two days from now. There’s always the possibility that there is more important information to find, but even if I stayed up all night and did nothing else, I would not be able to read the entirety of the websites, news articles, opinion pieces, and social media posts relating to the candidates. Research costs resources! I suppose what I’m asking for is a way of knowing when to stop looking for more information. Otherwise I’ll keep trying possibility 2 over and over and end up missing the election deadline!
Stop actively looking (though keep your ears open) when you have thoroughly researched two things:
First, the core issues that that could change your mind about who you’d think you should vote for. This is not about the candidates themselves.
Then, the candidates or questions on the ballot themselves. For candidates: Are they trustworthy? Where do they fall on the issues important to you? Do they implement these issues properly? Will they get things done? Are there issues they bring up that you would have included? If so, look at those issues without referencing the candidates themselves, then go over the candidates with the new issue too.
You will not know everything at the end of this. You may very well run out of time. If you do, honestly query your own state of knowledge. Even if you don’t know everything, is it enough to make an informed decision that would be better than letting it be decided by a slim majority of your fellows? (Over time, you’ll get a better sense of when this is, and not need to approach it formally.)
If it is, do it. If it isn’t, then don’t vote -there’s nothing shameful about deciding you don’t know enough yet (and start researching further in advance in the future). Voting is an important duty of citizenship, but better to not do it than do it in ways where you are likely to contribute wrongly.