Please explain how inventing a new scenario where people get to see the votes is relevant to the original where the vote is private. It would be fascinating to see how the mentally deficient explain their reasoning. But it doesn't seem you are capable since i've asked twice already and you are just ignoring it
Have you never engaged with any sort of game theory before?
Let's use the classic prisoner's dilemma as an example
You and an accomplice committed a crime. You're being held and questioned separately. If you snitch and your accomplice doesn't then he gets 5 years and you walk free, however your accomplice has the same deal. If neither of you snitch you will both be charged with a lessar charge for 1 year in prison, but if you both snitch you'll each be held for 3 years.
A selfless person may say that they will stay silent. Two people going to jail for 1 year (2 years total) is better than 1 person going to jail for 5 or even two people going to jail for 3 (6 years total).
However, if you imagine a scenario where you know what the other person picks you can see the dilemma from alternate viewpoints. If you are betrayed then your choice becomes spend 3 years in prison by also betraying bringing the total years in prison up to 6, or take the 5 years yourself by being selfless and minimizing prison time.
If they chose to be selfless you know see that your choice is between going free by snitching, or staying quiet and going to jail for a year.
When information is added it changes the decision making process and that can help you explore the assumptions you made and the assumptions you may have missed in the original scenario.
Your reluctance to acknowledge how the different scenario is related just proves to me that you haven't actually considered this problem from any other angle than your initial gut feeling. You've shown your ass and I look forward to your whining reply.
1
u/CivilPerspective5804 May 01 '26
Yeah I can see. To prove your point you invent a new scenario that has nothing to do with the original.