Posted: May 17, 2018 10:37 pm
newolder wrote:Xerographica wrote:...
I think it's useful to be able to compare your rankings with our rankings. Assuming, of course, that our rankings accurately reflect our true priorities/preferences.
Nope, you've lost me completely here. Let's say your rankings were skeptic a, skeptic b and skeptic c each had 33% of the total vote whilst our rankings had 1 cent donation for skeptic q, $1 donation for skeptic r and $1Million donation for skeptic s.
A) How do you validate your stated assumption and B) how do the rankings compare? (Hint: They don't.)
Let's imagine this is my true ranking...
1. Evolution
2. God
And this is your false ranking...
1. God
2. Evolution
I compare my true ranking with your false ranking. I don't know that your ranking is false so I tell you all about why you should rank evolution higher than God. You respond that you actually already rank evolution higher than God.
The point of comparing rankings is to facilitate the sharing of the most useful information. The problem with false rankings is that they facilitate the sharing of the wrong information.
Donating rankings, unlike voting rankings, will accurately reflect the group's true priorities/preferences. As a result, members of the group will share the most useful information with each other.