(Credit: by BU Interactive News)
On Super Tuesday, Democratic voters from Colorado and across the United States will face a serious decision: Sanders or Warren? Biden or Bloomberg? Then, afterward, what kind of wine to drink?
Now, a new study taps into mathematics to 鈥攊n particular, how hypothetical, and completely rational, individuals might select between two options as they navigate through a noisy social environment.
Say you have a friend who has been a staunch Sanders supporter in the past. It鈥檚 the night before the primary, and they still have not made a decision about who they鈥檙e going to vote for. That suggests that they have received some evidence that鈥檚 in conflict with voting for Sanders."
鈥揨achary Kilpatrick
It turns out that not making a choice can sometimes be as revealing as picking a side, report researchers from the 彩民宝典 and the University of Houston. When the people around you are indecisive, for example, that can have a big influence on your own choices.
鈥淪ay you have a friend who has been a staunch Sanders supporter in the past,鈥� said Zachary Kilpatrick, a coauthor of the new study and an assistant professor in the at 彩民宝典. 鈥淚t鈥檚 the night before the primary, and they still have not made a decision about who they鈥檙e going to vote for. That suggests that they have received some evidence that鈥檚 in conflict with voting for Sanders.鈥�
Kilpatrick will at a meeting of the . (The physical conference has been canceled due to public health concerns).
The group鈥檚 findings, while theoretical, could still inform how we should address real-world problems鈥攆or example, the spread of misinformation on the internet, he said.
鈥淚f we want to combat the hijacking of our social information networks, we need to understand in a quantitative way how peoples鈥� beliefs are swayed by their social connections," Kilpatrick said.
Dreaded decisions
His team鈥檚 research zeroes in on a major question in a field of study called decision-making theory: How people make choices based both on their own, private research鈥攕uch as watching televised debates鈥攁nd through their social interactions鈥攕ay, checking out their friends鈥� posts on social media.
Kilpatrick compared that goal to the classic battle of wits between Vizzini and the Dread Pirate Roberts in the 1987 film The Princess Bride. In that scene, the pirate claims to have poisoned one of two glasses of wine. Vizzini, a scofflaw of supposedly vast intellect, must choose the one he thinks is safe to drink.听
It gets complicated.
鈥淲hat Vizzini says is that he knows what the Dread Pirate Roberts knows that he knows,鈥� Kilpatrick said. 鈥淏ut he takes multiple loops through what we call a 鈥榗ommon knowledge鈥� exchange before he makes the decision on the wine glasses.鈥�
What Vizzini says is that he knows what the Dread Pirate Roberts knows that he knows."
鈥揨achary Kilpatrick
In other words, when you make such an exchange, you need to not only consider what you know about your opponents, but what they know you know about them鈥攁nd on and on.听
To explore similar kinds of intellectual spirals, Kilpatrick and his colleagues used a series of equations, or mathematical models, to simulate social interactions of varying complexity. Their models didn鈥檛 revolve around real-life voters, or even pirates, but 鈥渞ational agents鈥濃�攖heoretical deciders who always make the right choices based on the evidence available to them.听
The researchers discovered that, when time is of the essence, two fictional voters might go through mental loops akin to Vizzini鈥檚 thought process.听
鈥淲e鈥檙e both watching the same news show, for example, and I look over to you to see if you鈥檝e made a decision or not,鈥� Kilpatrick said. 鈥淲e have to account for our common knowledge multiple times until we鈥檝e adequately squeezed all of the information that we can out of the fact that you haven鈥檛 made a decision yet, and I haven鈥檛 made a decision yet.鈥�
Eventually, it stops. One voter or group of voters in a network might finally receive enough information to feel confident about their choice. And when that happens, other voters might get the impetus they need to quit听dithering, too.
The researchers report their findings in a preprint publication online.听
Messy humans
Kilpatrick is quick to note that, of course, no voter is perfectly rational. But scientists can still learn a lot by studying where real-life humans fall in line with what theory suggests they should do鈥攁nd where they don鈥檛.
People should also always try to be aware of the baggage that others in their social networks carry, he added.听
鈥淲hen we鈥檙e determining how political leaders or people in our networks make decisions,鈥� Kilpatrick said, 鈥渨e should think hard about how 听those individuals are biased in order to figure out what we should take away from their decisions.鈥�
As for your Super Tuesday decision, learn from Vizzini鈥檚 example and steer clear of the wine.
