Leading You Down the Choice Path: Rational Persuasion as Collective Rationality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores the advantages of a form of non-arbitrary path dependence within social choice called rational persuasion. Persuasion is characterized as conversationally leading one's protagonist down a particular choice path to a particular result. The choice path is enticing, or rationally persuasive, because it makes sense in a way that alternative choice paths do not. It tends to group, or partition, alternative choices in a way that either allows us to think of the partitioned alternatives as instantiations of some concept or presents us with some issue that we recognize as important in the choice situation. Not all partitions of the alternatives do this equally well. Nor are they as easy to talk about under the shared concepts that will organize, and be persuasive in, conversation. In this respect rational persuasion is a partition dependent idea.However, the paper also shows that the partitions have to be presented in a certain order if social choices (and the individual preferences that give rise to them) are going to be sensitive to the issues at stake as well as sensible under them. So, in the final analysis, rational persuasion must not only be partition dependent, but path dependent as well. However, contrary to what Kenneth Arrow suggests in Social Choice and Individual Values, such path dependent social choice is not arbitrary. Indeed, because rational persuasion is a form of social interaction that is both sensible and sensitive to the issues that divide us, persuasion is an exhibition of our collective rationality. It is a mistake, under the idea of a social preference ordering (which precludes path dependent social choice), to define it away as a possible approach to the social choice problem.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".