Choice VI

 

What'd I Say, Pt. 1

See the girl with the red dress on
She can do the Birdland all night long, yeah, yeah
What'd I say?
All right
Well, tell me what'd I say

I want to choose what I want, not what you say!

The moral imperative is strong in the United States.  Whether it is religion, alcohol, pornography, sex work, drug use, birth control, abortion, miscegenation, misogyny, etc., those who have chosen to not use or do something feel superior to those who might choose to use or do it.

But if there is one choice, Good and no choice, Not Good, which is different than Good and Evil which is two choices, Good, Evil and no choice, Not Good/Not Evil, then forcing your choice on others results in fewer individuals in the same time making the same choice that you did.

Regardless of whether you force everyone to make your choice, or you let them make their own choice, ultimately everyone will make the same choice.  It is just that mathematically you can show that more individuals will make that choice if they are not forced.  Forcing a choice gets to that choice at a slower rate.  Changing the variance, the range of choices, does not change the Cumulative Distribution Function where everyone is forced to make one choice, an exponential distribution.  However increasing, or decreasing, the variance, σ², whose square root goes by the term standard deviation, only changes the shape of the cumulative random choice slightly.  It appears that thinking that this is the only choice confuses the choice with the variance.  However if only one choice is available, then the range, s, which is half of that choice, and the variance is 0.822 not 1.  In fact it is not until s=1, which implies two choices not one, that the random continuous curve approaches the exponential distribution curve which has a discontinuity at a location, µ.

The point I am trying to make is that it is the destination, not the path to reach that destination, that is important.  Acting like your path is the only path ignores those who reached that destination before you, but chose a different path.  And it ignores those who would have reached that destination after you but might have chosen a different path.  Acting like there is only one destination, when in fact this is more similar to the results of choosing that destination AND its opposite, a hyperbolic tangent, rather that one destination and no destination at all.

So by forcing everyone to choose your path, you are making it slower for everyone to reach the same destination as you; and you are implicitly acknowledging that there are two destinations, not one.  You are making not an argument between pro-choice and no choice.  You are making the argument between two opposing choices.  You are actually arguing for more standard deviation rather than less.

But will the math convince anyone?  LOL, the same people advocating for only their path are the same ones who tried to get the value of pi, π, changed to 3, because they thought otherwise the math was too hard.  Arguing for “no choice” is like arguing that 2+2=5. Why argue in favor of truth when there are alternatives facts, …uh lies….,  available?