That is a fair point. I would assume that it is an issue that will have a noticeble difference on those involved, but not a catastrophic one if lost (no apocalypse, for example).
In addition to CronoDAS's point that it depends on the issue, I suggest that it also depends on how much you sway the 200, how firmly you convince the 10, and what sort of people (with what sort of connections) the 10 and the 200 are. It's hard to see what could usefully be said in general.
I would assume that both groups have similar influence, but you can hand select ten near the most influential of the group you are convincing.
I would also assume those converted to a rational view would be relatively difficult to change back, while those swayed would be subject to the same biases you used to sway them in the first place.
Perhaps this was a foolish question, but even having my question picked apart is providing more for me to think about.
In most systems, 200 votes is nothing, mere noise. As such, swaying 200 votes is near useless. If you teach 10, then at least you can have the core of an organization or movement devoted to your topic, which will most likely have far greater influence.
Besides being amused by the concept of voting "correctly", I must point out that the comparison of teaching to vote influencing is a bit like apples and rutabagas -- it doesn't seem to be a useful opposition in the general best-possible-use-of-my-time context.
Given that losing is not catastrophic, it is the preferred tactic to create 10 agents with the same goal as you as opposed to a one-off finite gain.
In short: 1x(t)+200 < 10x(t) for sufficiently large t and positive values of x'(t)
Also ethically, I lean toward having 10 persons making informed decisions than 200 humans following the leader.
This is my first discussion topic, and I expect there is a reasonable chance I am doing something wrong and will be blasted for it, but shit happens. I fully intend to stay out of the discussion and try to understand other's insights before I add my own.
My question is this:
If you have one issue that you have decided is most important, is it better to teach 10 people to think about the issue the correct way or sway 200 to vote correctly, using some of your knowledge of their biases?
To answer this, I would suggest the following assumptions:
1. There is no third option to teach them to be rational in all things, however, your rational teachings may have some small effect on their rationality in all things.
2. Either group may spread your influence to others. There may be differences between the success rate of those who think rationally about it and those who don't, as well as some possibility of their mind being changed back.
3. There may be some risk that thinking in a way to sway the larger group has some "poisoning effect" on your own biases.
4. You may consider any other effects (guilt?) on yourself and your emotional state as a result of what you decide.
5. You are nearly certain that your side is correct. It is unlikely that there is much new information yet to become available to you.
6. The issue is of moderate importance. "Winning" will result in a noticeable positive impact, but losing is not catastrophic.
7. You may make any other reasonable assumptions, or disagree with the assumptions provided, if you can support them.
I am not considering this question for any practical purposes. It is merely an interesting question that crossed my mind, and I would like to hear some rationalist opinions on it.