Does anyone know if there is a name for the phenomenon where one ignores (or discounts) the consequence of an action because they don’t see the direct impact of that action?
For example, someone might think it’s not important to vote in a national election, because they think their own vote won’t make any difference. (This wouldn’t be the case, let’s say, in a jury vote, because they know exactly how their vote will be important.)
Is it perhaps a kind of logical fallacy?
Generally I would call it short-sightedness, but that doesn’t quite cover the election situation. I don’t know how to describe that. I made damn sure I and my wife voted in the coming election (we have already mailed in our ballots) even though in IL it cannot make any difference.
Your example is not a fallacy, it’s true. The probability that one vote in millions will affect a majority outcome is much smaller than the probability that one vote in twelve will affect a majority outcome.
The fact that it’s not a fallacy is precisely why voter turnout is low. It’s the reason it’s challenging to convince people to be socially responsible - to do their part, even though the effect of their individual contribution is small, in contributing to mass outcomes. This is somewhat similar to the environmental phenomenon of the “tragedy of the commons”.
Well, it’s often true on the individual level, but if huge percentages subscribed to it, there would be massive consequences. And since ultimately everyone is only responsible for their own actions, each person needs to take responsibility for the entire system.
Of course, this isn’t only a question of elections: it applies to actions we take regarding the environment, the pandemic, etc.
This is what I was going to say here.
Most of actions, for better or for worse, have very little impact outside of our little slice of the world that we perceive.
However, cumulatively, our actions do.
Which is why it is very difficult to get people to voluntarily do the right thing, when it is inconvenient to them, as they can rightly say that their particular action won’t have a discernible effect.
When I saw the OP’s question, the first thing that came to mind was climate change, but in a different sense than the OP’s example. So it occurs to me that the phenomenon being asked about is actually two distinct phenomena, and a given behavior can be the result of either or both of them:
The phenomenon of individual interests and motivation running counter to the greater good of the community. This seems to be mostly what’s being talked about here. Not bothering to vote is a prime example of that. As @Riemann mentions, in the context of environmentalism this has been called “the tragedy of the commons” and results in things like counterproductive behaviors and wasteful resource utilization. This aspect can be summed up as “my bad behavior will make absolutely no difference in the big picture”. It can also reflect a willful disinterest in “the big picture” or in the common good of the community. Its ultimate driver is selfishness.
The phenomenon of not being able to see the impacts of your actions until it’s too late, and the consequences have become irreversible. It’s not obvious to the casual observer what their carbon emissions are doing to the environment. The environment changes slowly in the frame of human perception, and the increasing incidence of extreme or unusual weather events is hard to notice in the short term, and the attribution to climate change is not obvious. I don’t know that this phenomenon has a name analogous to the “tragedy of the commons”, but it’s well described by the “boiling frog” metaphor. This aspect can be described as “my bad behavior must be harmless because I don’t see any harm”. Its ultimate driver is ignorance.
Phenomenon #2 is at least as common as #1. It’s why many of us still smoke, drink too much, or engage in unhealthy lifestyles. It’s precisely why, in some places anyway, cigarette packages have not only warning labels but scary pictures of diseased lungs to try to hammer in the point.
The public understanding of climate change has unfortunately fallen victim to both of these phenomena at the same time.
A young girl was walking along a beach upon which thousands of starfish had been washed up during a terrible storm. When she came to each starfish, she would pick it up, and throw it back into the ocean. People watched her with amusement.
She had been doing this for some time when a man approached her and said, “Little girl, why are you doing this? Look at this beach! You can’t save all these starfish. You can’t begin to make a difference!”
The girl seemed crushed, suddenly deflated. But after a few moments, she bent down, picked up another starfish, and hurled it as far as she could into the ocean. Then she looked up at the man and replied, “Well, I made a difference for that one!”
I removed my earlier post, because I had missed the point.
Tripler
We now return you to the original intent of the OP.