Let's Talk About Population Control

[MadMojoMonkey]

Careful now. If someone weren't maximizing his utility, it'd look just like he was.

I don't see how you, wuf, can even argue with this.

You said that every human action is a result of that person attempting to maximize their utility, even when the result is the opposite of maximizing their utility.

You said a person not addicted to heroine choosing to use heroine and in all likelihood become addicted is acting out of maximizing their utility. You said that all "negative outcomes" which happen to anyone are the result of those people acting to maximize their utility.

As it stands, all you've said is... here is a new word... it means everything bad that happens is the result of someone trying to make good happen, and all the good things, too. The word means all the things are 'cause people are trying to be good! They're just really bad at it, sometimes.

[wufwugy]

As it stands, all you've said is... here is a new word... it means everything bad that happens is the result of someone trying to make good happen, and all the good things, too. The word means all the things are 'cause people are trying to be good! They're just really bad at it, sometimes.

It seems you're thinking in terms of an overarching assessment of results. The base assumption is not concerned with what the outcome is; it is just an assumption that people want more good and less bad. This is for each decision; it's not a plan or anything. "Good" is 100% arbitrary.

If people are always deciding for more good, it necessarily means that even the decisions that look objectively poor to others are still good to that person. IIRC it was Gary Becker who first popularized this idea, using the heroin addict example.

[MadMojoMonkey]

It seems you're thinking in terms of an overarching assessment of results. The base assumption is not concerned with what the outcome is; it is just an assumption that people want more good and less bad. This is for each decision; it's not a plan or anything. "Good" is 100% arbitrary.

If people are always deciding for more good, it necessarily means that even the decisions that look objectively poor to others are still good to that person. IIRC it was Gary Becker who first popularized this idea, using the heroin addict example.

@bold... these sentences are meaningless when the meaning of "good" is left to each individual to define however they want and to consider whatever time-scale they like. This puts the definition in a spot where it has a subjective meaning for each perspective on each situation. There is no "truth" in the word when it bears all meanings.

[wufwugy]

I don't see how you, wuf, can even argue with this.

One of the base assumptions is that utility is always maximized.

If I could have chosen to word some of these economics things differently, I probably would have.

[MadMojoMonkey]

One of the base assumptions is that utility is always maximized.

If I could have chosen to word some of these economics things differently, I probably would have.

Go for it. It's a living language.

[Savy]

I don't see how you, wuf, can even argue with this.

You said that every human action is a result of that person attempting to maximize their utility, even when the result is the opposite of maximizing their utility.

You said a person not addicted to heroine choosing to use heroine and in all likelihood become addicted is acting out of maximizing their utility. You said that all "negative outcomes" which happen to anyone are the result of those people acting to maximize their utility.

As it stands, all you've said is... here is a new word... it means everything bad that happens is the result of someone trying to make good happen, and all the good things, too. The word means all the things are 'cause people are trying to be good! They're just really bad at it, sometimes.

People that use heroin are doing so due to a choice they are making that is usually a result of a pretty situation which it is an escape from. It's been shown that drug addictions are much less crippling both in terms of dealing with them and getting them in the first place in better off societies.

When people are making choices what exactly do you think is driving those choices?

Not that I don't agree that it's a fairly empty definition due to how vague it is & how poorly understood what really drives are decisions are.

[MadMojoMonkey]

People that use heroin are doing so due to a choice they are making that is usually a result of a pretty situation which it is an escape from. It's been shown that drug addictions are much less crippling both in terms of dealing with them and getting them in the first place in better off societies.

Obv. My point is... that person probably doesn't want to be addicted to heroine, they just want to feel better for a while. But they do something - which they have no reason to claim ignorance of - which will almost 100% have them addicted to heroine. My point is that person's choice to use heroine is explained as a choice to maximize utility.

My point is that same person at that same moment not doing heroine is said to choose to not do heroine in order to maximize their utility.

So no matter the outcome, it's said that the impetus was identical. What's the utility in this word? That's all I ask.

When people are making choices what exactly do you think is driving those choices?

IDK. People lie about why they do things all the do da day. I have observed that some people exhibit self-destructive behavior and will admit to as much when asked.

I only know that I sometimes make choices with low risk and I sometimes make choices with high risk. I sometimes make choices which I know will have negative consequences. I frequently do things which undermine my conscious goals.

Not that I don't agree that it's a fairly empty definition due to how vague it is & how poorly understood what really drives are decisions are.

To be clear, I'm not saying the thin definition is bad. I'm saying I don't see the utility in offering it as a starting point if it's not used as a foundation for greater understanding.

To me, it's no different than saying, "People have noses." Whether or not it's true is beside the point. What does it have to do with economics? / How can it help me to understand the economic world in which I find myself?

[Savy]

Obv. My point is... that person probably doesn't want to be addicted to heroine, they just want to feel better for a while. But they do something - which they have no reason to claim ignorance of - which will almost 100% have them addicted to heroine. My point is that person's choice to use heroine is explained as a choice to maximize utility.

My point is that same person at that same moment not doing heroine is said to choose to not do heroine in order to maximize their utility.

No that person is going to make a decision to do it or not do it. He will always pick one or the other. It is the act of actively picking one that is maximising his utility. If we understood people better we'd be able to say what that person was going to pick before they did & why.

I don't believe this has anything to do with long term aims or goals. It'll be a function of payout over time type scenario. If you think of it as there is a pain medication that if you take you'll be addicted to there would be a point where you were in enough pain where that short term benefit becomes worth it.

You can also argue that really comprehending the consequences of your decisions is actually a really hard thing to do. Whereas short term effects aren't.

IDK. People lie about why they do things all the do da day. I have observed that some people exhibit self-destructive behavior and will admit to as much when asked.

Not sure what this has to do with it & why it couldn't tie in.

To me, it's no different than saying, "People have noses." Whether or not it's true is beside the point. What does it have to do with economics? / How can it help me to understand the economic world in which I find myself?

I'm understanding it as more of here is a function that max with their choices what that function is is more the point of contention & clearly it's so abstract or whatever that it becomes a bit of a nonsense but it certainly can be applied to very simple scenarios in a very concrete way.

People make emotional decisions or impulsive decisions all the do da day, too. Not every decision is a rational choice.

There is much psychological evidence which suggests that people are totally full of lies when it comes to explaining their decisions, anyway. There is every reason to believe that our decisions are made many seconds before we become consciously aware of them, and we do a few little things to trick ourselves into thinking the decision is evolving in our minds, when really, we're stalling for time to come up with rational, word-based excuses to perform what we were gonna do anyway.

This is agree with. I'm not expecting people to understand the decisions they are making but I don't see why that won't become better understood with time & they are still making a choice.

[MadMojoMonkey]

When people are making choices what exactly do you think is driving those choices?

IDK. People lie about why they do things all the do da day. I have observed that some people exhibit self-destructive behavior and will admit to as much when asked.

Not sure what this has to do with it & why it couldn't tie in.

I'm not sure why my (lack of) understanding on the matter is relevant, mostly. Nonetheless, I think people have a variety of motivations which drive them throughout any given hour of every day. I can't figure out how I'm supposed to know what any of those are, though.

I can't think of any way to find out other than to ask the people why they did what they did.

Problem is: people are unreliable sources - especially when asked about their motivations.

Even discarding the unreliable reports about their motivations, I find the statement that there is no such thing as intentionally self-destructive behavior to be ignoring a wealth of evidence.

To write off the matter as if to say that all people are basically good is fine. You'll never hear me encourage anyone to act as though anything else were true. I've said repeatedly that I will choose to believe this even against evidence showing me otherwise.

So on the one hand, I think it's a fine attitude to hold about people - that they always act toward the greatest good they conceive. On the other hand, it seems to be blindly at odds with the actual reality of human experiences.

I'm not turning to economics for moral piece of mind, though. I can find much better sources for that.

[wufwugy]

Even discarding the unreliable reports about their motivations, I find the statement that there is no such thing as intentionally self-destructive behavior to be ignoring a wealth of evidence.

If somebody makes an intentionally self-destructive choice, did they truly want to make that choice? I don't see how the answer is not "yes". This is also why these choices are rational.

Try this: develop a consumption model three times based on three different assumptions: (1) assume people choose what they think/feel they want in that moment, (2) assume people choose what they think/feel they don't want in that moment, and (3) assume people choose randomly. In (2) and (3), you're gonna come up with some pretty terrible models that, if you're a business, will send you into bankruptcy.

This is why the base assumption is that people act rationally (choose what they want), even though it means that all actions are rational which makes the designation seem meaningless. If you try to model based on some other assumption, you get bad models.

Perhaps there is analogy in physics. An assumption at the base of science is that phenomena are consistent. If I'm looking at this assumption the way that I interpret you and Rilla looking at the economics assumption, I would say this: doesn't this mean that if something is observed it is by definition consistent? But what if it's actually inconsistent? I mean, lots of stuff looks inconsistent right? Doesn't this mean that the assumption that phenomena are consistent is meaningless since everything is consistent no matter what and there is no way to tell if something isn't?

The answer to the above is that if we assume phenomena are inconsistent or random, we can no longer do science because all our experiments and practices and models would be nonsensical. So, we use a base assumption that is not falsifiable in order to make sense of things.

Does this help?

[MadMojoMonkey]

If somebody makes an intentionally self-destructive choice, did they truly want to make that choice? I don't see how the answer is not "yes". This is also why these choices are rational.

Don't get me wrong, I see your point. If they weren't coerced, then they make their own choices, which means they are responsible for their actions.

My point is that it's more a statement which allows any moral or legal discussion to begin. After all, if we aren't making the choices which we choose, then how can we be judged for them or punished? It's a fundamental starting point in those topics, because it lays a foundation of personal responsibility, w/o which, the entire discussion is moot.

You're going further, though. You're saying people not only choose their own choices, but that they always choose what they believe to be best for them - maybe best in that moment. That's where I don't necessarily see where you're going with it.

Try this: develop a consumption model three times based on three different assumptions: (1) assume people choose what they think/feel they want in that moment, (2) assume people choose what they think/feel they don't want in that moment, and (3) assume people choose randomly.

You do your own homework, cheater!

In (2) and (3), you're gonna come up with some pretty terrible models that, if you're a business, will send you into bankruptcy.

I'm not gonna come up with anything. Have you given it your honest effort to do so, either? I'm somehow certain there are counter-examples which show that this statement is, at the very least, too broad.

It seems there's a decent amount of (3) involved in any good Murcan's consumer week. If you're not buying random sheet, then...
Bad Commie! Go to the mall and at least pretend you're trying to blend in.

This is why the base assumption is that people act rationally (choose what they want), even though it means that all actions are rational which makes the designation seem meaningless. If you try to model based on some other assumption, you get bad models.

What about all the examples of "bad models" enacted which exist?

How's this:
I propose that people choose rationally, and most of the time, they're focused on self-preservation, and improvement, even... but sometimes they do random stuff at their whimsy, too. Some do things and afterward say, "IDK why I was doing it. I wanted to stop doing it, but I kept doing it." when they describe that time they watched themself slowly lock their keys in their car.
I can prove it's the right description, 'cause look around.
If you try to base your model on anything else, you'll get hairy palms and a severe case of Mycoxafloppin.
So don't even think about that, bro.

Besides, since my theory describes everything all the time, the entire world economy is the result of it, the rise and fall of businesses are like tiny waves in the tide of nations. It's totes definitely because my theory is the only possible right theory. duh.

Perhaps there is analogy in physics. An assumption at the base of science is that phenomena are consistent. If I'm looking at this assumption the way that I interpret you and Rilla looking at the economics assumption, I would say this: doesn't this mean that if something is observed it is by definition consistent? But what if it's actually inconsistent? I mean, lots of stuff looks inconsistent right? Doesn't this mean that the assumption that phenomena are consistent is meaningless since everything is consistent no matter what and there is no way to tell if something isn't?

Ugh. Really?
Look at the history of physics, man. It's a long, sordid tale of raging nerds saying wrong things to prove to the other nerds how wrong they were, thereby climbing the nerd ladder of saying things very slightly less wrong than the poor nerd who was wrong. The upshot is that we have a collection of very clever things to say which haven't been proven wrong, yet.

History tells us that everything we now believe to be true displaced another explanation which was quite similar, but ultimately wrong, but which we believed to be true right up 'till that one raging nerd wouldn't shut up about it. It's only a matter of time until the next raging nerd comes along and shows us how ever so slightly wrong we are, now.

Seriously, though. In science, the things we say are falsifiable predictions. If even one example of the prediction being false is found, then we stop saying that thing. The fact that we say things are consistent is because we limit our topics of discussion very rigidly to things which can be predicted. This necessarily implies consistency. We only talk about things which are consistent. If a thing is shown to be inconsistent, then we stop talking about it.

We don't stop studying it. We just stop claiming we can make falsifiable predictions about it.

The answer to the above is that if we assume phenomena are inconsistent or random, we overcome the struggle against intuition that Quantum Mechanics presented over 100 years ago and make smart phones.

FYP

So, we use a base assumption that is not falsifiable in order to make sense of things.

That's literally literally the opposite of science.

Does this help?

Was it good for you?

EDIT: to add another literally

[a500lbgorilla]

If somebody makes an intentionally self-destructive choice, did they truly want to make that choice? I don't see how the answer is not "yes". This is also why these choices are rational.

You ever play a game that seemed to operate smoothly, but would bug out and do strange things if you entered in the right game-breaking orders?



Sometimes, the choice-methods of people that were developed to tackle certain problems can be broken when met with an exploit.

[a500lbgorilla]

People that use heroin are doing so due to a choice they are making that is usually a result of a pretty situation which it is an escape from. It's been shown that drug addictions are much less crippling both in terms of dealing with them and getting them in the first place in better off societies.

When people are making choices what exactly do you think is driving those choices?

Not that I don't agree that it's a fairly empty definition due to how vague it is & how poorly understood what really drives are decisions are.

Big cluster of neurons near the sense organs, built by genes, molded by evolution, adapted to experience, attempt to survive. Lots of overlapping circuits and newly growing functions that battle out for what to do in any given situation.

Something like that.