Let's Talk About Population Control

[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

[JKDS]

popping by to say two things.

First

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.

Thats awesome, and I've never heard the history of science explained like that before. Its totes true though.

Before I get to my next point, heres a distraction!



Alright alright. Second point.

I strongly believe, and studies give some support to this, that we are not creatures who are maximizing our utility...but instead minimizing harm. You might say that minimizing harm = maximizing utility, but I disagree. The difference is in the means...because at the end of it all...we're not trying to obtain good things...but avoid bad ones.

[rong]

popping by to say two things.

First



Thats awesome, and I've never heard the history of science explained like that before. Its totes true though.

Before I get to my next point, heres a distraction!



Alright alright. Second point.

I strongly believe, and studies give some support to this, that we are not creatures who are maximizing our utility...but instead minimizing harm. You might say that minimizing harm = maximizing utility, but I disagree. The difference is in the means...because at the end of it all...we're not trying to obtain good things...but avoid bad ones.

This is the only reasonable alternative to utility maximization I've ever heard. It's effectively the same thing, but technically different and equally as plausible.

[a500lbgorilla]

I strongly believe, and studies give some support to this, that we are not creatures who are maximizing our utility...but instead minimizing harm. You might say that minimizing harm = maximizing utility, but I disagree. The difference is in the means...because at the end of it all...we're not trying to obtain good things...but avoid bad ones.

Sure, but still. It's one of those things where you should pay attention to the idea of utility maximizing, pay attention to the idea of harm-reduction, and pay attention to a lot of other plausible ideas. Don't get married to one easy-to-serve idea.

[wufwugy]

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.

Even if coerced, making a decision means that your being, at whatever level, felt that decision was in its best interest. At the very least, that's the assumption.

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.

Can you think of an instance where a being chose something that it truly did not want? If the being wanted something different, would it not have chosen that thing?

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.

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.

It's not intuitive? I can't think of a single instance in which a being with any level of agency could possibly make a random decision. Randomness requires lack of agency.

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.

FYP

That's literally the opposite of science.

So, you can probably tell I'm a huge fan of internet debates. Well, the time I got obliterated in an internet debate the most was against a guy who had the lockdown on philosophy of science in a way I had never seen before. One of my main takeaways was that at the root of science exists entirely unscientific assumptions. When we're discussing base assumptions, we're not talking science per se; we're talking the things for which we can't get any deeper; hence we have no option but to make assumptions. This is at the root of the most rigorous and established orthodoxy of knowledge.

Evaluating base assumptions with the scientific process doesn't work. The scientific process is itself an assumption. Every field of knowledge has at its base assumptions.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Even if coerced, making a decision means that your being, at whatever level, felt that decision was in its best interest. At the very least, that's the assumption.

As far as I know, coercion is being physically forced to do something against your will.
IDK what you mean by coercion.

(1)Can you think of an instance where a being chose something that it truly did not want? (2) If the being wanted something different, would it not have chosen that thing?

(1) Blah blah yargle blargle. Nothing I say stops you from asking this question. Why do you ignore my answers?
Is it because I'm not arguing with you on your right to set the definitions at this point?
Or do you want more angles on how this is a naive way to describe humans? How about this:

People are complicated. We have layers of understanding and layers of emotions which blend into our perception of every moment. We constantly face decisions about which we are conflicted, but must choose quickly. We are not clearly definitively wanting the thing we chose. To say otherwise diminishes us from our unavoidable complex understanding of ourselves and our stimuli. It ignores our struggle to find "what is good?" in a morally ambiguous world.

Humans...
...are like onions.

But none of that matters because I'm willing to accept your definition as you stipulate it. It's your field, it's your first principle. It's your right to tell me exactly what you're saying. So in the terms of economics, I accept your use of the word rational to mean what you say it means. Can we move on?

(2) IDK at best, and I don't see how you can possibly know, either. What proof do offer to support your answer, either way. What would you consider ample counter-proof?

Recall that I have posited thus:
Some [people] 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 [...].

This is a common theme among people who have put their lives into harms way to rescue someone in a moment of need. They weren't thinking about maximizing or minimizing anything, they were half watching themselves do the things.

I did seriously lock my keys in my car once and it was literally (one literally) in slow motion. I was sitting there. I took out the keys from the ignition and set them beside me. Then a bit later I got out, locked the door and stood there looking at my keys and somehow calmly closing the door while mentally screaming at myself to not make this terrible thing happen. It happened.

Are you saying that I chose to lock my keys in my car? Because the facts in the story are that I consciously saw that it could happen, with time to NOT do it, and then proceeded to continuing to not want to do it as I saw it happen. By me.

So if that's not a counter-example, then you're not saying anything at all. If the person telling you what happens says they didn't want to do it and you say, "but you did it, so you wanted to," then you're either not listening to them or you're stripping all meaning from the word "want" and we're right back to you saying nothing more than "People do things" when you say "people are rational actors."

It's not intuitive? I can't think of a single instance in which a being with any level of agency could possibly make a random decision. Randomness requires lack of agency.

You keep saying that you can't think of something like as though that's somehow proof of anything other than your inability to think of it. That's not anything I can objectively observe and agree with.

Furthermore, I posit that you can not possibly know why anyone does anything unless you ask them, and humans are well documented to lie about this stuff. So get to your point.

People are rational actors... i.e. they do stuff... and...

So, you can probably tell I'm a huge fan of internet debates. Well, the time I got obliterated in an internet debate the most was against a guy who had the lockdown on philosophy of science in a way I had never seen before. One of my main takeaways was that at the root of science exists entirely unscientific assumptions. When we're discussing base assumptions, we're not talking science per se; we're talking the things for which we can't get any deeper; hence we have no option but to make assumptions. This is at the root of the most rigorous and established orthodoxy of knowledge.

Evaluating base assumptions with the scientific process doesn't work. The scientific process is itself an assumption. Every field of knowledge has at its base assumptions.

Don't pretend we're talking philosophy of knowledge level stuff, here.

You're trying to say that "we don't know that making falsifiable predictions and having non-invested parties test them to find a falsifiable occurrence and when this fails a lot, we consider it knowledge," is in question, here. It's not.

If anything what's in question is things like the Schroedinger equation.

It is true that the Schroedinger equation was simply hypothesized with no theoretical justification, and it works like a dream. To equate this to your statement seems to wholly misunderstand how many amazing things can be predicted and observed with this equation. It's not a hollow statement setting up a definition of terms. It makes bold predictions which most intelligent physicists believed were a load of hogwash.

E.g. The Schroedinger Equation predicts quantum tunneling. Meaning a particle has a non-0 probability of being where it doesn't have enough energy to get to. Like if you roll a ball up the hill, no matter what shape the hill is, the ball will not go higher than its initial kinetic energy equated to the change in gravitational potential energy. The initial speed determines the maximum height. The Schroedinger equation says this is not true for particles. Many physicists were like... "Ha! This can't be true!"
It is true. Schroedinger was slightly more right. His equation can't handle relativistic electrons in large atoms, but it's pretty good. Not as good as Dirac's equation, though. Dirac slightly more right.

Your statement has yet to be linked to any bold predictions.
I'm actually surprised at how many times I've described physics and the scientific process to you, but you still say the most backward things about these topics. I can practically pre-emp your next move by saying that the continuted progress of physics is that of refinement at this point. All the new surprises will come from energy densities well beyond what humans encounter without trying really, really hard.

[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.