|
Originally Posted by wufwugy
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.
Originally Posted by wufwugy
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!
Originally Posted by wufwugy
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.
Originally Posted by wufwugy
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.
Originally Posted by wufwugy
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.
Originally Posted by wufwugy
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
Originally Posted by wufwugy
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.
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Does this help?
Was it good for you?
EDIT: to add another literally
|