Separate the ideas for me because I sound close enough.
Printable View
Separate the ideas for me because I sound close enough.
Yeah, we live in a monogamous society but I was talking about monoamary. Same difference.
You're only right when you exhaust wrongness. I will always be wrong, but that wrongness is a part of discovering that which is correct. The real problem is when learning what is wrong is devaluedQuote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
Dumb is rational. Rational behavior in economics isn't about smart behavior, but merely consequential behavior. A drug addict rationally acquires drugs.
Sure incentives exist for self-improvement, but a whole bunch also exist for self-diminishment. Aggregate incentives don't heavily favor success. They probably only slightly favor it, which could explain why we have a society that makes slight positive improvement
Yeah, economics is full of it on that one.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/...l-behavior.asp
Rational behavior yields the highest utility? How do we measure utility? Well whatever they choose had the most it, be it emotional gains or financial.
That's why I'm backing Behavioral Economics.
They're not full of it on that one. It appears that the dissenters of rational choice theory in behavioral economics simply don't understand rational choice theory. The dissent seems a little much like the "god of the gaps" fallacy, where if you can't explain how something is rational, just call it irrationalQuote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
Rational choice theory holds that even that which appears irrational is rational. This is because the making of a decision, regardless of how or why, is the optimal choice that the person could make, which is why it was made. The body doesn't make choices it doesn't deem optimal, regardless of how "wrong" that may be
The difference is this:
Group A thinks they can set up a series of assumptions and derive from them models which predict economic reality. Group B thinks they should observe economic reality and model it to see if any of them can predict the outcome of a novel situation.
Pick your pony.
On the topic of polyamory: Primarily, women are driven biologically to find the single strongest male they can to mate with, so it doesn't really work for them to begin with in the general sense. On the other hand, men are driven to mate with as many of the best females that they can get as they can handle. Polyamory being socially acceptable leads to polygamy with the same problems because of these dynamics.
Polygamy is about marriage and polyamory isn't. That's a huge, huge difference. Polyamory is just about how you conduct your relationship. You can be married to one person and be polyamorous.
The reason I think people would on the whole be happier if they understood that polyamory was a viable option is because many people grow up thinking that there is something inherently immoral or wrong about having sex with someone else/being sexually attracted to someone else/having feelings for someone else/etc. while you are in a relationship. There isn't. What makes a relationship work is honesty and communication, with yourself and with your partner. That's the essence of a successful relationship. Not sexual, or even emotional, exclusivity.
Imagine how many people are serial cheaters because they are trying to force themselves into the square hole of monogamy when they are clearly circles. ("Square" is incidental here, that wasn't a jab at monogamous folk.) This is not a defense of cheating but just illustrating the point that many people think monogamy is the right way, the moral way, and that they have to force themselves into it because there is no other option.
Well, there is. And if we didn't grow up having all these notions of what the model relationship looks like forced down our throat, and narrow, confining delineations of what kinds of sexuality are acceptable, we might understand ourselves and each other better.
I know many polyamorous and happy women, lol.
Spoon, what you said might apply to the majority of females, and that's fine. I don't think polyamory is going to eclipse monogamy any time soon. But it should be socially acceptable because we're all adults and can make our own decisions about our love lives, and other people should accept that.
edit: Actually, no. I don't think that applies to the majority of females. I have no idea why you are so wedded to these silly gendered blanket statements. It's not that there's no truth to them but come on. People are way more complicated than this. Women are sexual as fuck. We've just been guilted for it from day 1.
doubledit: On second thought... You might be right regarding a problematic dynamic arising from a very general pattern (the difference between men and women) if polyamory was 100% socially acceptable. I don't know. It's complicated. I have to think about this, there are so many factors. Polyamory isn't necessarily relationship anarchy.
Also, polyamory doesn't mean that the guy can just do whatever he wants and then woman needs to suck it up (and vica versa) -- it still requires mutual agreements and compromises on both ends. So that alone could also mitigate the problematic dynamic you bring up.
I do wonder whether monogamy would remain prevalent if polyamory was socially acceptable. For the current generation, I would say yes, because it would be too uncomfortable of a shift for most people. But future generations... I don't know. I wouldn't be surprised if monogamy was the majority, but I just don't know. Maybe I should finally read Chris Ryan, lol.
I feel like the psychological landscape of society would be so radically different when/if that day rolls around anyway, so it's so hard to really guess what will happen.
Biological determinism is pretty much always wrong. We have no reason to believe that women seek fewer sexual partners than men. In fact, we have reason to believe the sexes seek equal number of partners. The idea that women seek fewer partners is pretty much just a product of investiture and passing things down through the male line. When we look at cultures that most resemble the natural state of humans and what reflects the environment in which we evolved, the sexes have equal amount of partners. If we want to discuss biology, we have sexual organs that favor this notion as wellQuote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
The dichotomy is false. Both use assumptions and modelsQuote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
I'm not terribly interested in opining what behavioral economics is or isn't. But I am comfortable stating that what they (or others) claim is irrational behavior is included in rational choice theory. It doesn't matter if you got "short-circuited" when you stood in front of an aisle of 20 cereals, because your choice was still fully rational. Perhaps the behavioralist wants to call this irrational, but that's sorta like how we colloquially and scientifically use words like "theory" different. Colloquially, we make irrational decisions all day, but economically, we don't, even if there are no models of it
The bold is provably false.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
http://i.minus.com/iH5iHvsZX5raO.gif
Do you have cases that control for culture?Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
If it's not possible for anyone to ever make an economically irrational decision, then rational choice theory is unfalsifiable.
The fact that you don't recognize this shows how wrongheaded you are.
And yeah, I'd bet most women would practice polyamory. Though I still don't see the huge difference between amory and gamy.
The difference is marriage which is a legally binding contract. It's not just something between two people anymore, it involves the government. Maybe there's not a huge difference emotionally but when we're talking about societal repercussions, I'd imagine there is one.
Philosophically, rational choice theory is unfalsifiable and tautological. The wiki on it even says soQuote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
I don't think it's a particularly useful concept, but I've just wanted to be sure to clarify what it is since I've seen you use it like it's a moral rationality. I think it is useful to provide perspective. Gary Becker did a whole lot of good for the economics profession with it, not because of what it proves, but because of how it improved the way economists view things
They say polyamory is really hard. Which I assume it is and/or can be. Instead of having one person who deserves to know what's going on with you and deserves your attention, you have two! Or three! Or four! Or polyamoooore!
actually that's not necessarily true. Not everyone has multiple partners that have equal primacy.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Nonetheless yes, it takes a lot of work to set up a healthy structure for everyone involved.
I'm not talking about moral rationality. I'm talking about how it is that people make choices. I don't care to give it a name, just to know it.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahnmann. Influence by Robert Cialdini.
I seriously can't believe that you know its tautological and unfalsifiable and still hold to it. That means it's impossible to ever be shown to be wrong. You have the answer because you have the answer. This is how religions are formed.
I'm reminded of how I kept telling you that you couldn't compare free market evolution to actual evolution. Because actual evolution is utterly falsifiable and has stood countless tests against it. It was developed by a man who payed close attention to every bit of evidence that suggested he was wrong. Each time it became less wrong. It represents the pinnacle of rational, critical, proper thinking. This bullshit is no where close.
It is a perspective, not a proof. The foundation of all truths/sciences have assumptions at their roots and are unfalsifiable tautology. Rational choice theory is an assumption about the foundation of behavior. It basically says "when somebody makes a choice, they made that choice because from the perspective they had, it was the most desired". This is hardly that debatable a concept even though it is just an assumption. You can't find an example where somebody made a choice and that choice was not the most desired. Everything we understand about choosing is that we choose the most desired. Even when that choice is "wrong" in any way, it was still the most desired because choices made by definition are of the most desiredQuote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
I don't go around talking about rationality. The only time it ever comes up is when you claim it's wrong by using examples that fit just fine into it.
Besides, all things that use language are tautology at their core. Hell, irrationality is tautology. You could no more prove that somebody acted irrationally than you could prove they did rationally
Also, even if rationality wasn't a thing, it wouldn't change anything. Incentives are still incentives.
One way of looking at it is the word "preference". When we speak of choice, we also speak of preference, even when unknown. Full logical regression of preference shows that it's tautology (I prefer it because I prefer it). Rational choice theory is basically trying to make that point. It says that it's wrong to claim that people make preferences they do not prefer. Much good was done for the economics profession when it became consensus that preference is indeed preference. As strange as it may sound, it's not the most common thing in social sciences to be as logical as that. A lot of people inadvertently make claims that imply preference isn't preference
The argument over equality is essentially an argument over what constitutes fairness. Here's an example with sexism:
Sexism defined:
"prejudice or discrimination based on a person's sex or gender"
"unfair treatment of people because of their sex"
"discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex"
"discrimination based on gender"
Discrimination defined:
"the practice of unfairly treating a person or group of people differently from other people or groups of people"
"unfair treatment of a person, racial group, minority, etc"
The question becomes: Is it fair for everyone to be treated equally even if they aren't equal, or is it fair for people who outperform others to be treated better?
The problem is that someone is always going to get the short end of the stick no matter what you choose as your definition of fair, but that doesn't mean that it's unfair for someone to have it worse off than someone else.
A non-sexism/racism example: Is it fair for someone to steal money from me at threat of violence to give it to someone else?
random thread no longer really random
Lukie would be disappointed.
15.6 divided by purple.
OUGHT-A-CHOKE DAT BITCH
I keep waiting for Bill Cosby to start suing women who make claims of sexual assault against him 20+ years ago with no evidence. These women are getting all kinds of money out of dragging his name through the mud, and I think it's only fair that he gets his cut.
there is an alternate universe where emily blunt and i are happily married and have sex 14 times a week. and for that i pat myself on the back.
I'm married to Bjork in the 90's in my alternate universe.
Ong, if you go by the infinite universe theory. Somewhere right now I'm fucking you in the assas I type.
And vice versa. Bitch.Quote:
Originally Posted by rong
Out with my girlfriend, I just saw a woman with a low-cut GUESS tee shirt. I said to her, "Tits?". Don't think she got it though.
Stop bragging.
I don't buy into this infinite universe theory. I guess there's a ridiculously small probability that I am in the one universe where I never randomly jump in the air and shout "PASTA", or slap my ankle, or jump down the stairs, or other bizarre shit. It's also possible that me sitting here pressing bits of plastic in an effort to communicate my thoughts to people in various locations across the globe is a crazy event to the ankle slappers in ankleslap universe. But, I think it's higly probably that I am the only me, and this is the only universe. I could be wrong, but I doubt it because I'm never wrong, especially about these unprovable things.
Maybe OngBonga was one of those kids who got his ass whooped for doing stupid shit in an alternate universe.
After the ass whooping did he grow in to a responsible adult with a job?
Nice choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
http://pokerworks.com/blogs/wp-conte...ork_leaf_1.jpg
The pic looked much sexier to a teenaged me.
hmm who would i be married to in the 90s?
probably fuckin britney spears. dont laugh
I'd take Christina over Britney.
I'm a slaaaaaaave to you.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Yeah I'd fuck the dog shit out of 1990s Britney.
Honestly she was never terribly my type. She was just the iconic sex symbol of my youth
Probably go for Eliza Dushku instead. Now that's a level of too hot for anybody
Oh yeah, 90s Britney. She fell off pretty hard though after her handlers let her go crazy.
worst thing you will ever see http://gfycat.com/ChubbyAmusingAnole
Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Thank you, that was an enjoyable fit of laughter.
boost sighting
Ain't nothing cool about that
Did you at least see Thaddeus Russell? You'd like him. And he'd make you think I'm less of an idiot
Yeah, I'm glad I caught that. For some reason the post sparked my interest-- I didn't watch the video, but I listened to both Rogan episodes he was on, and the Chris Ryan one as well. There's a good bit of what he says that I find disagreeable (and I'm not really interested in getting into a point by point discussion on it), but I really appreciate his drive to look at things from a different vantage. Whether I agree with all or none of what a guy like him has to say, this type of voice being added to the dialogue is invaluable.
I'm interesting to hear what you disagree with. I promise I won't argue
Part of the reason I threw in that caveat is that I really couldn't pull anything off the top of my head. I just remember thinking he was leaning on some weak premises at times. Maybe I'll check out the video and take notes, and then let you know what I mean in specifics. But again, I think he's a great thinker and I really enjoy following along as he pushes passed the ostensible and gets to the meat of an issue.
I saw a black guy in Walmart earlier wearing a t-shirt that said "Nigger" across it.
^Quote:
The first time I took lsd was in 1970 at a stooges concert and it must have been some good acid too because I was born in 1994.
Proof that male privilege in modern culture is bullshit: there is a popular character named He-Man. Way to make men feel like they're not men unless THEY'RE FUCKING MEN DO YOU KNOW WHAT IM SAYING BRO
deer jerky season has begun and I am the taste tester.
praise to the deer jerky gods
I hope everyone learned a valuable lesson there.
Don't open your wallet for a sob story?Quote:
Originally Posted by jackvance
Rap is crap?Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
Spoon should be taking notes off this guy. He hates for good reason and doesn't cloud the issue.
This is the best thing not related to poker I've ever seen you post.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
I was watching that video, and was thinking those who donate money to someone they've never met are naive if they don't expect some people to take advantage. I was just starting to think that maybe this guy is a little dumb, when BAM he started motherfucking ranting like a boss. Hi fucking 5 n-word.
We're learning lessons not stating the obvious.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
So I dumped my $150 Cable bill and just have unlimited internets now. I signed up for Netflix and I am looking for other streaming options for TV and movies that are at least decent def. I have run into two problems so far since I live in the great white north.
Changing my DNS stuff on my router to get US Netflix works but why can't I log into Stars or Bodog?? I thought they had better tech than that to know where I am logged in from.
Also is anyone doing this that watch Baseball or Basketball's local games? I heard the MLB app blacks out local content and NBA only has cable packages for their content or am I wrong? I can only find shitty quality streaming sites for games
I think stars and bodog vet you where the money moves in and out and wouldn't be overly concerned with spoofed IPs playing with money already in the ecosystem.Quote:
Originally Posted by jyms
pineapple juice is da best.
When I go to type tumblr, I always type flopturnriver instead. The keys are right beside of each other.
Coconut water is the best.
random is random
merp
Tautological and unfalsifiable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chelle
I can't even...
http://i.imgur.com/QmweXho.gif
http://www.inquisitr.com/wp-content/...2/catgif11.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
Don't mess with your router. Just install the Media Hint plugin for your browser. I got rid of cable about 4 years ago and haven't looked back.Quote:
Originally Posted by jyms
I'm running netflix on several devices including my son's playstation in his room. The router was an easy fix. It's just manual DNS settings. I have heard that Netflix doesn't give a shit. Here is hoping. If they freak then I guess my son will have to sign up next. I wish I had of done this a few years ago. To think how much money I have paid my cable company.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galapogos