4th Grade Nation State

[Xerographica]

I predicted we would get out of the gate with people deliberately trying to play the system for money instead of actually bidding for what they want.

And we did see a few, meaning that there actual valuation of going outside is not being measured.... Although, it could be claimed that they value making money more (duh). Still it doesn't show their actual opinion on going outside which is what Xero's system was supposed to do.

Coasianism isn't supposed to be perfect, it's supposed to show us more valuation information than voting does.

Political scientists have long hoped to find an “invisible hand” in politics comparable to the one that Adam Smith described in economics. Voter ignorance wouldn’t matter much if a democracy were able to weave individual votes into collective political wisdom, the way a market weaves the self-interested buy-and-sell decisions of individual actors into a prudent collective allocation of resources. - Caleb Crain, The Case Against Democracy

Spending is how resources are prudently/efficiently allocated. This is because spending is weighted according to preference intensity.

In the voting class... 16 students voted to have class outside. Voting allowed them to communicate their preference. But should we assume that they all equally preferred having class outside? Of course not. They did not all equally prefer having class outside. Voting just showed us the tip of the iceberg.

With the two coasianism classes, because voting was replaced with spending, we can see the rest of the iceberg. We can clearly see that the students did not equally prefer having class outside. The efficient allocation of the students (inside vs outside) depends on seeing the entire iceberg... not just the tip of it.

Yes, there were a few cheaters... and so the shape of the information iceberg wasn't 100% correct/accurate. And it's not ideal... but it is better than democracy.

Will there be more cheaters next time? One of the cheaters was willing to spend 5 cents. He didn't end up having to spend that 5 cents. Instead, he received 8 cents. It's hard to see 8 cents being a substantial incentive. And what we can't see is how much this student benefited or was harmed by having class outside. If he hated having class outside, then he actually suffered a loss. His compensation was 8 cents for an option that cost him a dollar. If he enjoyed having class outside, then his cheating paid off in a very small way. He got to have his cake and eat it too.

The students did not equally enjoy having class outside. These enjoyment disparities will be incorporated into their spending decisions the next time they use coasianism to decide whether to have class inside or outside.

[The Two Jerseys]

And we did see a few, meaning that there actual valuation of going outside is not being measured.... Although, it could be claimed that they value making money more (duh). Still it doesn't show their actual opinion on going outside which is what Xero's system was supposed to do.

Coasianism isn't supposed to be perfect, it's supposed to show us more valuation information than voting does.

Why is it so hard for you to understand that not everything needs to have a monetary value assigned to it?

Spending is how resources are prudently/efficiently allocated. This is because spending is weighted according to preference intensity.

Letting clueless idiots decide how to allocate resources does not promote efficiency.

In the voting class... 16 students voted to have class outside. Voting allowed them to communicate their preference. But should we assume that they all equally preferred having class outside? Of course not. They did not all equally prefer having class outside. Voting just showed us the tip of the iceberg.

It's a yes or no question. Either they prefer having class outside, or they don't. It's not that hard.

With the two coasianism classes, because voting was replaced with spending, we can see the rest of the iceberg. We can clearly see that the students did not equally prefer having class outside. The efficient allocation of the students (inside vs outside) depends on seeing the entire iceberg... not just the tip of it.

And no matter how you spin it, they have to take a fucking guess at how much they need to spend to "win", because they don't know how much everyone else is spending.

It's like deciding on whether to go hunting with a .22, a .30-06, an elephant gun, a 12 gauge, or a bow and arrow when you have no idea what you're even hunting.

Yes, there were a few cheaters... and so the shape of the information iceberg wasn't 100% correct/accurate. And it's not ideal... but it is better than democracy.

Will there be more cheaters next time? One of the cheaters was willing to spend 5 cents. He didn't end up having to spend that 5 cents. Instead, he received 8 cents. It's hard to see 8 cents being a substantial incentive. And what we can't see is how much this student benefited or was harmed by having class outside. If he hated having class outside, then he actually suffered a loss. His compensation was 8 cents for an option that cost him a dollar. If he enjoyed having class outside, then his cheating paid off in a very small way. He got to have his cake and eat it too.

And do you really think the guy with allergies who voted for having class inside cares about getting paid chump change when he feels like shit because they had class outside?

The students did not equally enjoy having class outside. These enjoyment disparities will be incorporated into their spending decisions the next time they use coasianism to decide whether to have class inside or outside.

So if everyone's changing their bid the next time around, how does it "show the rest of the iceberg"?

[Dazchan]

According to Google, the US population, rounded to the nearest million, is 319 million.

Let's say that someone comes up with the idea that humans of a certain race/colour/religion are "less human" than others, and we should be able to own them like property. The overwhelming majority of people would consider this to be a very bad idea. Let's assume that 99.7% of Americans consider the idea of owning another human abhorrent. In raw numbers, this would be approximately 318 million people, with around 1 million people being pro-slavery.

The issue comes up for voting. It's dead in the water. Why? Because the majority of people recognise a disgusting idea when they see it.

The issue comes up for bidding. 318 million people spend an average of $1000 each on the "no" campaign. Some more, some less, depending on circumstances, but it averages to $1000 per person. That's $318 billion. 1 million people spend $320,000 on the "yes" campaign. That's $320 billion. Despite the overwhelming majority finding the idea detestable, slavery is now a thing because a couple of people have deeper pockets than the rest.

"Ah," you say, "but they'll get MONEY!"

Yes, they will. Their civil rights, liberty and personhood was valued at a little over 1 billion dollars. Given that they've lost their personhood and are no longer considered human, would they even receive it? That would depend on how the law that 0.3% of people actually wanted was written.

Now do you understand why coasianism is worse than voting?

[Galloism]

Spreadsheet from this morning.

Weather: 75 degrees, wind from the south southeast at 3 knots, few clouds


Observations - Allergy person tried to get paid and was ready for class outside. Unfortunately s/he had to pay and took benadryl to no purpose because they had class inside.

Also, one of the "nice outside" people defected to join the inside trying to get paid too.

In addition, the gamblers significantly upped their gambling amounts trying to capture more of the pot. In fact, they had to pay out and didn't get what they wanted.

You know, like roulette.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

(Image)

Spreadsheet from this morning.

Weather: 75 degrees, wind from the south southeast at 3 knots, few clouds


Observations - Allergy person tried to get paid and was ready for class outside. Unfortunately s/he had to pay and took benadryl to no purpose because they had class inside.

Also, one of the "nice outside" people defected to join the inside trying to get paid too.

In addition, the gamblers significantly upped their gambling amounts trying to capture more of the pot. In fact, they had to pay out and didn't get what they wanted.

You know, like roulette.

It is interesting that there was an increase in the amount of speculators this time around.

Would this mean that, with enough rounds, people will start to see through it and will try to speculate? I mean, there is certainly a pattern from one round to the next, so it wouldn't be entirely surprising to see eventually everyone trying to speculate on the voting, or at least enough people to where getting money would be their goal whereas the hedgers would be the ones playing with the options.

A question I do have though also is: would it be possible to predict with more rounds whether or not there will be some sort of auction strategy where speculators will try to speculate the optimal sum of money to put in in order to get the most profit?

In so far as to whether this confirms or rejects previous assumptions, I'd say that it reinforces previous assumptions about the system where people would try to game it. Although it does show, remarkably enough, that speculation would not be an optimal strategy on the first few rounds because of the lack of knowledge of this system as outsiders. So that does beat the assumption people will always bid lower in order to get the pot and instead they will bid higher on subsequent rounds in order to get more of the pot. However, the question above remains, whether or not some people will find out an optimal strategy within the system in order to get the most profit for their investments.

[Galloism]

(Image)

Spreadsheet from this morning.

Weather: 75 degrees, wind from the south southeast at 3 knots, few clouds


Observations - Allergy person tried to get paid and was ready for class outside. Unfortunately s/he had to pay and took benadryl to no purpose because they had class inside.

Also, one of the "nice outside" people defected to join the inside trying to get paid too.

In addition, the gamblers significantly upped their gambling amounts trying to capture more of the pot. In fact, they had to pay out and didn't get what they wanted.

You know, like roulette.

It is interesting that there was an increase in the amount of speculators this time around.

Would this mean that, with enough rounds, people will start to see through it and will try to speculate? I mean, there is certainly a pattern from one round to the next, so it wouldn't be entirely surprising to see eventually everyone trying to speculate on the voting, or at least enough people to where getting money would be their goal whereas the hedgers would be the ones playing with the options.

I'd be hesitant to draw complete patterns from two data points.

As Xkcd pointed out:



I'm somewhat surprised that no one seemed to pick up on the professor hedging. Sure, it wasn't in any way announced to the class, but it was up on the projector plain to see.

A question I do have though also is: would it be possible to predict with more rounds whether or not there will be some sort of auction strategy where speculators will try to speculate the optimal sum of money to put in in order to get the most profit?

I think speculators will try that - it is the rational thing to do. The problem comes in that speculators sometimes corrupt the result to be the opposite of what had the most value. This isn't like roulette where the ball is going to land on red, black, or 0 regardless of your bid input. This is roulette where the low bidders win, and with multiple bidders blind bidding, it's subject to a certain amount of randomness. It's smart for the individual low bidder to bid as high as possible without tipping the total. When those bidders miss slightly, then, it corrupts the result, and we bring back slavery on accident.

In so far as to whether this confirms or rejects previous assumptions, I'd say that it reinforces previous assumptions about the system where people would try to game it. Although it does show, remarkably enough, that speculation would not be an optimal strategy on the first few rounds because of the lack of knowledge of this system as outsiders. So that does beat the assumption people will always bid lower in order to get the pot and instead they will bid higher on subsequent rounds in order to get more of the pot. However, the question above remains, whether or not some people will find out an optimal strategy within the system in order to get the most profit for their investments.

We'll see. The reason you do this kind of thing on a trend to see the learning process or strategizing process over time.

Also, to see how people like the game.

[The Two Jerseys]

Observations - Allergy person tried to get paid and was ready for class outside. Unfortunately s/he had to pay and took benadryl to no purpose because they had class inside.

Allergy person is pretty much screwed, aren't they?

[Galloism]

Afternoon, Nov 2. Weather: 77 degrees, wind out of the south at 5 knots, skies broken (something similar to "mostly cloudy" for you non-aviation types. It means it's basically overcast, but there's holes in the overcast. I'm using an airport METAR for weather on these things.)


Observations - two defectors from playing to gambling today. GG voted inside last time because it was too hot, and voted inside again this time (despite being cooler) because he got paid last time.

KK jumped from outside to inside in order to make money because the people that voted inside made money last time. Turns out this worked for KK - people who voted inside got paid again.

JJ jumped from inside to outside, but this appears to be because of cooler weather.

Also, II who didn't play last time decided to play this time.


EDIT: Also, one more observation. Although the gamblers both increased their bids between the first time and the second time, the rate of increase was much larger in the morning class. The gamblers just slightly edged up in the afternoon, but in the morning, it was an extreme bump.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

(Image)

Afternoon, Nov 2. Weather: 77 degrees, wind out of the south at 5 knots, skies broken (something similar to "mostly cloudy" for you non-aviation types. It means it's basically overcast, but there's holes in the overcast. I'm using an airport METAR for weather on these things.)


Observations - two defectors from playing to gambling today. GG voted inside last time because it was too hot, and voted inside again this time (despite being cooler) because he got paid last time.

KK jumped from outside to inside in order to make money because the people that voted inside made money last time. Turns out this worked for KK - people who voted inside got paid again.

JJ jumped from inside to outside, but this appears to be because of cooler weather.

Also, II who didn't play last time decided to play this time.

Interesting. 5/14 people ended up gambling this time.

I mean, there are several questions to be made there, but my brain is fried right now, and I cannot think of anything.

[Galloism]

(Image)

Afternoon, Nov 2. Weather: 77 degrees, wind out of the south at 5 knots, skies broken (something similar to "mostly cloudy" for you non-aviation types. It means it's basically overcast, but there's holes in the overcast. I'm using an airport METAR for weather on these things.)


Observations - two defectors from playing to gambling today. GG voted inside last time because it was too hot, and voted inside again this time (despite being cooler) because he got paid last time.

KK jumped from outside to inside in order to make money because the people that voted inside made money last time. Turns out this worked for KK - people who voted inside got paid again.

JJ jumped from inside to outside, but this appears to be because of cooler weather.

Also, II who didn't play last time decided to play this time.

Interesting. 5/14 people ended up gambling this time.

I mean, there are several questions to be made there, but my brain is fried right now, and I cannot think of anything.

Honestly what's more interesting to me is the bidding amounts from the gamblers. In the morning they took a severe uptick. In the afternoon they nudged upwards slightly.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Interesting. 5/14 people ended up gambling this time.

I mean, there are several questions to be made there, but my brain is fried right now, and I cannot think of anything.

Honestly what's more interesting to me is the bidding amounts from the gamblers. In the morning they took a severe uptick. In the afternoon they nudged upwards slightly.

Well, probably because more people gambled. Or because they talked with each other after class and discussed the system and how they got the money.

The players in this class seem to be trying to push the numbers slightly up to see how much they can get away with before toppling over the pot against them. It is a sealed first-price auction, or also known as a first-price sealed-bid auction, only instead of the seller getting the money, the losing team gets it.

I have been looking resources on that type of auction model, honestly, to study and get to know what I should be looking at on these results.

[The Joseon Dynasty]

Honestly what's more interesting to me is the bidding amounts from the gamblers. In the morning they took a severe uptick. In the afternoon they nudged upwards slightly.

Well, probably because more people gambled. Or because they talked with each other after class and discussed the system and how they got the money.

The players in this class seem to be trying to push the numbers slightly up to see how much they can get away with before toppling over the pot against them. It is a sealed first-price auction, or also known as a first-price sealed-bid auction, only instead of the seller getting the money, the losing team gets it.

I have been looking resources on that type of auction model, honestly, to study and get to know what I should be looking at on these results.

It'll depend how you model it. I put together a simple model several pages ago, which is consistent with what we're seeing here. If there is a difference in bids between the two options, the optimal strategy is to bid on the lower option to the point where it just barely loses. If everyone begins following this strategy, then the optimal move becomes for nobody to bid anything (or to just bid the same amount on each option), which gives everyone a payoff of 0. That's if you model it deterministically like I did.

[Lady Scylla]

Interesting. 5/14 people ended up gambling this time.

I mean, there are several questions to be made there, but my brain is fried right now, and I cannot think of anything.

Honestly what's more interesting to me is the bidding amounts from the gamblers. In the morning they took a severe uptick. In the afternoon they nudged upwards slightly.

What are your results of? Ignored this thread originally because it was hosted by Xero, but now I'm intrigued.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Honestly what's more interesting to me is the bidding amounts from the gamblers. In the morning they took a severe uptick. In the afternoon they nudged upwards slightly.

What are your results of? Ignored this thread originally because it was hosted by Xero, but now I'm intrigued.

He's conducting an experiment with the help of a psychology professor at a college to find out results about how Xero's system would play out in the real world, or as close to the real world as we can get.

[Lady Scylla]

What are your results of? Ignored this thread originally because it was hosted by Xero, but now I'm intrigued.

He's conducting an experiment with the help of a psychology professor at a college to find out results about how Xero's system would play out in the real world, or as close to the real world as we can get.

Now that is interesting.

[Lady Scylla]

Hey Gallo, could you mark your spreadsheet posts with something specifically identifiable? Something I can use to search the pages easier.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

He's conducting an experiment with the help of a psychology professor at a college to find out results about how Xero's system would play out in the real world, or as close to the real world as we can get.

Now that is interesting.

I like your flag by the way, it brightens up a thread

[Lady Scylla]

Now that is interesting.

I like your flag by the way, it brightens up a thread

It was too adorable not to use! I'm listening to Seven Nation Army, and it looks like she's dancing to it.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I like your flag by the way, it brightens up a thread

It was too adorable not to use! I'm listening to Seven Nation Army, and it looks like she's dancing to it.

I know! It is adorable! hahah.

I am listening to Star Wars: Shadows of the Empire's soundtrack for the Nintendo 64 and it does look like she is dancing to the tunes too

[Xuskeuclite]

stratocracy dictatorship aka enslaved military of children (child labor in a simplified way of saying it)

[Galloism]

Hey Gallo, could you mark your spreadsheet posts with something specifically identifiable? Something I can use to search the pages easier.

You could use the word "knots", which will bring up only my spreadsheet posts and quotes of those posts.

(and this post, but you can't hardly avoid that)

[Camicon]

stratocracy dictatorship aka enslaved military of children (child labor in a simplified way of saying it)

What does this have to do with the thread?

[The Two Jerseys]

stratocracy dictatorship aka enslaved military of children (child labor in a simplified way of saying it)

What does this have to do with the thread?

I assume that's their ideal form of government, and another reason why we shouldn't be using 4th graders as guinea pigs.

[Xerographica]

According to Google, the US population, rounded to the nearest million, is 319 million.

Let's say that someone comes up with the idea that humans of a certain race/colour/religion are "less human" than others, and we should be able to own them like property. The overwhelming majority of people would consider this to be a very bad idea. Let's assume that 99.7% of Americans consider the idea of owning another human abhorrent. In raw numbers, this would be approximately 318 million people, with around 1 million people being pro-slavery.

The issue comes up for voting. It's dead in the water. Why? Because the majority of people recognise a disgusting idea when they see it.

The issue comes up for bidding. 318 million people spend an average of $1000 each on the "no" campaign. Some more, some less, depending on circumstances, but it averages to $1000 per person. That's $318 billion. 1 million people spend $320,000 on the "yes" campaign. That's $320 billion. Despite the overwhelming majority finding the idea detestable, slavery is now a thing because a couple of people have deeper pockets than the rest.

"Ah," you say, "but they'll get MONEY!"

Yes, they will. Their civil rights, liberty and personhood was valued at a little over 1 billion dollars. Given that they've lost their personhood and are no longer considered human, would they even receive it? That would depend on how the law that 0.3% of people actually wanted was written.

Now do you understand why coasianism is worse than voting?

If you had searched this thread for slavery, you would have realized that we've already discussed/debated the example of slavery.

Let's say that each month we had to pay $1 dollar but we could choose which posts we spend our pennies on. What happens when you click on this thread? Chances are pretty good that you'd sort the posts by their value. You'd want to quickly/easily find and read the most valuable posts in this thread. Would Galloism's posts on slavery be on the first page? I don't know exactly where they'd be. But I do know that the more pennies that Galloism and others were willing to spend on his slavery posts... the more likely it is that you and others would see them when you sorted the posts in this thread by their value.

Of course, if Galloism spent his pennies on his own posts... the money wouldn't go into his digital wallet... it would go into Max Barry's digital wallet.

So are you with me? Can you imagine all 673 posts in this thread sorted by their value?

Along comes Bob. He posts in this thread... "Slavery is wonderful". How many pennies would he spend on his post? How many pennies would you spend on his post? Personally, I wouldn't spend any pennies on his post. I'm pretty sure that, in this regard, I'm the rule rather than the exception. So we can reasonably guess that, when the posts in this thread were sorted by their value, Bob's post would be towards the very bottom of the list.

So would we use coasianism to determine whether slavery should be legal? What would be the point? We would all be able to clearly see that slavery is a very lowly ranked/valued idea.

If you're interested in a fuller/deeper/bigger/longer explanation... Sorting Ideas.

[Xerographica]

Interesting. 5/14 people ended up gambling this time.

I mean, there are several questions to be made there, but my brain is fried right now, and I cannot think of anything.

Honestly what's more interesting to me is the bidding amounts from the gamblers. In the morning they took a severe uptick. In the afternoon they nudged upwards slightly.

There were more gamblers this time. All the gamblers in the morning class were burned while none of the gamblers in the afternoon class were burned. When being burned gambling is so random, it doesn't seem like it's a very profitable long-term strategy.

Did you forget to mention the decision of the voting class? Or did I miss it?