Game Theory For Baby Names

[Kenmoria]

So tell me, where is this name factory where it's so vital for them to know whether they should idle the Dwayne production line and retool it to produce an Adonis?

This sentence... is interesting. Every time somebody starts a band, their head becomes a name factory. Same thing when people start a business/website. Same thing when people start a new person. My argument is that the supply of names isn't going to be optimal when the demand isn't seen or known.

Let's broaden it to words in general. Is there a demand for words? Obviously. Is there a supply of words? Obviously as well. But do we see and know the demand for words? Obviously not. So is the supply of words optimal? Obviously not.

I genuinely want a word that's the opposite of "to improve". I also genuinely want a word that's the opposite of "mistake". My demand exists but nobody else sees or knows it. Out of all the ideas that don't have words... which idea do people most want to have a word? We don't know. Nobody does. This is why it's guaranteed that the supply of words is suboptimal.

Opposite of "to improve" is "to worsen" or "to deteriorate'. Mistake is something I have no idea about. Though you do raise a good point about words, there is a demand a names. Professional baby-naming business have sprung up and often charge ludicrously high prices for a relatively common name. There is demand and supply for names, but no ones thought to capitalise on it.

[The Holy Therns]

You do an admirable job at making me sound nutty.

Really now.

Really now.

[Xerographica]

I said "demand" but you said "popular vote". Why is that?

Demand is people's willingness to pay. Voting, on the other hand, is not. In the example I gave in the OP, the name "Boaty McBoatface" was not chosen by demand. It was chosen by popular vote. Nobody spent any money on "Boaty McBoatface".

Voting is anathema to me. So I am definitely not going to argue for voting. I really don't know what you were hoping to accomplish by replacing what I am arguing for (spending/demand) for something that I'm arguing against (voting/democracy).

Regardless of 'popular vote' or 'spending/demand', would you state categorically that either is more important than a scientifically based assessment of the nutritional value of an eggplant?

A. Popular vote
B. Populist spending/demand value
C: Scientific value

A, B, C..?

What is of the greatest value?

Nothing is greater than demand. Science/information will obviously influence demand. But in no case should science/information override/overrule demand. Science has proved that cigarettes can cause cancer. Therefore... the demand for cigarettes should be overridden/overruled? Absolutely not. People should have the freedom to harm themselves. People should have the freedom to not exercise. People should have the freedom to drop out of school. People should have the freedom to debate economics with random strangers.

And it's not because freedom is somehow inherently good. It's simply because all progress depends on freedom. People must be free to choose their own paths in life, even if we perceive that they are choosing the wrong paths. Absolutely no progress would be made if everybody was forced to choose the same path. All progress is the result of trailblazing.

[Xerographica]

This sentence... is interesting. Every time somebody starts a band, their head becomes a name factory. Same thing when people start a business/website. Same thing when people start a new person. My argument is that the supply of names isn't going to be optimal when the demand isn't seen or known.

Let's broaden it to words in general. Is there a demand for words? Obviously. Is there a supply of words? Obviously as well. But do we see and know the demand for words? Obviously not. So is the supply of words optimal? Obviously not.

I genuinely want a word that's the opposite of "to improve". I also genuinely want a word that's the opposite of "mistake". My demand exists but nobody else sees or knows it. Out of all the ideas that don't have words... which idea do people most want to have a word? We don't know. Nobody does. This is why it's guaranteed that the supply of words is suboptimal.

Opposite of "to improve" is "to worsen" or "to deteriorate'.

I can say, "Good job, you really improved the Wikipedia entry on Tillandsias!" But it doesn't work to say, "Hey numskull, you really worsened the Wikipedia entry on Tillandsias!" Ouch, so awkward. Same with... "Hey numskull, you really deteriorated the Wikipedia entry on Tillandsias!" Of course I can arrange words to adequately express the idea that your edits decreased the usefulness of the Wikipedia entry on Tillandsias. Except, I don't really want to do this. I simply want the opposite of "to improve".

If you're interested, here's a relevant article.

Mistake is something I have no idea about.

Did you ever notice that the word was missing? Language is a frequently used example of decentralized planning. Everybody can invent words. The most useful ones catch on. But if the demand for words isn't seen or known, then it's a given that the supply won't be optimal. Suboptimal language means suboptimal communication.

Though you do raise a good point about words, there is a demand a names. Professional baby-naming business have sprung up and often charge ludicrously high prices for a relatively common name. There is demand and supply for names, but no ones thought to capitalise on it.

Coming up with a baby name is a big responsibility. It's only reasonable that responsible people will seek council. From my perspective, the market can by far offer the best possible council. It's not just a bunch of people recommending names... it's a bunch of people using their money to recommend names.

It's one thing for people to give a movie two thumbs up. It's another thing entirely for people to pay to promote a movie. I'm far more interested in seeing how much money people are willing to spend to promote the things that they recommend. The size of the sacrifice that they are willing to make is far more informative than the number of thumbs up or stars that they are willing to give.

[Galloism]

"Hey numskull, you really worsened the Wikipedia entry on Tillandsias!" Ouch, so awkward. Same with... "Hey numskull, you really deteriorated the Wikipedia entry on Tillandsias!"

Actually, both of those seem fine to me.

The size of the sacrifice that they are willing to make is far more informative than the number of thumbs up or stars that they are willing to give.

This thread concept either involves no sacrifice or people being dicks.

Choose.

[Xerographica]

This sentence... is interesting. Every time somebody starts a band, their head becomes a name factory. Same thing when people start a business/website. Same thing when people start a new person. My argument is that the supply of names isn't going to be optimal when the demand isn't seen or known.

Let's broaden it to words in general. Is there a demand for words? Obviously. Is there a supply of words? Obviously as well. But do we see and know the demand for words? Obviously not. So is the supply of words optimal? Obviously not.

I genuinely want a word that's the opposite of "to improve". I also genuinely want a word that's the opposite of "mistake". My demand exists but nobody else sees or knows it. Out of all the ideas that don't have words... which idea do people most want to have a word? We don't know. Nobody does. This is why it's guaranteed that the supply of words is suboptimal.

The way you've envisioned spending in this context (and in other contexts with "pragma-socialism", which is still hilarious for how long you railed against me for "being a socialist" before embracing some weird version of socialism yourself), spending IS voting. It's just some people have more votes than others.

I am not a pragma-socialist.

I don't see the benefit of perceiving spending to be a form of voting. The two things are fundamentally different. On Medium I can "clap" for a story up to 50 times. So it's like having 50 votes that I can cast for a story. But I definitely didn't earn these votes. Medium just gave them to me. And if I only cast one vote for a story, it's not like I'll be able to use the other 49 votes for other stories. So there's absolutely no opportunity cost to voting.

It's true that spending and voting are both forms of input. But they are fundamentally different forms of input. Spending is a sacrifice, voting is not. Of course sometimes people do have to wait in line for hours in order to vote. But all the real meaning is found in the willingness to wait... which is something that voting really doesn't measure/quantify/reflect.

We can think of tug-of-war. Voting is simply counting the number of people on each side of the rope. The winner is whichever side has the most people. The people just stand there. Is it even a contest? Spending, on the other hand, does not measure how many people are on each side of the rope. It only measures how hard each side pulls. Whichever side pulls harder is the winner. It's definitely a contest. In some cases it might not be a fair contest... but it's always a contest. There's always the chance that the minority might win. If the minority does win, it's only because they cared more strongly about the issue than the majority.

[Salandriagado]

It also strikes me as somewhat problematic that the name-economy is essentially post-scarcity. There is an infinite supply of names after all.

Which, come to think of it, is a perfect metaphor for Xero threads: infinite supply, no demand.

The idea of "post-scarcity" is economically nonsensical. In economics "scarcity" is a not about quantity, it's about use. Imagine if you were immortal. Even though you had all the time in the world, you still couldn't do everything at once. So you'd still have to prioritize how you used your time.

Now let's imagine that you have all the bodies in the world. Would you still have to prioritize? Of course. Any body that you allocated to doing X is one less body available for doing anything else. There would still be trade-offs. There would still be opportunity costs.

The fact that progress can provide us with an incredible abundance of many useful thing changes absolutely nothing about the fundamental rules of economics. The idea of "post-scarcity" was invented by people who are fundamentally ignorant about economics.

Just because there are a gazillion names that are freely available changes absolutely nothing about the rules of economics. Prioritization is just as necessary. Markets are just as necessary. It is just as necessary for people to use their money to help rank names by their usefulness.

Except in this case, there is literally no scarcity: there is no limit on the names that can be had, me having a name doesn't reduce the number of names available for other people, and in many places, you can acquire a name just by declaring that you now have that name, without at any point depriving anybody else of said name.

[Galloism]

Spending is a sacrifice, voting is not.

Once again, if they are giving the money anyway whether they get to choose the name or not, then there's no sacrifice to choosing a name.

If they're only going to give the money if they can name the kid Fluffy, they're a dick.

Choose.

[Vistulange]

The way you've envisioned spending in this context (and in other contexts with "pragma-socialism", which is still hilarious for how long you railed against me for "being a socialist" before embracing some weird version of socialism yourself), spending IS voting. It's just some people have more votes than others.

I am not a pragma-socialist.

Goodness gracious, you're like that anti-establishment, rebel youth from that video game Orwell. You really are serious, wow.

[Xerographica]

The idea of "post-scarcity" is economically nonsensical. In economics "scarcity" is a not about quantity, it's about use. Imagine if you were immortal. Even though you had all the time in the world, you still couldn't do everything at once. So you'd still have to prioritize how you used your time.

Now let's imagine that you have all the bodies in the world. Would you still have to prioritize? Of course. Any body that you allocated to doing X is one less body available for doing anything else. There would still be trade-offs. There would still be opportunity costs.

The fact that progress can provide us with an incredible abundance of many useful thing changes absolutely nothing about the fundamental rules of economics. The idea of "post-scarcity" was invented by people who are fundamentally ignorant about economics.

Just because there are a gazillion names that are freely available changes absolutely nothing about the rules of economics. Prioritization is just as necessary. Markets are just as necessary. It is just as necessary for people to use their money to help rank names by their usefulness.

Except in this case, there is literally no scarcity: there is no limit on the names that can be had, me having a name doesn't reduce the number of names available for other people, and in many places, you can acquire a name just by declaring that you now have that name, without at any point depriving anybody else of said name.

You're correct that names are non-rivalrous. But this really doesn't negate the necessity of seeing and knowing the demand for names. Imagine that your friend Emily is pregnant and she wants your input on some potential names. She asks you how you would divide $5 dollars among the following 5 names...

Gertrude
Samantha
Cyrstal
Hope
Maria

Would you randomly divide the $5 dollars among the 5 names? Nope. Would you evenly divide the $5 dollars among the 5 names? I'm guessing that you wouldn't. This is simply because I'm guessing that all 5 names aren't equally useful to you. Some of the names are more useful to you than others.

Instead of randomly dividing your dollars, or equally dividing your dollars, you would optimally divide your dollars. The more useful a name is to you, the more dollars that you'd give it...

Samantha: $3
Maria: $1
Hope: $1
Crystal: $0
Gertrude: $0

How do you explain this distribution of your dollars? We know it isn't random. We also know it isn't equal. We can clearly see that some names are more useful to you than others. But we don't know why this is. Only you know why this is. Only you know that your terrible aunt was named "Gertrude". Only you know that your craziest girlfriend was named "Crystal". Only you know that two of your childhood friends were named "Maria" and "Hope". Only you know that one person that you really admire and respect is named "Samantha".

This is a lot of knowledge... but does any of it really matter? Is any of it truly useful? Obviously it's all purely subjective. But it's the same thing with traditional naming. People can't ignore their positive and negative associations of names. We really don't want them to. What we should want is for the naming process to incorporate and utilize the largest possible amount of relevant information. This is what markets are the best at. You don't need to explain to Emily that you really admire and respect somebody named Samantha. This knowledge of yours can influence the outcome simply by you spending $3 dollars on the name "Samantha".

Perhaps this is the most relevant passage...

We must look at the price system as such a mechanism for communicating information if we want to understand its real function — a function which, of course, it fulfils less perfectly as prices grow more rigid. (Even when quoted prices have become quite rigid, however, the forces which would operate through changes in price still operate to a considerable extent through changes in the other terms of the contract.) The most significant fact about this system is the economy of knowledge with which it operates, or how little the individual participants need to know in order to be able to take the right action. In abbreviated form, by a kind of symbol, only the most essential information is passed on and passed on only to those concerned. It is more than a metaphor to describe the price system as a kind of machinery for registering change, or a system of telecommunications which enables individual producers to watch merely the movement of a few pointers, as an engineer might watch the hands of a few dials, in order to adjust their activities to changes of which they may never know more than is reflected in the price movement. — Friedrich Hayek, The Use Of Knowledge In Society

Sure, with the traditional naming method, you technically could sit down with Emily and justify why you value some names more than others. But if the list contains 400 names then it would take a really long time for you to justify your valuation of each and every name. Now imagine that 100 people participate in the traditional naming process. How long would it take for all them to justify/explain their valuations of each of the 400 names? It would take a really long time.

The fact of the matter is that Emily really doesn't need to know everybody's justifications/explanations. Nobody needs to know everybody's justifications/explanations. The only thing that anybody needs to know is everybody's valuations. Each of the 100 people would spend their money to help rank the names by usefulness. The rankings would be based on all the knowledge that is contained within all of their heads.

1. The knowledge about the usefulness of names is contained in everybody's heads
2. Choosing the most useful name depends on utilizing this dispersed knowledge
3. Voting doesn't come close to adequately utilizing dispersed knowledge
4. Spending is by far the best way to utilize dispersed knowledge

[Kavagrad]

I've read this entire thread. I still don't have a damn clue why any individual would care what another person names their child. Are we advocating some kind of collectivist naming system, where the people decide the name of each child? Are we advocating some dystopian future, far beyond what we thought peak capitalism could create, where corporations are constantly competing to bid on the name of every child on the planet? What exactly is the point of this thread. Xero, I didn't deserve this. Please. No.

[Salandriagado]

Except in this case, there is literally no scarcity: there is no limit on the names that can be had, me having a name doesn't reduce the number of names available for other people, and in many places, you can acquire a name just by declaring that you now have that name, without at any point depriving anybody else of said name.

You're correct that names are non-rivalrous. But this really doesn't negate the necessity of seeing and knowing the demand for names. Imagine that your friend Emily is pregnant and she wants your input on some potential names. She asks you how you would divide $5 dollars among the following 5 names...

Gertrude
Samantha
Cyrstal
Hope
Maria

Would you randomly divide the $5 dollars among the 5 names? Nope. Would you evenly divide the $5 dollars among the 5 names? I'm guessing that you wouldn't. This is simply because I'm guessing that all 5 names aren't equally useful to you. Some of the names are more useful to you than others.

Instead of randomly dividing your dollars, or equally dividing your dollars, you would optimally divide your dollars. The more useful a name is to you, the more dollars that you'd give it...

Samantha: $3
Maria: $1
Hope: $1
Crystal: $0
Gertrude: $0

How do you explain this distribution of your dollars? We know it isn't random. We also know it isn't equal. We can clearly see that some names are more useful to you than others. But we don't know why this is. Only you know why this is. Only you know that your terrible aunt was named "Gertrude". Only you know that your craziest girlfriend was named "Crystal". Only you know that two of your childhood friends were named "Maria" and "Hope". Only you know that one person that you really admire and respect is named "Samantha".

No I wouldn't. I'd keep my $5.

[Petrasylvania]

The whole idea of monetizing every little detail might have a little hitch. What if the money devalues?

[Xerographica]

The whole idea of monetizing every little detail might have a little hitch. What if the money devalues?

The beauty of the system is that it naturally and automatically strengthens the weakest links.

[Xerographica]

I've read this entire thread. I still don't have a damn clue why any individual would care what another person names their child. Are we advocating some kind of collectivist naming system, where the people decide the name of each child? Are we advocating some dystopian future, far beyond what we thought peak capitalism could create, where corporations are constantly competing to bid on the name of every child on the planet? What exactly is the point of this thread. Xero, I didn't deserve this. Please. No.

When I created this thread I thought that I checked the box that said, "Filter out socialists". You're a socialist? Your input is NOT welcome.

I'm not being serious. This thread is about soliciting input from many different people. As a socialist are you diametrically opposed to input? I'm guessing that you aren't. Then we disagree regarding the type of input. I believe that people should be able to use their money to provide input on everything. Spending money is a sacrifice. So if people can provide monetary input on everything, then we will learn just how sacrifice-worthy everything is.

[Xerographica]

You're correct that names are non-rivalrous. But this really doesn't negate the necessity of seeing and knowing the demand for names. Imagine that your friend Emily is pregnant and she wants your input on some potential names. She asks you how you would divide $5 dollars among the following 5 names...

Gertrude
Samantha
Cyrstal
Hope
Maria

Would you randomly divide the $5 dollars among the 5 names? Nope. Would you evenly divide the $5 dollars among the 5 names? I'm guessing that you wouldn't. This is simply because I'm guessing that all 5 names aren't equally useful to you. Some of the names are more useful to you than others.

Instead of randomly dividing your dollars, or equally dividing your dollars, you would optimally divide your dollars. The more useful a name is to you, the more dollars that you'd give it...

Samantha: $3
Maria: $1
Hope: $1
Crystal: $0
Gertrude: $0

How do you explain this distribution of your dollars? We know it isn't random. We also know it isn't equal. We can clearly see that some names are more useful to you than others. But we don't know why this is. Only you know why this is. Only you know that your terrible aunt was named "Gertrude". Only you know that your craziest girlfriend was named "Crystal". Only you know that two of your childhood friends were named "Maria" and "Hope". Only you know that one person that you really admire and respect is named "Samantha".

No I wouldn't. I'd keep my $5.

Oh, are you trying to kill me with suspense? Hurry up and finish the story! Please tell us how you're going to spend the $5 dollars.

[Xerographica]

I am not a pragma-socialist.

Goodness gracious, you're like that anti-establishment, rebel youth from that video game Orwell. You really are serious, wow.

I've been trying to wrap my mind around this. I even did some homework by reading about the game on Wikipedia. It didn't specifically mention anything about a "rebel youth". Then again, I didn't read it too carefully.

How would you compare the rebel youth in Orwell to the main guy in Fight Club? There was this anarcho-capitalist guy named Murry Rothbard who said that, if there was a button that would instantly annihilate the entire government, he'd push the button until his thumb blistered.

Even though I strongly oppose the current system, I would never push a button to implement my preferred system. This is because I'm a masochist. I love subjecting myself to the pain and torture of trying to persuade everyone that my preferred system is vastly superior. Well, that and I might be wrong. Fallibility is fucking fabulous!

[Kavagrad]

I've read this entire thread. I still don't have a damn clue why any individual would care what another person names their child. Are we advocating some kind of collectivist naming system, where the people decide the name of each child? Are we advocating some dystopian future, far beyond what we thought peak capitalism could create, where corporations are constantly competing to bid on the name of every child on the planet? What exactly is the point of this thread. Xero, I didn't deserve this. Please. No.

When I created this thread I thought that I checked the box that said, "Filter out socialists". You're a socialist? Your input is NOT welcome.

I'm not being serious. This thread is about soliciting input from many different people. As a socialist are you diametrically opposed to input? I'm guessing that you aren't. Then we disagree regarding the type of input. I believe that people should be able to use their money to provide input on everything. Spending money is a sacrifice. So if people can provide monetary input on everything, then we will learn just how sacrifice-worthy everything is.

Have you ever stopped to consider that not everything has to be an economic decision? Maybe, just maybe, humans aren't econs, and their decisions can be driven by economically irrational factors, such as, I don't know, emotion and sentimentality, rather than purely for the purposes of their own economic benefit. especially in the scenario you are suggesting.

@Everyone else in the thread: I see what you mean when you talk about Xero now. #NotMyComrade

[Salandriagado]

No I wouldn't. I'd keep my $5.

Oh, are you trying to kill me with suspense? Hurry up and finish the story! Please tell us how you're going to spend the $5 dollars.

My expenses are already significantly lower than my income, so it'd just help to fill up my savings account slightly faster.

[Xerographica]

When I created this thread I thought that I checked the box that said, "Filter out socialists". You're a socialist? Your input is NOT welcome.

I'm not being serious. This thread is about soliciting input from many different people. As a socialist are you diametrically opposed to input? I'm guessing that you aren't. Then we disagree regarding the type of input. I believe that people should be able to use their money to provide input on everything. Spending money is a sacrifice. So if people can provide monetary input on everything, then we will learn just how sacrifice-worthy everything is.

Have you ever stopped to consider that not everything has to be an economic decision? Maybe, just maybe, humans aren't econs, and their decisions can be driven by economically irrational factors, such as, I don't know, emotion and sentimentality, rather than purely for the purposes of their own economic benefit. especially in the scenario you are suggesting.

@Everyone else in the thread: I see what you mean when you talk about Xero now. #NotMyComrade

Let’s consult a socialist…

Following a three-hour time-off-for-personal-exploration period, an excited Sylvia returns to the campsite and announces: “I’ve stumbled upon a huge apple tree, full of perfect apples.” “Great,” others exclaim, “now we can all have apple sauce, and apple pie, and apple strudel!” “Provided, of course,” so Sylvia rejoins, “that you reduce my labour burden, and/or furnish me with more room in the tent, and/or with more bacon at breakfast.” Her claim to (a kind of) ownership of the tree revolts the others. — G.A. Cohen, The Socialist’s Guide to Camping

Let's be greedy and consult another socialist...

The system of free competition is a rather peculiar one. Its mechanism is one of fooling entrepreneurs. It requires the pursuit of maximum profit in order to function, but it destroys profits when they are actually pursued by a larger number of people. - Oskar Lange, On the Economic Theory of Socialism: Part Two

Let's be even greedier and consult another socialist...

We need then some systematic way for the citizens to provide feedback on the plan, as it is realized. There are many, many things to be said against the market system, but it is a mechanism for providing feedback from users to producers, and for propagating that feedback through the whole economy, without anyone having to explicitly track that information. This is a point which both Hayek, and Lange (before the war) got very much right. The feedback needn’t be just or even mainly through prices; quantities (especially inventories) can sometimes work just as well. But what sells and what doesn’t is the essential feedback. - Cosma Shalizi, In Soviet Union, Optimization Problem Solves You

It is conceivable that there is some alternative feedback mechanism which is as rich, adaptive, and easy to use as the market but is not the market, not even in a disguised form. Nobody has proposed such a thing. - Cosma Shalizi, In Soviet Union, Optimization Problem Solves You

If somebody does something that benefits you, then you provide them with positive feedback. Positive feedback can come in many forms. But by far the best form of positive feedback is sacrifice. Sacrifice is the most trustworthy and reliable and credible form of positive feedback.

[Xerographica]

Oh, are you trying to kill me with suspense? Hurry up and finish the story! Please tell us how you're going to spend the $5 dollars.

My expenses are already significantly lower than my income, so it'd just help to fill up my savings account slightly faster.

So you didn't spend the $5 to help your friend name her baby... because you wanted to save the $5 dollars for a rainy day?

[The Holy Therns]

My expenses are already significantly lower than my income, so it'd just help to fill up my savings account slightly faster.

So you didn't spend the $5 to help your friend name her baby... because you wanted to save the $5 dollars for a rainy day?

I won't speak for Sal, but if someone asked me to spend $5 on baby names I'd just laugh in their face and stop hanging out with that person.

[Xerographica]

So you didn't spend the $5 to help your friend name her baby... because you wanted to save the $5 dollars for a rainy day?

I won't speak for Sal, but if someone asked me to spend $5 on baby names I'd just laugh in their face and stop hanging out with that person.

What if I ask you to spend $5 dollars to help name a website?

[Camicon]

I won't speak for Sal, but if someone asked me to spend $5 on baby names I'd just laugh in their face and stop hanging out with that person.

What if I ask you to spend $5 dollars to help name a website?

I'd tell you that if you want my help making your website you better be paying me.

[Xerographica]

What if I ask you to spend $5 dollars to help name a website?

I'd tell you that if you want my help making your website you better be paying me.

But what if it's our website?