The Relationship Between Cooperation And Feedback

[Salandriagado]

It produces even less information than the poll does. That doesn't mean the poll is precise at gathering information, it's definitely missing some nuance, but his pay what you desire is garnering even less accurate information because the number of participants is roughly zero, or perhaps I should say, the number of participants is roughly Xero.

Hah.

Here are the current results...

IM: 17 votes
Xero: 2 votes

Xero: $2 dollars
IM: $1 dollar

The donating poll essentially blocks two types of people...

1. people who are poor
2. people who don't truly care

The main target are the people who don't truly care. The poor people are collateral damage.

Here are three examples of donating-based surveys…

1. Donating was used to determine whether men or women are better tippers.
2. Donating was used to determine which prominent skeptic to prank.
3. Donating was used to determine which theme to use for the libertarian convention…

$6,327.00 - I'm That Libertarian!
$5,200.00 - Building Bridges, Not Walls
$1,620.00 - Pro Choice on Everything
$1,377.77 - Empowering the Individual
$395.00 - The Power of Principle
$150.00 - Future of Freedom
$135.00 - Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness
$105.00 - Rise of the Libertarians
$75.00 - Free Lives Matter
$42.00 - Be Me, Be Free
$17.76 - Make Taxation Theft Again
$15.42 - Taxation is Theft
$15.00 - Jazzed About Liberty
$15.00 - All of Your Freedoms, All of the Time
$5.00 - Am I Being Detained!
$5.00 - Liberty Here and Now

All three surveys blocked poor people and uncaring people. How different would the results have been if voting had been used instead of donating? If the results would have been better, then we should eliminate money entirely. Money should be abolished if we can prove that a crowd of voters is wiser than a crowd of spenders.

The truth is eventually going to be uncovered. The issue is whether you're a hindrance or a help.

Money isn't for communicating information. It's for making trade easier.

[Xerographica]

When you have to resort to arguing that it's a waste to make a donation to NS, then it should be obvious that you're messing up.

Either you were going to make a donation to NS anyway in exchange for the good feels (The Max Barry Beer Fund thanks you), in which case you have made no sacrifice as you were just doing what you were going to do anyway, or you are donating to party A (again the Max Barry Beer Fund thanks you) in an attempt to show how strong you feel about something to party B, which is just weird and makes no sense.

I mean, I paid my electric bill this morning. It was $83.17.

I'd like to allocate 100% of that to Xero never bringing up "using money to rank things" ever again. Make sense?

If you throw your body on a grenade, but there's nobody else around, then you sacrificed your life for nothing. In other words, you wasted your life. But if, on the other hand, your buddies are around, then you still sacrificed your life, but you did it to save theirs. You exchanged something less valuable (your life) for something more valuable (their lives). Your transaction was profitable, but this doesn't change the fact that you made a sacrifice.

So even if I derive $3 million dollars worth of happiness from my $3 dollar donation to this forum... my donation would still be a sacrifice. Of course the more profitable a sacrifice is, the more likely that people will make it. This is the very point of perks. One of the perks of donating is that the ads are removed. This perk makes donating more profitable.

Using donated dollars to rank things is another perk of donating. The more money that somebody donates, the more influence they'll have on the donating rankings. With donating polls there's a chance that the minority will win. With voting polls there's no chance that the minority will win.

Let's say that Max Barry starts to crowdsource forum decisions. Will he rely on the voting polls or the donating polls? Which is smarter... a crowd of voters or a crowd of donors? This is a really good question. I'm pretty sure that a crowd of donors is smarter, but I could be wrong.

Regarding your electric bill... you paid it. But have you ever made a donation to this forum that you frequently use? You can use this forum whether or not you donate. But you can only use electricity if you pay for it. This is why it's important to make it more profitable to donate to this forum.

[Bakery Hill]

You are less useful and this thread is an illustration of this. Why do you think you can answer such a question with mathematics? To really answer it requires a fight in a confined space that allows for eye gouging, biting etc.

[Galloism]

Using donated dollars to rank things is another perk of donating. The more money that somebody donates, the more influence they'll have on the donating rankings. With donating polls there's a chance that the minority will win. With voting polls there's no chance that the minority will win.

I’d say this thread is proving the effectiveness of both systems pretty well. You’re missing a hell of a lot of information in the “donating” poll compared with the regular poll. All relevant information to you in fact - the only information you have gleaned from the “donating” poll is information you knew before you started.

Sure, the voting poll is not capturing strength of preference, but it’s capturing preference. Your donating poll is capturing neither.

I mean, I’m a pilot. Imagine I have a choice between two compasses. One is reasonably accurate over the whole earth, but is subject to the normal compass errors, turning errors, the whole problem of magnetic drift, turbulence errors, etc. The other is 100% accurate no matter what, but only if I’m over city limits of Cleveland Ohio, otherwise it’s just a random direction generator. Which is more useful?

Let's say that Max Barry starts to crowdsource forum decisions. Will he rely on the voting polls or the donating polls? Which is smarter... a crowd of voters or a crowd of donors? This is a really good question. I'm pretty sure that a crowd of donors is smarter, but I could be wrong.

This thread seems to be proving the crowd of voters is smarter, first because it’s a bigger crowd (and you told me more input = better), but also because they haven’t thrown their money at the wind to “express an opinion”.

Regarding your electric bill... you paid it. But have you ever made a donation to this forum that you frequently use? You can use this forum whether or not you donate. But you can only use electricity if you pay for it. This is why it's important to make it more profitable to donate to this forum.

I did the thing for no ads for my wife, iirc.

[Xerographica]

Money isn't for communicating information. It's for making trade easier.

The point of money is to communicate the demand. The point of knowing the demand is to improve the supply.

[Xerographica]

You are less useful and this thread is an illustration of this. Why do you think you can answer such a question with mathematics? To really answer it requires a fight in a confined space that allows for eye gouging, biting etc.

The voting poll indicates that I am a lot less useful than IM. But if voting is more reliable than spending at judging usefulness... then why not abolish money? Why not use voting to rank everything? Wouldn't people vote for food, computers and houses?

[Bakery Hill]

You are less useful and this thread is an illustration of this. Why do you think you can answer such a question with mathematics? To really answer it requires a fight in a confined space that allows for eye gouging, biting etc.

The voting poll indicates that I am a lot less useful than IM. But if voting is more reliable than spending at judging usefulness... then why not abolish money? Why not use voting to rank everything? Wouldn't people vote for food, computers and houses?

Why not fight them (with their permission naturally) in a confined space that allows for eye gouging, biting etc. ?

[Xerographica]

The voting poll indicates that I am a lot less useful than IM. But if voting is more reliable than spending at judging usefulness... then why not abolish money? Why not use voting to rank everything? Wouldn't people vote for food, computers and houses?

Why not fight them (with their permission naturally) in a confined space that allows for eye gouging, biting etc. ?

Are you going to charge admission and donate all the proceeds to NS?

[Bakery Hill]

Why not fight them (with their permission naturally) in a confined space that allows for eye gouging, biting etc. ?

Are you going to charge admission and donate all the proceeds to NS?

No this is to determine use value, which I judged was your purpose. Why do you constantly talk about money? Your spouse must hate this.

[Galloism]

Money isn't for communicating information. It's for making trade easier.

The point of money is to communicate the demand. The point of knowing the demand is to improve the supply.

Money is not to communicate demand. Money is a medium of trade - much like pieces of silver once were, and before that, chickens. Demand is measured by quantity purchased (at a given price point).

“Money communicates demand” is about as sensical as “chickens communicate demand”.

[Bakery Hill]

The point of money is to communicate the demand. The point of knowing the demand is to improve the supply.

Money is not to communicate demand. Money is a medium of trade - much like pieces of silver once were, and before that, chickens. Demand is measured by quantity purchased (at a given price point).

“Money communicates demand” is about as sensical as “chickens communicate demand”.

I'm afraid I can't understand you. Maybe if you give me money it might help?

[Galloism]

Money is not to communicate demand. Money is a medium of trade - much like pieces of silver once were, and before that, chickens. Demand is measured by quantity purchased (at a given price point).

“Money communicates demand” is about as sensical as “chickens communicate demand”.

I'm afraid I can't understand you. Maybe if you give me money it might help?

The future of communication.

[Dogmeat]

The truth is eventually going to be uncovered. The issue is whether you're a hindrance or a help.

With respect Xero, I think you've proven that you're a hindrance. You're convinced you already know what the truth is, and you won't accept any other conclusions.

[Erythrean Thebes]

1. Does it matter how useful you are to us?

You can only ask this question individually to separate persons. If you asked a group of people, the individuals would still have to expose their personal views and agree on adopting a position. So the answer is that it is a question of individual belief

[Xerographica]

The truth is eventually going to be uncovered. The issue is whether you're a hindrance or a help.

With respect Xero, I think you've proven that you're a hindrance. You're convinced you already know what the truth is, and you won't accept any other conclusions.

It's entirely possible for my belief in the superiority of spending to be falsified. Here's the list of 10 books that I shared earlier...

1. The Origin Of Species
2. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone
3. The Cat in the Hat
4. 50 Shades of Grey
5. Principia
6. The Bible
7. War and Peace
8. 12 Rules For Life
9. A Theory of Justice
10. The Wealth of Nations

Let's say that NS members used voting and donating to rank these books. If voting ranked The Wealth of Nations higher than donating did, then this would falsify my belief in the superiority of spending.

This is a relatively simple experiment that could potentially falsify my belief. Could this experiment potentially falsify your belief? If not, then could any experiment potentially falsify your belief?

[Xerographica]

1. Does it matter how useful you are to us?

You can only ask this question individually to separate persons. If you asked a group of people, the individuals would still have to expose their personal views and agree on adopting a position. So the answer is that it is a question of individual belief

Does it matter how useful you are to us?

[Salandriagado]

Money isn't for communicating information. It's for making trade easier.

The point of money is to communicate the demand. The point of knowing the demand is to improve the supply.

That's not true in any way, shape, or form. The point of money is to make it so you don't have to take a live chicken with you to buy bread.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

With respect Xero, I think you've proven that you're a hindrance. You're convinced you already know what the truth is, and you won't accept any other conclusions.

It's entirely possible for my belief in the superiority of spending to be falsified. Here's the list of 10 books that I shared earlier...

1. The Origin Of Species
2. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone
3. The Cat in the Hat
4. 50 Shades of Grey
5. Principia
6. The Bible
7. War and Peace
8. 12 Rules For Life
9. A Theory of Justice
10. The Wealth of Nations

Let's say that NS members used voting and donating to rank these books. If voting ranked The Wealth of Nations higher than donating did, then this would falsify my belief in the superiority of spending.

This is a relatively simple experiment that could potentially falsify my belief. Could this experiment potentially falsify your belief? If not, then could any experiment potentially falsify your belief?

Why? Wouldn't it just prove that less people want to buy a copy of the Wealth of Nations?

[Galloism]

The point of money is to communicate the demand. The point of knowing the demand is to improve the supply.

That's not true in any way, shape, or form. The point of money is to make it so you don't have to take a live chicken with you to buy bread.

That would make trips to the bank more interesting.

[Xerographica]

It's entirely possible for my belief in the superiority of spending to be falsified. Here's the list of 10 books that I shared earlier...

1. The Origin Of Species
2. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone
3. The Cat in the Hat
4. 50 Shades of Grey
5. Principia
6. The Bible
7. War and Peace
8. 12 Rules For Life
9. A Theory of Justice
10. The Wealth of Nations

Let's say that NS members used voting and donating to rank these books. If voting ranked The Wealth of Nations higher than donating did, then this would falsify my belief in the superiority of spending.

This is a relatively simple experiment that could potentially falsify my belief. Could this experiment potentially falsify your belief? If not, then could any experiment potentially falsify your belief?

Why? Wouldn't it just prove that less people want to buy a copy of the Wealth of Nations?

There's no point in anybody buying The Wealth of Nations... it's freely available online. From my perspective The Wealth of Nations is the most important book. So if voting ranked it higher than donating did, then this would falsify my belief in spending.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

Why? Wouldn't it just prove that less people want to buy a copy of the Wealth of Nations?

There's no point in anybody buying The Wealth of Nations... it's freely available online. From my perspective The Wealth of Nations is the most important book. So if voting ranked it higher than donating did, then this would falsify my belief in spending.

Exactly. So why would people spend money on it? Haven't you just knocked down your own ideology by thought-experiment?

[Xerographica]

There's no point in anybody buying The Wealth of Nations... it's freely available online. From my perspective The Wealth of Nations is the most important book. So if voting ranked it higher than donating did, then this would falsify my belief in spending.

Exactly. So why would people spend money on it? Haven't you just knocked down your own ideology by thought-experiment?

Ranking is the same thing as prioritizing. The point of prioritizing things is to determine how to divide resources among them. How we rank these books will reflect how we want society's time and attention to be distributed among them. However, voting and donating will rank these books very differently. My belief is that the donating ranking will be better than the voting ranking. If, however, voting ranks The Wealth of Nations higher than donating does, then my belief will be falsified.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

Exactly. So why would people spend money on it? Haven't you just knocked down your own ideology by thought-experiment?

Ranking is the same thing as prioritizing. The point of prioritizing things is to determine how to divide resources among them. How we rank these books will reflect how we want society's time and attention to be distributed among them. However, voting and donating will rank these books very differently. My belief is that the donating ranking will be better than the voting ranking. If, however, voting ranks The Wealth of Nations higher than donating does, then my belief will be falsified.

Why would they rank them differently? Why would a person vote for one thing then, when asked to (for some reason) express their opinion through the medium of coins, vote for something else?

[Xerographica]

Ranking is the same thing as prioritizing. The point of prioritizing things is to determine how to divide resources among them. How we rank these books will reflect how we want society's time and attention to be distributed among them. However, voting and donating will rank these books very differently. My belief is that the donating ranking will be better than the voting ranking. If, however, voting ranks The Wealth of Nations higher than donating does, then my belief will be falsified.

Why would they rank them differently? Why would a person vote for one thing then, when asked to (for some reason) express their opinion through the medium of coins, vote for something else?

If the voting survey was multiple choice then I'd vote for both the Origin of Species and the Wealth of Nations. Both books match my preferences. But do they equally match my preferences? No. This means that I would unequally divide my donated dollars between them.

Here's the basic economic problem...

society's desires: unlimited
society's resources: limited

Here's the market solution: how people divide their limited dollars accurately reflects how they want society's limited resources to be divided.

Here's the democratic solution: how people cast their votes accurately reflects how they want society's limited resources to be divided.

Both solutions can't be equally good at solving the basic economic problem. My belief is that the market solution is much better than the democratic solution. But if voting ranked The Wealth of Nations higher than donating did, then this would falsify my belief.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

Why would they rank them differently? Why would a person vote for one thing then, when asked to (for some reason) express their opinion through the medium of coins, vote for something else?

If the voting survey was multiple choice then I'd vote for both the Origin of Species and the Wealth of Nations. Both books match my preferences. But do they equally match my preferences? No. This means that I would unequally divide my donated dollars between them.

Here's the basic economic problem...

society's desires: unlimited
society's resources: limited

Here's the market solution: how people divide their limited dollars accurately reflects how they want society's limited resources to be divided.

Here's the democratic solution: how people cast their votes accurately reflects how they want society's limited resources to be divided.

Both solutions can't be equally good at solving the basic economic problem. My belief is that the market solution is much better than the democratic solution. But if voting ranked The Wealth of Nations higher than donating did, then this would falsify my belief.

This is a false dichotomy. You're acting as if the only alternative to you bizarre, anti-Scrooge-like obsession with spending money is one particular type of survey, where you have to either approve of each book or disapprove of it. Which, sure, doesn't offer much nuance. But why wouldn't you just ask individuals to rank the books directly? Or give a score to the books? Like, you know, how we tend to judge books here in the sane world.