The Relationship Between Cooperation And Feedback

[Xerographica]

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.

I'm pretty sure that I never said that voting and spending are the only two ranking systems. Ranking by committee is another commonly used ranking system. For example, the dogs at a show are ranked by committee.

But my original point is that the book ranking experiment could potentially falsify my belief in the superiority of spending. Could this experiment potentially falsify your own belief? If not, could any experiment?

[Jelmatt]

Xero. Goddammit.

No one fucking cares.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

Xero. Goddammit.

No one fucking cares.

You have to admire his persistence. He has a blog and a subreddit and these threads and presumably a whole bunch other forums he posts this stuff on. Almost no one listens and everyone who does tells him that he's wrong. But he just. Keeps. Going.

[Galloism]

Xero. Goddammit.

No one fucking cares.

You have to admire his persistence. He has a blog and a subreddit and these threads and presumably a whole bunch other forums he posts this stuff on. Almost no one listens and everyone who does tells him that he's wrong. But he just. Keeps. Going.

Honestly, I think problem is his approach. If he’d pay us a few thousand dollars each, maybe we could take his ideas more seriously.

[The Two Jerseys]

Oh for crying out loud...

The free-rider problem does not apply to this site.

Oh, you underlined it, so it must be true. Why do you think the free-rider problem doesn't apply to this site? Because this site has ads?

Yes.

That's literally how advertiser-supported free media works.

What if the reason why this site has ads is because people don't donate enough to cover the cost of the site?

What if the reason why this site has ads is because making the site free to the end user will attract more users, which means that more eyeballs will see the ads, which means Max Barry's Beer Fund gets even bigger?

[Salandriagado]

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.

And here we have your fundamental logical failing laid bare: you are assuming a priori that your beliefs are right, and not considering any possible challenge to them.

[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.

And here we have your fundamental logical failing laid bare: you are assuming a priori that your beliefs are right, and not considering any possible challenge to them.

I'm not sure what you mean. What you replied to was my explanation of exactly what would falsify my belief. What experiment could potentially falsify your own belief?

[Anywhere Else But Here]

And here we have your fundamental logical failing laid bare: you are assuming a priori that your beliefs are right, and not considering any possible challenge to them.

I'm not sure what you mean. What you replied to was my explanation of exactly what would falsify my belief. What experiment could potentially falsify your own belief?

But you're starting from the premise that Wealth of Nations is better, and that if a survey disagrees, there must be something wrong with the survey. You can't acknowledge that your opinion of which book is best might be wrong. Likewise, you can't acknowledge that your beliefs about spending money might be wrong. You say this experiment would make you acknowledge that, but of course, no one will ever take part in such an experiment, because no one sane pays to be polled. So you can happily continue believing your own nonsense, and in a couple of months you'll repost this same damn thread, and everyone will tell you you're wrong all over again.

[Xerographica]

I'm not sure what you mean. What you replied to was my explanation of exactly what would falsify my belief. What experiment could potentially falsify your own belief?

But you're starting from the premise that Wealth of Nations is better, and that if a survey disagrees, there must be something wrong with the survey. You can't acknowledge that your opinion of which book is best might be wrong. Likewise, you can't acknowledge that your beliefs about spending money might be wrong. You say this experiment would make you acknowledge that, but of course, no one will ever take part in such an experiment, because no one sane pays to be polled. So you can happily continue believing your own nonsense, and in a couple of months you'll repost this same damn thread, and everyone will tell you you're wrong all over again.

People wouldn't solely be paying to be polled. Participating in the donating poll would be one of the perks of making a donation to this forum. My belief is that donors are better informed than voters. This experiment would either confirm, or contradict, my belief.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

But you're starting from the premise that Wealth of Nations is better, and that if a survey disagrees, there must be something wrong with the survey. You can't acknowledge that your opinion of which book is best might be wrong. Likewise, you can't acknowledge that your beliefs about spending money might be wrong. You say this experiment would make you acknowledge that, but of course, no one will ever take part in such an experiment, because no one sane pays to be polled. So you can happily continue believing your own nonsense, and in a couple of months you'll repost this same damn thread, and everyone will tell you you're wrong all over again.

People wouldn't solely be paying to be polled. Participating in the donating poll would be one of the perks of making a donation to this forum. My belief is that donors are better informed than voters. This experiment would either confirm, or contradict, my belief.

But you'd be using a subjective metric (which book is better?). If what you're trying to find out is whether people with cash to blow are better informed than those without, why not attach a question about income to a general knowledge quiz?

[The Two Jerseys]

People wouldn't solely be paying to be polled. Participating in the donating poll would be one of the perks of making a donation to this forum. My belief is that donors are better informed than voters. This experiment would either confirm, or contradict, my belief.

But you'd be using a subjective metric (which book is better?). If what you're trying to find out is whether people with cash to blow are better informed than those without, why not attach a question about income to a general knowledge quiz?

While we're at it, make them do 20 push-ups as well, because reasons.

[Xerographica]

People wouldn't solely be paying to be polled. Participating in the donating poll would be one of the perks of making a donation to this forum. My belief is that donors are better informed than voters. This experiment would either confirm, or contradict, my belief.

But you'd be using a subjective metric (which book is better?). If what you're trying to find out is whether people with cash to blow are better informed than those without, why not attach a question about income to a general knowledge quiz?

Yeah... it's subjective to determine which book is better... but it's also subjective to determine which politician is better. The question is whether voting or donating is better at prioritization.

Regarding your idea of attaching an income question to a general knowledge quiz... then what? The results could potentially falsify your belief in voting? Do you really need a quiz to tell you that education and income are correlated?

[The Two Jerseys]

But you'd be using a subjective metric (which book is better?). If what you're trying to find out is whether people with cash to blow are better informed than those without, why not attach a question about income to a general knowledge quiz?

Yeah... it's subjective to determine which book is better... but it's also subjective to determine which politician is better. The question is whether voting or donating is better at prioritization.

Regarding your idea of attaching an income question to a general knowledge quiz... then what? The results could potentially falsify your belief in voting? Do you really need a quiz to tell you that education and income are correlated?

Are you saying that rich people are automatically smarter because they can afford fancy schools?

[Anywhere Else But Here]

But you'd be using a subjective metric (which book is better?). If what you're trying to find out is whether people with cash to blow are better informed than those without, why not attach a question about income to a general knowledge quiz?

Yeah... it's subjective to determine which book is better... but it's also subjective to determine which politician is better. The question is whether voting or donating is better at prioritization.

Regarding your idea of attaching an income question to a general knowledge quiz... then what? The results could potentially falsify your belief in voting? Do you really need a quiz to tell you that education and income are correlated?

No. But everything you're saying is so confused that I'm not sure what your opinion is. You think donors will be better informed than non-paying voters. Clearly, the very act of giving money can't make one more informed, so you must believe that the people who have the money to donate to a poll (i.e., the well-off) are better informed than those who won't take part. Which means your argument isn't really that money somehow communicates better, but that people who have more money tend to know more stuff. Which, as you say, is not really remarkable, but if we must have thread after thread about it, there are easier and more effective ways to test it than anything you've ever suggested.

[Xerographica]

Yeah... it's subjective to determine which book is better... but it's also subjective to determine which politician is better. The question is whether voting or donating is better at prioritization.

Regarding your idea of attaching an income question to a general knowledge quiz... then what? The results could potentially falsify your belief in voting? Do you really need a quiz to tell you that education and income are correlated?

No. But everything you're saying is so confused that I'm not sure what your opinion is. You think donors will be better informed than non-paying voters. Clearly, the very act of giving money can't make one more informed, so you must believe that the people who have the money to donate to a poll (i.e., the well-off) are better informed than those who won't take part. Which means your argument isn't really that money somehow communicates better, but that people who have more money tend to know more stuff. Which, as you say, is not really remarkable, but if we must have thread after thread about it, there are easier and more effective ways to test it than anything you've ever suggested.

The only reason we've had thread after thread about the difference between voting and spending is because I've really been the only one interested in testing it. If you know of an easier and more effective way to potentially falsify your belief in voting... then I'm all ears.

[The Two Jerseys]

The only reason we've had thread after thread about the difference between voting and spending is because I've really been the only one interested in testing it.

Take the hint.

[Xerographica]

The only reason we've had thread after thread about the difference between voting and spending is because I've really been the only one interested in testing it.

Take the hint.

What hint? That you don't want your beliefs to be tested and potentially disproved?

[The Two Jerseys]

Take the hint.

What hint? That you don't want your beliefs to be tested and potentially disproved?

That NOBODY CARES!

[Xerographica]

What hint? That you don't want your beliefs to be tested and potentially disproved?

That NOBODY CARES!

You don't care if your beliefs are wrong?

[The Two Jerseys]

That NOBODY CARES!

You don't care if your beliefs are wrong?

Sounding more and more like a fucking Jehovah's Witness does not help your argument.

[Galloism]

What hint? That you don't want your beliefs to be tested and potentially disproved?

That NOBODY CARES!

That's not really the lesson here.

The question is would we prefer imperfect information (voting) or no information (spending).

Xero seems to think the no information is better. Most of us think imperfect information is better.

[Xerographica]

That NOBODY CARES!

That's not really the lesson here.

The question is would we prefer imperfect information (voting) or no information (spending).

Xero seems to think the no information is better. Most of us think imperfect information is better.

Yet you've never once argued that spending should be abolished and replaced with voting. Why is imperfect information only sometimes better than no information?

Also, I disagree about the no information part. All the people who didn't make a donation informed us that they had more important things to spend their money on. You don't consider this to be information?

[Anywhere Else But Here]

That's not really the lesson here.

The question is would we prefer imperfect information (voting) or no information (spending).

Xero seems to think the no information is better. Most of us think imperfect information is better.

Yet you've never once argued that spending should be abolished and replaced with voting. Why is imperfect information only sometimes better than no information?

Also, I disagree about the no information part. All the people who didn't make a donation informed us that they had more important things to spend their money on. You don't consider this to be information?

How exactly would one replace money with votes in everyday life? You can't vote for a shopkeeper to let you have four pints of milk.

[Xerographica]

Yet you've never once argued that spending should be abolished and replaced with voting. Why is imperfect information only sometimes better than no information?

Also, I disagree about the no information part. All the people who didn't make a donation informed us that they had more important things to spend their money on. You don't consider this to be information?

How exactly would one replace money with votes in everyday life? You can't vote for a shopkeeper to let you have four pints of milk.

You buy milk to own it, but the amount you spend on it helps to determine its rank, which determines its supply. What matters is getting the supply of milk right, which depends on ranking it correctly. Do you believe that milk would be incorrectly ranked by voting? If so, then why do you believe that voting correctly ranks anything?

[The Two Jerseys]

How exactly would one replace money with votes in everyday life? You can't vote for a shopkeeper to let you have four pints of milk.

You buy milk to own it, but the amount you spend on it helps to determine its rank, which determines its supply. What matters is getting the supply of milk right, which depends on ranking it correctly. Do you believe that milk would be incorrectly ranked by voting? If so, then why do you believe that voting correctly ranks anything?

The cows who produce said milk would disagree with all of that.