The Relationship Between Cooperation And Feedback

[Kara Koyun]

point of the double blind is to try and prevent scientists from inadvertently biasing the results. This isn't relevant either.

The results of the donations in this thread are 100% your bias. And I suspect that would be the case in your other experiment as well.

That's... not great.

EDIT: There's also, as far as I can tell, nothing that stops you from just lying about what the donation numbers are. I'm not suggesting you would, but the fact that you easily could is troubling.

[Xerographica]

Do you not want people to donate to this website? Do you not appreciate that this experiment is also a fundraiser?

I’d view it as a blatantly retarded cash grab for a for profit business. I’d honestly be somewhat offended if Max actually participated in this type of basement level chicanery.

I’m sure I’ve generated him at least a few hundred in ad payments. He can be happy with my contribution thus far. If he did this, I’d turn my ad-block back on, and the money from views stops flowing.

So you're very confident that this website is adequately profitable for Max Barry. Why, exactly, are you so confident? Do you know how many members have their adblocker turned off for this website?

So what's your final answer? Will your preferred rankings be closer to the donating rankings or the voting rankings?

Dunno.

But you're confident that voting shouldn't be replaced with donating.

[Xerographica]

point of the double blind is to try and prevent scientists from inadvertently biasing the results. This isn't relevant either.

The results of the donations in this thread are 100% your bias. And I suspect that would be the case in your other experiment as well.

That's... not great.

But part of the experiment is to gauge the demand for influencing the donating rankings. I had no idea that I was going to be the only donor in this experiment. I honestly thought that there would be at least a few folks happy for an excuse to make a small donation to this website. Clearly I was wrong. In perfect hindsight, I overestimated the demand for influencing the ranking.

If guessing the demand was so easy, then markets wouldn't be so useful. This is why I really wouldn't be confident trying to guess the demand for influencing the book rankings. How could I possibly predict how many people love the Bible enough to spend their money to try and put it at the top of the donating rankings?

EDIT: There's also, as far as I can tell, nothing that stops you from just lying about what the donation numbers are. I'm not suggesting you would, but the fact that you easily could is troubling.

How could I lie about them when Max Barry is getting the money? Well, technically I could lie about them, but then Max Barry could very well inform everybody that I'm a liar.

[Kara Koyun]

The results of the donations in this thread are 100% your bias. And I suspect that would be the case in your other experiment as well.

That's... not great.

But part of the experiment is to gauge the demand for influencing the donating rankings. I had no idea that I was going to be the only donor in this experiment. I honestly thought that there would be at least a few folks happy for an excuse to make a small donation to this website. Clearly I was wrong. In perfect hindsight, I overestimated the demand for influencing the ranking.

If guessing the demand was so easy, then markets wouldn't be so useful. This is why I really wouldn't be confident trying to guess the demand for influencing the book rankings. How could I possibly predict how many people love the Bible enough to spend their money to try and put it at the top of the donating rankings?

I think that you should have had some idea that you might be. It would have been my first guess.

But the biggest obstacle against this all being scientific is that, in a blind study, your sample group is supposed to be free of the researcher's influence. And look at all these threads: they're pages and pages of you trying to influence your sample group, to get them to behave the way you want them to. I don't know what effect this has had, I suspect it may actually be working against you, but either way it's a variable that shouldn't exist unless what you're testing is the effect of coaching on the subjects.

EDIT: There's also, as far as I can tell, nothing that stops you from just lying about what the donation numbers are. I'm not suggesting you would, but the fact that you easily could is troubling.

How could I lie about them when Max Barry is getting the money? Well, technically I could lie about them, but then Max Barry could very well inform everybody that I'm a liar.

Does Max Barry spend a lot of time personally regulating your threads?

[Erythrean Thebes]

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?

For me, useful doesn't well describe my values; most of the feelings that are important to me, have little to do with usefulness. I'm not challenged on whether I'm useful as a person in my ordinary life, and I don't often have to take notice of the usefulness of others. Perhaps sometimes, for a specific occasion involving a task, then I will be thinking moreso in terms of people's abilities. While I would select the best possible abilities for what I needed, which could be called usefulness, that assessment of mine ultimately wouldn't carry over into any of my ideas about them as a person. My assessments of people, as they are in totality, derive from a philosophy of human rights.

[Xerographica]

But part of the experiment is to gauge the demand for influencing the donating rankings. I had no idea that I was going to be the only donor in this experiment. I honestly thought that there would be at least a few folks happy for an excuse to make a small donation to this website. Clearly I was wrong. In perfect hindsight, I overestimated the demand for influencing the ranking.

If guessing the demand was so easy, then markets wouldn't be so useful. This is why I really wouldn't be confident trying to guess the demand for influencing the book rankings. How could I possibly predict how many people love the Bible enough to spend their money to try and put it at the top of the donating rankings?

I think that you should have had some idea that you might be. It would have been my first guess.

But the biggest obstacle against this all being scientific is that, in a blind study, your sample group is supposed to be free of the researcher's influence. And look at all these threads: they're pages and pages of you trying to influence your sample group, to get them to behave the way you want them to. I don't know what effect this has had, I suspect it may actually be working against you, but either way it's a variable that shouldn't exist unless what you're testing is the effect of coaching on the subjects.

Clearly I'm biased to a certain outcome (donating), but most others are biased to a different outcome (voting). But as you saw, Galloism shared his preferred ranking of the books. I guess his preferred ranking will be closer to the donating ranking, but it's not like I can make this happen. Well, I suppose technically I could try and donate my money to match his preferred ranking... but that's definitely not going to happen. Anyways, we will all be able to compare his preferred to the donating rankings and the voting rankings. You're welcome to share your preferred ranking beforehand as well.

Of course I'd love to see this experiment formally conducted. Believe you me I've certainly e-mailed and asked enough academics to conduct this experiment. But so far no luck. In the meantime... I think this experiment is pretty useful. Even if I am the only person to donate to rank the books... this is still a really interesting thing to try and figure out. Is it because people aren't interested in spending their money to rank the books? Except... all the money goes to Max Barry. So maybe people aren't interested in donating to this website?

How could I lie about them when Max Barry is getting the money? Well, technically I could lie about them, but then Max Barry could very well inform everybody that I'm a liar.

Does Max Barry spend a lot of time personally regulating your threads?

Yes? No? I don't know. But it's really not worth it to risk the chance that he does happen to compare my stated numbers with the actual numbers.

[Bakery Hill]

why the fuck do you want to do this though? why? why would anyone do this?

[Xerographica]

Does it matter how useful you are to us?

For me, useful doesn't well describe my values; most of the feelings that are important to me, have little to do with usefulness. I'm not challenged on whether I'm useful as a person in my ordinary life, and I don't often have to take notice of the usefulness of others. Perhaps sometimes, for a specific occasion involving a task, then I will be thinking moreso in terms of people's abilities. While I would select the best possible abilities for what I needed, which could be called usefulness, that assessment of mine ultimately wouldn't carry over into any of my ideas about them as a person. My assessments of people, as they are in totality, derive from a philosophy of human rights.

You wrote your reply in English, which all of us can read. Would it have mattered if you had written your reply in a language that most of us can't read? From my perspective it would have made your reply, and by extension yourself, less useful to us. Would you agree?

[Xerographica]

why the fuck do you want to do this though? why? why would anyone do this?

To try and determine whether voting or donating is a better way to rank books.

[Bakery Hill]

why the fuck do you want to do this though? why? why would anyone do this?

To try and determine whether voting or donating is a better way to rank books.

No one is going to pay to rank books, that's ridiculous.

[Kara Koyun]

I think that you should have had some idea that you might be. It would have been my first guess.

But the biggest obstacle against this all being scientific is that, in a blind study, your sample group is supposed to be free of the researcher's influence. And look at all these threads: they're pages and pages of you trying to influence your sample group, to get them to behave the way you want them to. I don't know what effect this has had, I suspect it may actually be working against you, but either way it's a variable that shouldn't exist unless what you're testing is the effect of coaching on the subjects.

Clearly I'm biased to a certain outcome (donating), but most others are biased to a different outcome (voting). But as you saw, Galloism shared his preferred ranking of the books. I guess his preferred ranking will be closer to the donating ranking, but it's not like I can make this happen. Well, I suppose technically I could try and donate my money to match his preferred ranking... but that's definitely not going to happen. Anyways, we will all be able to compare his preferred to the donating rankings and the voting rankings. You're welcome to share your preferred ranking beforehand as well.

Why would I invest in the outcome of an experiment I believe is foundationally flawed?

Of course I'd love to see this experiment formally conducted. Believe you me I've certainly e-mailed and asked enough academics to conduct this experiment. But so far no luck. In the meantime... I think this experiment is pretty useful. Even if I am the only person to donate to rank the books... this is still a really interesting thing to try and figure out. Is it because people aren't interested in spending their money to rank the books? Except... all the money goes to Max Barry. So maybe people aren't interested in donating to this website?

Sounds to me like you're already hard at work rationalizing why your ideas don't hold true when tested.

Does Max Barry spend a lot of time personally regulating your threads?

Yes? No? I don't know. But it's really not worth it to risk the chance that he does happen to compare my stated numbers with the actual numbers.

So we should trust you because there's a tiny chance that Sempai has noticed you? Seems legit.

[Forsher]

why the fuck do you want to do this though? why? why would anyone do this?

To try and determine whether voting or donating is a better way to rank books.

Wait... ranking books... NSG... books... have you ever even read Jennifer Government?

[Xerographica]

To try and determine whether voting or donating is a better way to rank books.

No one is going to pay to rank books, that's ridiculous.

They are actually donating to this website... ranking the books is just one of the perks.

[Forsher]

To try and determine whether voting or donating is a better way to rank books.

No one is going to pay to rank books, that's ridiculous.

We used to say that Xero's "pragmatarian" (tax choice) position was really just an attempt not to achieve tax reform but rather electoral reform that would achieve plutocracy. I'm not necessarily convinced Xero understood this critique so his kind disposition to such an arrangement may or may not mean anything in particular.

These days Xero's shtick is less pragmatarianism and more "everything works by ranking and voting is worse at ranking than spending". There's a lot wrong with that. But sometimes Xero's approach raises interesting questions that would if handled by literally anyone else... including IM... probably create threads people post in, instead of hate-posting (Xero, in this formulation, is less IM and more FST but without the mean streak). Take this voting versus spending thing, we'll call it the Communication Problem or CP.

Xero's formulation of the CP is pretty crude. It's not as crude as it could be but he seems to have, er, groped himself to a local maximum. Had Xero used different initialising values (er, getting a feel of a wide variety of topics... i.e. what I have been trying to convince Xero to do for years) or even different jump steps he could achieve better mixing properties and come to a more refined version. But as is, Xero basically argues:

how can we trust communication made without sacrifice: sacrifice is what gives actions meaning?

Xero's answer to this problem is expenditure. If you spent money to indicate preferences you'd reveal your preferences better which would lead to all sorts of better outcomes for society. That's what I think, when you cut through all the BS "passages" and God-awful analogies, the crux of the abstract position Xero tries to convince us of actually is. He calls it the preference revelation problem. But it's not a preference problem, it's a communication problem, right?

Here's a sad game. Here's a legitimately depressing article about suicide, zero hours and constrained optimisation... er, choices (for real, don't read this).

...

If you or anyone you know would like to support Forsher in his production of more posts like this one, please consider taking the easy step of replying to this post. Forsher will then attempt to continue his current train of thought.

[Xerographica]

Clearly I'm biased to a certain outcome (donating), but most others are biased to a different outcome (voting). But as you saw, Galloism shared his preferred ranking of the books. I guess his preferred ranking will be closer to the donating ranking, but it's not like I can make this happen. Well, I suppose technically I could try and donate my money to match his preferred ranking... but that's definitely not going to happen. Anyways, we will all be able to compare his preferred to the donating rankings and the voting rankings. You're welcome to share your preferred ranking beforehand as well.

Why would I invest in the outcome of an experiment I believe is foundationally flawed?

Not sure if I understand. Sharing your preferred ranking simply means sorting the books according to their importance to you. Doing this isn't much of an investment. For example, here's my own preferred ranking...

The Wealth of Nations
The Origin Of Species
The Bible
Principia
A Theory of Justice
War and Peace
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone
The Cat in the Hat
50 Shades of Grey
12 Rules For Life

It only took me a second to sort them. My guess is that my preferred ranking will be closer to the donating ranking than the voting ranking. Do you guess that your preferred ranking will be closer to the voting ranking or the donating ranking?

I also don't know what flaws you see in this experiment's foundation. You'll simply compare your preferred ranking with 1. our preferred voting ranking and 2. our preferred donating ranking in order to see which ranking is closer to your own.

Of course I'd love to see this experiment formally conducted. Believe you me I've certainly e-mailed and asked enough academics to conduct this experiment. But so far no luck. In the meantime... I think this experiment is pretty useful. Even if I am the only person to donate to rank the books... this is still a really interesting thing to try and figure out. Is it because people aren't interested in spending their money to rank the books? Except... all the money goes to Max Barry. So maybe people aren't interested in donating to this website?

Sounds to me like you're already hard at work rationalizing why your ideas don't hold true when tested.

Which ideas? The main idea that is being tested is whether voting or donating is better at ranking books. And I define "better" according to my preferred rankings, which I've just shared with you and everyone else. If it turns out that my preferred rankings are actually closer to the voting rankings... then it's not like I can refute the evidence that is clear to everyone. The evidence will be clear that, according to my own definition of "better"... voting is actually better than donating at ranking books. The experiment would have falsified my belief in the superiority of spending. I'll be sad that I was proved wrong, but I'll be happy to no longer believe BS.

This is what science is all about. You have a belief and you test it in order to determine whether or not it's BS.

Yes? No? I don't know. But it's really not worth it to risk the chance that he does happen to compare my stated numbers with the actual numbers.

So we should trust you because there's a tiny chance that Sempai has noticed you? Seems legit.

You really don't have to trust me. You can simply ask one of the mods to verify that I did indeed donate $2 dollars.

[Kara Koyun]

I also don't know what flaws you see in this experiment's foundation.

Literally all of my posts in this thread have been about them. At this point you are being deliberately obtuse.

[Xerographica]

I also don't know what flaws you see in this experiment's foundation.

Literally all of my posts in this thread have been about them. At this point you are being deliberately obtuse.

I think I've clearly explained how this experiment can potentially falsify my belief in spending. I genuinely don't recall you mentioning anything that could hinder this ultimate objective. It would help if you said...

"___________________ could prevent this experiment from potentially falsifying your belief in spending."

Let's say that I'm the only donor. In this case the experiment will only weakly confirm my belief in spending. But it's not like I can do anything about being the only donor. Just like I can't prevent you from donating for the books that don't match my preferences. Just like I can't prevent Jordan Peterson from donating $50,000 for his book. These things are out of my control. But that's exactly how real life works. Well yeah, this is real life.

[Kara Koyun]

Literally all of my posts in this thread have been about them. At this point you are being deliberately obtuse.

I think I've clearly explained how this experiment can potentially falsify my belief in spending. I genuinely don't recall you mentioning anything that could hinder this ultimate objective. It would help if you said...

"___________________ could prevent this experiment from potentially falsifying [Xero's] belief in spending."

Let's say that I'm the only donor. In this case the experiment will only weakly confirm my belief in spending. But it's not like I can do anything about being the only donor. Just like I can't prevent you from donating for the books that don't match my preferences. Just like I can't prevent Jordan Peterson from donating $50,000 for his book. These things are out of my control. But that's exactly how real life works. Well yeah, this is real life.

If pointing out that your methodology is unscientific, and easily manipulated, and that you've corrupted your subject base, and that you personally are the only data point, and likely to remain the only data point in the donation portion of either poll doesn't invalidate the experiment, I just don't know what does.

But I do know what goes in the blank space above. It's "Xero"

[Xerographica]

I think I've clearly explained how this experiment can potentially falsify my belief in spending. I genuinely don't recall you mentioning anything that could hinder this ultimate objective. It would help if you said...

"___________________ could prevent this experiment from potentially falsifying [Xero's] belief in spending."

Let's say that I'm the only donor. In this case the experiment will only weakly confirm my belief in spending. But it's not like I can do anything about being the only donor. Just like I can't prevent you from donating for the books that don't match my preferences. Just like I can't prevent Jordan Peterson from donating $50,000 for his book. These things are out of my control. But that's exactly how real life works. Well yeah, this is real life.

If pointing out that your methodology is unscientific, and easily manipulated, and that you've corrupted your subject base, and that you personally are the only data point, and likely to remain the only data point in the donation portion of either poll doesn't invalidate the experiment, I just don't know what does.

But I do know what goes in the blank space above. It's "Xero"

So far only 36 people have participated in this thread's voting poll. Most forum members are ambivalent whether IM is, or isn't, more useful than I am. How many members will participate in the book voting poll? I'm guessing that a lot more members will participate. Maybe over 100 members will participate? This should increase the chances that other members will participate in the donating poll. If I'm still the only member who participates in the donating poll... then it's my donating preferences vs everybody's voting preferences. Well... out of those 100+ members who participate in the voting poll... how many will prefer my donating ranking over the voting ranking? From their perspective, a "crowd" of me is smarter than a crowd of voters.

In any case it's still an interesting statistic... for ever 100 people who donate in a voting poll, only one will care enough and/or be rich enough and/or altruistic enough to also participate in the donating poll. I doubt this is the actual ratio... but from my perspective it's still useful.

For me this experiment wouldn't be perfect, but it would still be pretty darn cool. In any case I'll learn something from it. Such as...whether members of this forum like Harry Potter more than the Bible. And how many people will vote for Jordan Peterson's book. And how many members will participate in the donating poll. If anybody else does, then I'll learn about their donating preferences.

[Kara Koyun]

If pointing out that your methodology is unscientific, and easily manipulated, and that you've corrupted your subject base, and that you personally are the only data point, and likely to remain the only data point in the donation portion of either poll doesn't invalidate the experiment, I just don't know what does.

But I do know what goes in the blank space above. It's "Xero"

So far only 36 people have participated in this thread's voting poll. Most forum members are ambivalent whether IM is, or isn't, more useful than I am. How many members will participate in the book voting poll? I'm guessing that a lot more members will participate. Maybe over 100 members will participate? This should increase the chances that other members will participate in the donating poll. If I'm still the only member who participates in the donating poll... then it's my donating preferences vs everybody's voting preferences. Well... out of those 100+ members who participate in the voting poll... how many will prefer my donating ranking over the voting ranking? From their perspective, a "crowd" of me is smarter than a crowd of voters.

In any case it's still an interesting statistic... for ever 100 people who donate in a voting poll, only one will care enough and/or be rich enough and/or altruistic enough to also participate in the donating poll. I doubt this is the actual ratio... but from my perspective it's still useful.

For me this experiment wouldn't be perfect, but it would still be pretty darn cool. In any case I'll learn something from it. Such as...whether members of this forum like Harry Potter more than the Bible. And how many people will vote for Jordan Peterson's book. And how many members will participate in the donating poll. If anybody else does, then I'll learn about their donating preferences.

Garbage in garbage out.

[Galloism]

I’d view it as a blatantly retarded cash grab for a for profit business. I’d honestly be somewhat offended if Max actually participated in this type of basement level chicanery.

I’m sure I’ve generated him at least a few hundred in ad payments. He can be happy with my contribution thus far. If he did this, I’d turn my ad-block back on, and the money from views stops flowing.

So you're very confident that this website is adequately profitable for Max Barry. Why, exactly, are you so confident? Do you know how many members have their adblocker turned off for this website?

I’m confident that disabling my ad block is sufficient compensation from me, which is what it’s all about right? Regarding the latter question, quite a few have. We had a thread on it one time.

Dunno.

But you're confident that voting shouldn't be replaced with donating.

Yep. This thread proves it quite handily that setting up a poll with a paywall eliminates preference information. I think it’s going well so far, don’t you?

[Galloism]

The main idea that is being tested is whether voting or donating is better at ranking books. And I define "better" according to my preferred rankings, which I've just shared with you and everyone else. If it turns out that my preferred rankings are actually closer to the voting rankings... then it's not like I can refute the evidence that is clear to everyone. The evidence will be clear that, according to my own definition of "better"... voting is actually better than donating at ranking books. The experiment would have falsified my belief in the superiority of spending. I'll be sad that I was proved wrong, but I'll be happy to no longer believe BS.

This is the worst criteria I've ever heard. And that's saying a lot.

You are presupposing that your ordered ranking IS the best, and that if the results of your "experiment" don't meet your preferred order, then the methodology of the experiment must be wrong or lacking. IE, if it does meet what you think is the best, it must be successful.

But there's no reason to believe your ordered ranking is the best, or, in point of fact, that there even IS a best.

You really don't have to trust me. You can simply ask one of the mods to verify that I did indeed donate $2 dollars.

First, I don't think mods can see that, and second, wasn't it $3?

[Erythrean Thebes]

For me, useful doesn't well describe my values; most of the feelings that are important to me, have little to do with usefulness. I'm not challenged on whether I'm useful as a person in my ordinary life, and I don't often have to take notice of the usefulness of others. Perhaps sometimes, for a specific occasion involving a task, then I will be thinking moreso in terms of people's abilities. While I would select the best possible abilities for what I needed, which could be called usefulness, that assessment of mine ultimately wouldn't carry over into any of my ideas about them as a person. My assessments of people, as they are in totality, derive from a philosophy of human rights.

You wrote your reply in English, which all of us can read. Would it have mattered if you had written your reply in a language that most of us can't read? From my perspective it would have made your reply, and by extension yourself, less useful to us. Would you agree?

The usefulness of something is an assessment you can make about most anything, at any time. I agree that if you examined the usefulness of my reply, it's readability would be one factor. This builds to my argument that our idea of usefulness really comes from a mentality. People key into the usefulness of their situation for certain reasons. Not everybody would ask themselves if my reply was useful. I believe that you do because of a certain manner of thinking you have.

[The Two Jerseys]

The main idea that is being tested is whether voting or donating is better at ranking books. And I define "better" according to my preferred rankings, which I've just shared with you and everyone else. If it turns out that my preferred rankings are actually closer to the voting rankings... then it's not like I can refute the evidence that is clear to everyone. The evidence will be clear that, according to my own definition of "better"... voting is actually better than donating at ranking books. The experiment would have falsified my belief in the superiority of spending. I'll be sad that I was proved wrong, but I'll be happy to no longer believe BS.

This is the worst criteria I've ever heard. And that's saying a lot.

You are presupposing that your ordered ranking IS the best, and that if the results of your "experiment" don't meet your preferred order, then the methodology of the experiment must be wrong or lacking. IE, if it does meet what you think is the best, it must be successful.

But there's no reason to believe your ordered ranking is the best, or, in point of fact, that there even IS a best.

You really don't have to trust me. You can simply ask one of the mods to verify that I did indeed donate $2 dollars.

First, I don't think mods can see that, and second, wasn't it $3?

I'm waiting for the Ali G response: "You is all jealous cos I is right!"

[The Blaatschapen]

The main idea that is being tested is whether voting or donating is better at ranking books. And I define "better" according to my preferred rankings, which I've just shared with you and everyone else. If it turns out that my preferred rankings are actually closer to the voting rankings... then it's not like I can refute the evidence that is clear to everyone. The evidence will be clear that, according to my own definition of "better"... voting is actually better than donating at ranking books. The experiment would have falsified my belief in the superiority of spending. I'll be sad that I was proved wrong, but I'll be happy to no longer believe BS.

This is the worst criteria I've ever heard. And that's saying a lot.

You are presupposing that your ordered ranking IS the best, and that if the results of your "experiment" don't meet your preferred order, then the methodology of the experiment must be wrong or lacking. IE, if it does meet what you think is the best, it must be successful.

But there's no reason to believe your ordered ranking is the best, or, in point of fact, that there even IS a best.

You really don't have to trust me. You can simply ask one of the mods to verify that I did indeed donate $2 dollars.

First, I don't think mods can see that, and second, wasn't it $3?

Even if the mods can see it, they're not going to tell. Financial data like that is highly private.