The Relationship Between Cooperation And Feedback

[Neutraligon]

So...since no one else is going to donate, are you saying that if I go and give Max Barry a couple of quid, and then tell you that I hate the Wealth of Nations, you'll concede that everything you believe is wrong? You'll stop posting these threads?

To be clear, donations made before the donating poll has been created can't be applied to it. Also, the book ranking donating poll won't give you the option to use your money to convey your hatred for a book. You can only use your donation to convey your love for a book. That being said, if the donating poll ranks the Wealth of Nations lower than the voting poll does, then this will falsify my belief in the superiority of spending.

Imagine an elementary school teacher and her 30 students use voting and donating to rank the same ten books. With voting the students are going to win. But with donating, chances are good that the teacher will win.

I am sorry but how does someone having a different belief in what makes a good book falsify your hypothesis that spending is superior? How is one even related to the other. Also, by admitting this you have just ruined your experiment completely. People troll, so it is entirely possible that someone will vote against their own preferences just to screw you up. Your experiment, which was before just mostly useless has now become entirely useless.

As to the student teacher thing, well that depends on what they are voting for and why. If they are spending for the book they prefer the most then the teacher wins simply because they have more money (and so actual preference is not shown since the teacher may not prefer their book more then the students prefer their's) Look at that you just ruined your own idea that spending shows preference when there is a disparity in the amount of money people have,nice job self refuting.

If they are voting for the book, then it depends on exactly what they are voting for. If for instance they are voting for which book to read next in the classroom, then there are is really only 1 possible option for that particular group of people and the teacher will vote with the rest of the class to read harry potter. If they are voting on which book they like best then the teacher will likely lose, but then a group of elementary school kids has likely only read 2 of the books listed. The only one to have read more is the teacher, and even that teacher may not have read all of the books. This topic of voting will tell you nothing.

It is almost like polling questions have to be carefully worded and the polling people have to have a basic understanding of the people being polled to have polls mean something.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

So...since no one else is going to donate, are you saying that if I go and give Max Barry a couple of quid, and then tell you that I hate the Wealth of Nations, you'll concede that everything you believe is wrong? You'll stop posting these threads?

To be clear, donations made before the donating poll has been created can't be applied to it. Also, the book ranking donating poll won't give you the option to use your money to convey your hatred for a book. You can only use your donation to convey your love for a book. That being said, if the donating poll ranks the Wealth of Nations lower than the voting poll does, then this will falsify my belief in the superiority of spending.

Imagine an elementary school teacher and her 30 students use voting and donating to rank the same ten books. With voting the students are going to win. But with donating, chances are good that the teacher will win.

Fine. But will you stop posting these threads of yours if the Wealth of Nations comes lower in this "premium poll"?

To be clear, donations made before the donating poll has been created can't be applied to it. Also, the book ranking donating poll won't give you the option to use your money to convey your hatred for a book. You can only use your donation to convey your love for a book. That being said, if the donating poll ranks the Wealth of Nations lower than the voting poll does, then this will falsify my belief in the superiority of spending.

Imagine an elementary school teacher and her 30 students use voting and donating to rank the same ten books. With voting the students are going to win. But with donating, chances are good that the teacher will win.

I am sorry but how does someone having a different belief in what makes a good book falsify your hypothesis that spending is superior? How is one even related to the other. Also, by admitting this you have just ruined your experiment completely. People troll, so it is entirely possible that someone will vote against their own preferences just to screw you up. Yor experiment, which was before just mostly useless has now become entirely useless.

Don't be absurd! No one would ever do that!

[Xerographica]

Heh, given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow (Linus's Law). Thanks for sharing your preferred ranking. Yeah I doubt that anybody has read all 10 books. But our group as a whole has probably read all 10 books. As a group we've collectively read far more books than any individual member of the group has read. This is the point of ranking them as a group. It's the premise of the wisdom of the crowd concept. The question is whether a crowd of voters is wiser than a crowd of donors. Whose recommendations should you trust more highly?

Neither. and for the reasons I listed in the post above. If I have read the books, why should I care how others rank them, especially since the ranking is likely to be based on varying criteria. For instance I might rank do to usefulness to me in particular (excluding personal enjoyment), while others might rank due to personal enjoyment or to getting children to read or any other number of ways to rank usefulness. Given the various ways one can take usefulness, your ranking means nothing.

If I have not read the books, then your rankings tell me jackshit about the books and whether I should read them.

Tomorrow you and I randomly end up stranded on a deserted island. I say that our priority should be shelter. You say that our priority should be water. There's a disparity in our priorities. There's a difference in our rankings...

Me
1. shelter
2. water

You
1. water
2. shelter

Does one of us have the wrong priorities? Is one of us mistaken? Naturally we will try and explain/justify/defend our priorities. I'll say, "Shelter should be our priority because...a, b and c." You'll say, "Water should be our priority because.. x, y and z." Then I'll say, "Oh yeah, I didn't think of that. You're right. Let's put our heads together and solve our water problem first. Once we solve it then we can worry about our shelter problem."

This is doable with small groups. But imagine if every member of NS was stranded on a deserted island. In this case, we would need a more efficient method for discerning each other's priorities. We would either use voting or donating. Voting and donating would produce very different rankings. One ranking would be a lot better than the other at facilitating our survival.

Voting and donating are going to produce very different rankings of the 10 books. This means that both rankings aren't going to be equally efficient at eliminating errors. Both rankings aren't going to be equally effective at education.

[Neutraligon]

To be clear, donations made before the donating poll has been created can't be applied to it. Also, the book ranking donating poll won't give you the option to use your money to convey your hatred for a book. You can only use your donation to convey your love for a book. That being said, if the donating poll ranks the Wealth of Nations lower than the voting poll does, then this will falsify my belief in the superiority of spending.

Imagine an elementary school teacher and her 30 students use voting and donating to rank the same ten books. With voting the students are going to win. But with donating, chances are good that the teacher will win.

Fine. But will you stop posting these threads of yours if the Wealth of Nations comes lower in this "premium poll"?

I am sorry but how does someone having a different belief in what makes a good book falsify your hypothesis that spending is superior? How is one even related to the other. Also, by admitting this you have just ruined your experiment completely. People troll, so it is entirely possible that someone will vote against their own preferences just to screw you up. Yor experiment, which was before just mostly useless has now become entirely useless.

Don't be absurd! No one would ever do that!

The sad thing, even if we just compared say the bible and The evolution of species boo, I would not donate to either (I have read the bible, I have not read Darwin's book) for a few reasons. One I barely find the poll interesting enough to answer. Two I have disabled ad-block on this website and do not wish to further donate money. Three both books are in public domain so why should I pay to rank them when people can get them for free. Four both books are mostly useless to me. When it comes to the bible, the only reason I would read it is because I want to understand where people are coming from when it comes to their religion, beyond that it is useless. Darwin's book is also similarly useless considering how far the field of biology when it comes to evolution has progressed since he wrote that boo. If I want to understand evolution today I would read more modern books on evolution, and if I want to read about the cutting edge stuff I would look into modern journals.

[Xerographica]

To be clear, donations made before the donating poll has been created can't be applied to it. Also, the book ranking donating poll won't give you the option to use your money to convey your hatred for a book. You can only use your donation to convey your love for a book. That being said, if the donating poll ranks the Wealth of Nations lower than the voting poll does, then this will falsify my belief in the superiority of spending.

Imagine an elementary school teacher and her 30 students use voting and donating to rank the same ten books. With voting the students are going to win. But with donating, chances are good that the teacher will win.

Fine. But will you stop posting these threads of yours if the Wealth of Nations comes lower in this "premium poll"?

Yes. Will you start posting threads about the superiority of spending if the Wealth of Nations comes higher in the "premium poll"?

I am sorry but how does someone having a different belief in what makes a good book falsify your hypothesis that spending is superior? How is one even related to the other. Also, by admitting this you have just ruined your experiment completely. People troll, so it is entirely possible that someone will vote against their own preferences just to screw you up. Yor experiment, which was before just mostly useless has now become entirely useless.

Don't be absurd! No one would ever do that!

Troll toll.

[Neutraligon]

Neither. and for the reasons I listed in the post above. If I have read the books, why should I care how others rank them, especially since the ranking is likely to be based on varying criteria. For instance I might rank do to usefulness to me in particular (excluding personal enjoyment), while others might rank due to personal enjoyment or to getting children to read or any other number of ways to rank usefulness. Given the various ways one can take usefulness, your ranking means nothing.

If I have not read the books, then your rankings tell me jackshit about the books and whether I should read them.

Tomorrow you and I randomly end up stranded on a deserted island. I say that our priority should be shelter. You say that our priority should be water. There's a disparity in our priorities. There's a difference in our rankings...

Me
1. shelter
2. water

You
1. water
2. shelter


Does one of us have the wrong priorities? Is one of us mistaken? Naturally we will try and explain/justify/defend our priorities. I'll say, "Shelter should be our priority because...a, b and c." You'll say, "Water should be our priority because.. x, y and z." Then I'll say, "Oh yeah, I didn't think of that. You're right. Let's put our heads together and solve our water problem first. Once we solve it then we can worry about our shelter problem."

I would need more information to determine which is more important at the time. If we are stranded on a desert island in the middle of the hottest part of the day, where standing in the sun is basically a death sentence, then the answer is obvious, we need shelter and we need shelter now. I will not waste time arguing with you if the need is immediate. If on the other hand we can survive being in the sun long enough to look for water of shelter, then the answer is still obvious and I will not waste time arguing with you that can be better spent looking for water. Either way, I will not waste time arguing with you. Your example, like the one for elementary kids is terrible.

This is doable with small groups. But imagine if every member of NS was stranded on a deserted island. In this case, we would need a more efficient method for discerning each other's priorities. We would either use voting or donating. Voting and donating would produce very different rankings. One ranking would be a lot better than the other at facilitating our survival.

If everyone on NSG where stranded on that island then we can split the group up and those who think we should find shelter would find shelter and those who think to find water find water. The only thing we would need to do is find a place to meet up at and that should not be difficult to figure out since the only place we all would know is the location where we are stranded at in the beginning. you still gave a bad example.

Voting and donating are going to produce very different rankings of the 10 books. This means that both rankings aren't going to be equally efficient at eliminating errors. Both rankings aren't going to be equally effective at education.

In the case of NSG donating will not remove errors, because you and the people trolling you will be the only people who donate. This does not answer my question as to why your reference for a book means that if someone else disagrees and donates against you that this shows that spending is in fact not superior. Your preference of book has nothing to do with if spending is superior or not.

[Reploid Productions]

Also, I'm sure that the mods can ask Max Barry to verify donation amounts.

No.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

Fine. But will you stop posting these threads of yours if the Wealth of Nations comes lower in this "premium poll"?

Yes. Will you start posting threads about the superiority of spending if the Wealth of Nations comes higher in the "premium poll"?

No.

[Neutraligon]

Yes. Will you start posting threads about the superiority of spending if the Wealth of Nations comes higher in the "premium poll"?

No.

I think Xero has lost the point of this thread. It is also becoming more and more obvious that they don't understand the scientific method and how to create experiments. Kinda funny since they started it.

[Xerographica]

In the case of NSG donating will not remove errors, because you and the people trolling you will be the only people who donate. This does not answer my question as to why your reference for a book means that if someone else disagrees and donates against you that this shows that spending is in fact not superior. Your preference of book has nothing to do with if spending is superior or not.

Right now I believe that donating is better than voting at ranking books. This is what I believe. If we conduct the book ranking experiment, but voting ranks the books better than donating does, then this will falsify my belief in the superiority of spending.

Let's say that you believe that a hare is faster than a turtle. If a race is conducted, but the turtle wins, wouldn't this falsify your belief? If not, then what would? Anything?

[Neutraligon]

In the case of NSG donating will not remove errors, because you and the people trolling you will be the only people who donate. This does not answer my question as to why your reference for a book means that if someone else disagrees and donates against you that this shows that spending is in fact not superior. Your preference of book has nothing to do with if spending is superior or not.

Right now I believe that donating is better than voting at ranking books. You have made that obvious. This is what I believe.

You have made that abundantly clear

If we conduct the book ranking experiment, but voting ranks the books better than donating does, then this will falsify my belief in the superiority of spending.

Besides number of participants how do you determine which is"better"?

Let's say that you believe that a hare is faster than a turtle. If a race is conducted, but the turtle wins, wouldn't this falsify your belief? If not, then what would? Anything?

No it would not. To show me the turtle is faster then the hare you would need to show me that the top speed of the turtle beats the top speed of the rabbit in a strait run where neither side decides to stop to take a nap. You would also need to show me that the average speed of the turtle is higher then the average speed of the hare where neither side stops to take a nap. Like I said you fail to understand how to set up scientific experiments.

[Xerographica]

Right now I believe that donating is better than voting at ranking books. You have made that obvious. This is what I believe.

You have made that abundantly clear

If we conduct the book ranking experiment, but voting ranks the books better than donating does, then this will falsify my belief in the superiority of spending.

Besides number of participants how do you determine which is"better"?

Whichever ranking system ranks the Wealth of Nations higher is "better".

Let me try and simplify it even further. Here are two options...

Nuclear Holocaust
World Peace

Whichever ranking system ranks World Peace higher is "better".

Let's say that you believe that a hare is faster than a turtle. If a race is conducted, but the turtle wins, wouldn't this falsify your belief? If not, then what would? Anything?

No it would not. To show me the turtle is faster then the hare you would need to show me that the top speed of the turtle beats the top speed of the rabbit in a strait run where neither side decides to stop to take a nap. You would also need to show me that the average speed of the turtle is higher then the average speed of the hare where neither speed stops to take a nap. Like I said you fail to understand how to set up scientific experiments.

I'm certainly not going to stop you from conducting a very complicated and expensive and time-consuming experiment. For me personally, my proposed experiment is adequate at testing my belief in the superiority of spending. And in case you missed it, my belief is pretty strong.

It's such a funny thing. You all have spent so much time and energy trying to persuade me that my belief in spending is wrong. Here I am proposing a relatively simple and easy experiment that could potentially falsify my belief in spending. And here you are calling shenanigans.

[Neutraligon]

You have made that abundantly clear Besides number of participants how do you determine which is"better"?

Whichever ranking system ranks the Wealth of Nations higher is "better".

Let me try and simplify it even further. Here are two options...

Nuclear Holocaust
World Peace

Whichever ranking system ranks World Peace higher is "better".

What is meant by better? If you mean better for human survival as a whole, sure one is objectively better? But what if someone wants the human race, including themselves, to die out. Then for them better is nuclear holocaust.

No it would not. To show me the turtle is faster then the hare you would need to show me that the top speed of the turtle beats the top speed of the rabbit in a strait run where neither side decides to stop to take a nap. You would also need to show me that the average speed of the turtle is higher then the average speed of the hare where neither speed stops to take a nap. Like I said you fail to understand how to set up scientific experiments.

I'm certainly not going to stop you from conducting a very complicated and expensive and time-consuming experiment. For me personally, my proposed experiment is adequate at testing my belief in the superiority of spending. And in case you missed it, my belief is pretty strong.

It's such a funny thing. You all have spent so much time and energy trying to persuade me that my belief in spending is wrong. Here I am proposing a relatively simple and easy experiment that could potentially falsify my belief in spending. And here you are calling shenanigans.

Because the way you set up your experiment does not actually falsify your belief, especially since you flat out told people how to troll you. Using your method, you would have to first show that Wealth of Nations is actually objectively "better" then the other books. To put it simply it isn't. For instance say the reader is a 5 year old child. The better book is cat in the hat, because they would have no ability to read, let alone understand wealth of nations. Or say the reader is trying to understand the context of a quote from the bible. Well then the wealth of nations is useless and the bible itself is needed. By what objective measure are you claiming wealth of nations is better?

I spend time trying to correct you because the topic you present could actually be interesting...right now the only interesting thing about it is how badly you understand people, how badly you understand how to set up experiments, and how much wrong you can get (kinda like watching those bad Russian driver videos).

[Kara Koyun]

Garbage in garbage out.

Funnily enough, I've said the same thing about voting ranking and committee ranking.

I'm not exactly sure what you want. Do you want me to not conduct the book ranking experiment? Do you want me to leave experiments to the professionals? Do you want me to conduct a better experiment? What do you want?

What do you want? What do you hope to accomplish with this? Because your methodology is so sloppy that, even if everything worked out the way you hope it will, no one will be convinced by it. And if it doesn't work the way you hope it will, you have plenty of excuses to ignore the outcome.

[Neutraligon]

Funnily enough, I've said the same thing about voting ranking and committee ranking.

I'm not exactly sure what you want. Do you want me to not conduct the book ranking experiment? Do you want me to leave experiments to the professionals? Do you want me to conduct a better experiment? What do you want?

What do you want? What do you hope to accomplish with this? Because your methodology is so sloppy that, even if everything worked out the way you hope it will, no one will be convinced by it. And if it doesn't work the way you hope it will, you have plenty of excuses to ignore the outcome.

The sad thing is...Xero has shown before they have no idea how to set up experiments. And given what has been said before, what if both polls place wealth of nations at or near the bottom.

[The Two Jerseys]

This is doable with small groups. But imagine if every member of NS was stranded on a deserted island. In this case, we would need a more efficient method for discerning each other's priorities. We would either use voting or donating. Voting and donating would produce very different rankings. One ranking would be a lot better than the other at facilitating our survival.

If everyone on NSG where stranded on that island then we can split the group up and those who think we should find shelter would find shelter and those who think to find water find water. The only thing we would need to do is find a place to meet up at and that should not be difficult to figure out since the only place we all would know is the location where we are stranded at in the beginning. you still gave a bad example.

What? Get out of here with your division of labor hogwash!

[Kara Koyun]

If everyone on NSG where stranded on that island then we can split the group up and those who think we should find shelter would find shelter and those who think to find water find water. The only thing we would need to do is find a place to meet up at and that should not be difficult to figure out since the only place we all would know is the location where we are stranded at in the beginning. you still gave a bad example.

What? Get out of here with your division of labor hogwash!

For some reason, I imagine NSG stranded on an island would make Lord of the Flies look like Dora the Explorer.

[The Two Jerseys]

What? Get out of here with your division of labor hogwash!

For some reason, I imagine NSG stranded on an island would make Lord of the Flies look like Dora the Explorer.

I predict the Wehraboos and tankies immediately going Battle Royale on each other...

[Xerographica]

Funnily enough, I've said the same thing about voting ranking and committee ranking.

I'm not exactly sure what you want. Do you want me to not conduct the book ranking experiment? Do you want me to leave experiments to the professionals? Do you want me to conduct a better experiment? What do you want?

What do you want? What do you hope to accomplish with this? Because your methodology is so sloppy that, even if everything worked out the way you hope it will, no one will be convinced by it. And if it doesn't work the way you hope it will, you have plenty of excuses to ignore the outcome.

I want to conduct an experiment that could potentially falsify my belief in the superiority of spending. If voters rank The Wealth of Nations higher than donors do, then this will falsify my belief in spending. Will it falsify anybody else's beliefs? How many other members believe in the superiority of spending? I think that I'm the only one.

Basically, I don't want any BS beliefs. This experiment can potentially prove that my belief in spending is BS.

[Neutraligon]

What do you want? What do you hope to accomplish with this? Because your methodology is so sloppy that, even if everything worked out the way you hope it will, no one will be convinced by it. And if it doesn't work the way you hope it will, you have plenty of excuses to ignore the outcome.

I want to conduct an experiment that could potentially falsify my belief in the superiority of spending.

Then your method fails due to the fact that you have told us how to troll you.

If voters rank The Wealth of Nations higher than donors do, then this will falsify my belief in spending.

And if neither is voted higher, or if people intentionally troll you? Also why is Wealth of nations considered a better book, you have yet to answer this question.

Will it falsify anybody else's beliefs? How many other members believe in the superiority of spending? I think that I'm the only one.

No it will not, because your belief that wealth of nations is the best book does not necessarily match with reality.

Basically, I don't want any BS beliefs. This experiment can potentially prove that my belief in spending is BS.

No it cannot. You are supposedly using this polling/donating to show you what is the better method to determine the "best book". You do this by setting up two options that let people rank what they think is the best book. You are then claiming that if the best book as determined by the polls/donations is not your favorite book then the polling (or donation) does not work. You have failed to take into consideration that your opinion of what is best book and what actually is best book can conflict. Your methodology is fundamentally flawed. What happens is both methods actually work the way you say they should work...and both place Wealth of Nations as not being the best book?

[Xerographica]

Whichever ranking system ranks the Wealth of Nations higher is "better".

Let me try and simplify it even further. Here are two options...

Nuclear Holocaust
World Peace

Whichever ranking system ranks World Peace higher is "better".

What is meant by better? If you mean better for human survival as a whole, sure one is objectively better? But what if someone wants the human race, including themselves, to die out. Then for them better is nuclear holocaust.

We all have our own definitions of "better" and we will each judge the book rankings accordingly. Speaking of which, why haven't you shared your preferred ranking of the books?

I'm certainly not going to stop you from conducting a very complicated and expensive and time-consuming experiment. For me personally, my proposed experiment is adequate at testing my belief in the superiority of spending. And in case you missed it, my belief is pretty strong.

It's such a funny thing. You all have spent so much time and energy trying to persuade me that my belief in spending is wrong. Here I am proposing a relatively simple and easy experiment that could potentially falsify my belief in spending. And here you are calling shenanigans.

Because the way you set up your experiment does not actually falsify your belief, especially since you flat out told people how to troll you. Using your method, you would have to first show that Wealth of Nations is actually objectively "better" then the other books. To put it simply it isn't. For instance say the reader is a 5 year old child. The better book is cat in the hat, because they would have no ability to read, let alone understand wealth of nations. Or say the reader is trying to understand the context of a quote from the bible. Well then the wealth of nations is useless and the bible itself is needed. By what objective measure are you claiming wealth of nations is better?

You can't tell me what will, or will not, falsify my belief. I mean you can, but doing so is silly. Like me telling you what will falsify your belief that God does(n't) exist.

I spend time trying to correct you because the topic you present could actually be interesting...right now the only interesting thing about it is how badly you understand people, how badly you understand how to set up experiments, and how much wrong you can get (kinda like watching those bad Russian driver videos).

There's always room for improvement. Like I said, you're more than welcome to create your own thread with a voting poll and a donating poll. It's easy enough to do.

[Xerographica]

My book ranking :

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


I did not rank 12 Rules of life. This is about books, not mindless drivel.

Thanks for sharing your preferred ranking! Do you guess it will be closer to the voting ranking or to the donating ranking? And is it possible for this experiment to change your mind about whether voting or spending is better at ranking things?

[Neutraligon]

What is meant by better? If you mean better for human survival as a whole, sure one is objectively better? But what if someone wants the human race, including themselves, to die out. Then for them better is nuclear holocaust.

We all have our own definitions of "better" and we will each judge the book rankings accordingly. Speaking of which, why haven't you shared your preferred ranking of the books?

Because there is no method by which I can show my preferred books. I have already explained this.

Because the way you set up your experiment does not actually falsify your belief, especially since you flat out told people how to troll you. Using your method, you would have to first show that Wealth of Nations is actually objectively "better" then the other books. To put it simply it isn't. For instance say the reader is a 5 year old child. The better book is cat in the hat, because they would have no ability to read, let alone understand wealth of nations. Or say the reader is trying to understand the context of a quote from the bible. Well then the wealth of nations is useless and the bible itself is needed. By what objective measure are you claiming wealth of nations is better?

You can't tell me what will, or will not, falsify my belief. I mean you can, but doing so is silly. Like me telling you what will falsify your belief that God does(n't) exist.

I spend time trying to correct you because the topic you present could actually be interesting...right now the only interesting thing about it is how badly you understand people, how badly you understand how to set up experiments, and how much wrong you can get (kinda like watching those bad Russian driver videos).

There's always room for improvement. Like I said, you're more than welcome to create your own thread with a voting poll and a donating poll. It's easy enough to do.

Sure I cannot tell you what will convince you that your beliefs are bad. What I can do is point out that your reasoning is flawed. Since you said you do not want BS beliefs, pointing out your flawed reasoning should be convincing. So either you do not want BS beliefs, or you do not care that your reasoning is flawed.

Like I said earlier, I think that your donating/polling question is flawed at it's most basic premise, to the point where it does not matter who makes the poll. I already explained what I think is needed for this to work, and I do not think it is possible to meet the criteria here. I do not think I can come up with a question that would be interesting enough people would want to donate just for the chance to do the poll/donation. I do think there would be enough people willing to donate to some organization, but if that where the case they probably have an idea of how much they are willing/able to donate and so the amount they spend will not match with book preference or willingness to pay to push their book (it is more related to how much they are willing to donate to the organization of their choice, with the book thing being incidental).

[Xerographica]

We all have our own definitions of "better" and we will each judge the book rankings accordingly. Speaking of which, why haven't you shared your preferred ranking of the books?

Because there is no method by which I can show my preferred books. I have already explained this.

What prevents you from sorting the 10 books according to their importance/relevance/benefit/usefulness to you? The fact that you haven't read them all? None of us have read them all.

I have never claimed that I believe god does not exist. And sure I cannot tell you what will convince you that your beliefs are bad. What I can do is point out that your reasoning is flawed. Since you said you do not want BS beliefs, pointing out your flawed reasoning should be convincing. So either you do not want BS beliefs, or you do not care that your reasoning is flawed. Like I said earlier, I think that your donating/polling question is flawed at it's most basic premise, to the point where it does not matter who makes the poll. I already explained what I think is needed for this to work, and I do not think it is possible to meat the criteria here. I do not think I can come up with a question that would be interesting enough people would want to donate just for the chance to do the poll. I do think there would be enough people willing to donate to some organization, but if that where the case they probably have an idea of how much they are willing/able to donate and so the amount they spend will not match with book preference or willingness to pay to push their book (it is more related to how much they are willing to donate to the organization of their choice, with the book thing being incidental).

You don't think it's possible to use this forum to effectively compare the difference between voting and donating. You might be right, but it doesn't hurt to try. If guessing the demand for things was so easy, then markets wouldn't be so useful.

Today on the BeerAdvocate forum I posted my very first thread...

On this website there is a list of the 250 top rated beers according to users. This is essentially a beer treasure map.

Imagine if a new treasure map of beers was created. The beers on this list would be ranked by donations to this website. For example, let's say that you love the beer "Keene Idea". You could make a $10 donation to this website for this beer, which would increase its ranking by $10 dollars. The more money that you donated to this website, the more influence that you'd have on this treasure map. Improving this map would essentially be a perk of donating.

Which treasure map would be better? My best guess is that the donating treasure map would be much better. This is simply because actions speak louder than words. People's spending decisions are more reliable than their words at revealing their true preferences.

Economics is incredibly important. Beer depends on economics. Get the economics right, the beer supply will be wonderful. Get the economics wrong, the beer supply will be terrible.

Here's an important economic insight. Whenever you buy beer you help to improve its ranking. How beer is ranked determines how society's limited resources are divided between it and the alternatives... such as wine. Beer and wine are constantly competing for resources and the contest is determined by consumer choice.

Buying creates a treasure map for all products...beer, wine and so on. So right now there already is a treasure map that is based on actions rather than words. We already use our money to rank beers.

The thing is, buying and donating really aren't the same thing. This means that the beer treasure maps that they create will be different. My best guess is that the donating treasure map will be better.

How much money would this raise for this website? That's a good question. Right now the internet has a huge problem. The traditional revenue model of banner ads isn't working... most people use ad-blockers. As a result, more and more websites are putting their content behind paywalls. But obviously this greatly limits access to it.

It's entirely possible that the internet's biggest problem can be solved by treasure maps created by donors.

What are your thoughts?

Immediately after posting the thread I saw a notification that it had to be approved by the moderators before it would be made public. An hour later I went to check whether it had been approved. It hadn't been. Instead, I was banned... for spam. Hah.

If you happen to run across a website/organization that's willing to test the difference between voting and donating... and you think the test would be effective... then please let me know.

[Xerographica]

Yes. Will you start posting threads about the superiority of spending if the Wealth of Nations comes higher in the "premium poll"?

No.

What would it take to convince you that donating is better than voting?