Pragmatarian Discussion Thread

[The Two Jerseys]

The point of donations is to help an organization, such as the Red Cross, compete resources away from other organizations, such as the KKK. Donations are used to rank organizations by importance, which determines the amount of control they have over society's limited resources.

Assuming that were actually true (which it isn't), kindly explain exactly why the AARP deserves society's resources more than the ACLU does.

[Xerographica]

The donations that the Red Cross receive help it to compete resources away from other uses. Just like the votes that PewDiePie's videos receive help him compete eyeballs away from other videos. The question is whether DV or BV is a better way to determine how society's limited resources are divided among all the different possible uses.

Not really. Their goal isn't to "compete resources from other uses." They just want money so that they can fulfill their mission. You're extrapolating too much.

It's not extrapolation, it's basic economics. All the time you spend reading and replying to this thread is time that you can't spend reading and replying to other threads. All the resources that the Red Cross uses are resources that can't be used by other organizations.

Here's the basic economic problem...

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

Obviously it is necessary to somehow divide society's limited resources among its unlimited desires. This is the point of ranking systems. Right now we use DV to rank non-profits... but we use BV to rank Youtube videos. DV and BV are very different ranking systems, which means that they can't be equally effective at dividing society's limited resources.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Not really. Their goal isn't to "compete resources from other uses." They just want money so that they can fulfill their mission. You're extrapolating too much.

It's not extrapolation, it's basic economics. All the time you spend reading and replying to this thread is time that you can't spend reading and replying to other threads. All the resources that the Red Cross uses are resources that can't be used by other organizations.

Here's the basic economic problem...

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

Obviously it is necessary to somehow divide society's limited resources among its unlimited desires. This is the point of ranking systems. Right now we use DV to rank non-profits... but we use BV to rank Youtube videos. DV and BV are very different ranking systems, which means that they can't be equally effective at dividing society's limited resources.

We actually don't use donations to value non-profits tho, we use donations to help non-profits achieve their goals and do shit.

[San Macalin]

Not really. Their goal isn't to "compete resources from other uses." They just want money so that they can fulfill their mission. You're extrapolating too much.

It's not extrapolation, it's basic economics. All the time you spend reading and replying to this thread is time that you can't spend reading and replying to other threads. All the resources that the Red Cross uses are resources that can't be used by other organizations.

Here's the basic economic problem...

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

Obviously it is necessary to somehow divide society's limited resources among its unlimited desires. This is the point of ranking systems. Right now we use DV to rank non-profits... but we use BV to rank Youtube videos. DV and BV are very different ranking systems, which means that they can't be equally effective at dividing society's limited resources.

> "It's basic economics"
> makes an analogy with nothing to do with economics

Also, your assertion that society's desires are unlimited is nonsensical. I could just choose not to donate money at all, or, in your analogy, I could turn off my computer right now.

[Dormill and Stiura]

Not really. Their goal isn't to "compete resources from other uses." They just want money so that they can fulfill their mission. You're extrapolating too much.

It's not extrapolation, it's basic economics. All the time you spend reading and replying to this thread is time that you can't spend reading and replying to other threads. All the resources that the Red Cross uses are resources that can't be used by other organizations.

Here's the basic economic problem...

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

Obviously it is necessary to somehow divide society's limited resources among its unlimited desires. This is the point of ranking systems. Right now we use DV to rank non-profits... but we use BV to rank Youtube videos. DV and BV are very different ranking systems, which means that they can't be equally effective at dividing society's limited resources.

If it’s “basic”, then you should have some kind of model on your hands that might be able to make predictions based on the data we have. But since I see none of it and it doesn’t appear you’re in a mood to make one, there’s no point to your ramblings.

[The Two Jerseys]

It's not extrapolation, it's basic economics. All the time you spend reading and replying to this thread is time that you can't spend reading and replying to other threads. All the resources that the Red Cross uses are resources that can't be used by other organizations.

Here's the basic economic problem...

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

Obviously it is necessary to somehow divide society's limited resources among its unlimited desires. This is the point of ranking systems. Right now we use DV to rank non-profits... but we use BV to rank Youtube videos. DV and BV are very different ranking systems, which means that they can't be equally effective at dividing society's limited resources.

We actually don't use donations to value non-profits tho, we use donations to help non-profits achieve their goals and do shit.

And if nonprofits magically get society's resources under Xero's system, why is there a need to donate to them?

[Galloism]

It's not extrapolation, it's basic economics. All the time you spend reading and replying to this thread is time that you can't spend reading and replying to other threads. All the resources that the Red Cross uses are resources that can't be used by other organizations.

Here's the basic economic problem...

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

Obviously it is necessary to somehow divide society's limited resources among its unlimited desires. This is the point of ranking systems. Right now we use DV to rank non-profits... but we use BV to rank Youtube videos. DV and BV are very different ranking systems, which means that they can't be equally effective at dividing society's limited resources.

We actually don't use donations to value non-profits tho, we use donations to help non-profits achieve their goals and do shit.

This is very key.

Let's suppose you super value the Red Cross, but they have so much in resources they have a reserve of 25 billion dollars. They're really set for the next 20 years.

You can value them just as much, and not donate anything to them.

[Astrolinium]

All the resources that the Red Cross uses are resources that can't be used by other organizations.

Quick question: where do you think the money you donate to the Red Cross goes? Into a black hole that medical supplies pop out of? Because what happens is they spend it, it returns to the economy, and those exact same dollars can, in fact, then be given to and used by other organizations.

[Xerographica]

It's not extrapolation, it's basic economics. All the time you spend reading and replying to this thread is time that you can't spend reading and replying to other threads. All the resources that the Red Cross uses are resources that can't be used by other organizations.

Here's the basic economic problem...

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

Obviously it is necessary to somehow divide society's limited resources among its unlimited desires. This is the point of ranking systems. Right now we use DV to rank non-profits... but we use BV to rank Youtube videos. DV and BV are very different ranking systems, which means that they can't be equally effective at dividing society's limited resources.

If it’s “basic”, then you should have some kind of model on your hands that might be able to make predictions based on the data we have. But since I see none of it and it doesn’t appear you’re in a mood to make one, there’s no point to your ramblings.

Here's the model: voting elevates trash while spending elevates treasure

I think this model is supported by the available evidence. Personally, I perceive all the top-ranked videos on Youtube to be trash. Many of the top-ranked non-profits however, are relatively valuable. But it's not like I 100% agree with how non-profits are ranked. The issue is that I perceive that non-profits are much better ranked than Youtube videos.

[Galloism]

There's something odd about Xero begging and begging and begging for constructive feedback... and then ignoring it outright.

> Use better science

Have you seen his test, Gren, and how quickly it devolved into him trying to manipulate the results? Please tell me you have...

Incidentally, this is a major major factor in how scientific tests are done, you know - if there's actual science. The rules of the experiment are set out before hand, and they are unchanged throughout the course of the experiment. This is a critically important factor.

This is true even if the rules of the experiment were badly designed. You keep them til the end. You can do another study later with different rules if your rules were flawed.

This is a pattern with Xero - he has no regard for the scientific method.

In his 4th grade "experiment", it started out by giving the kids money and it was a closed system.

Then he let the kids bring their own money, turning it from a closed system to an open one in the middle of things.

Then him and the teacher actually started participating, corrupting the results with their own input.

He then tried to get me to change the rules of my experiment, which of course I refused to do (and since we were doing real science, the professor would have refused anyway, and possibly had questions regarding my sanity).

Then in the first book thread, he shut down the "experiment" before it finished because he didn't like that 50 shades of grey was beating Wealth of Nations in the donating poll, but not the voting poll.

Then the second book thread, he started to invent rules in the middle - trying to weed out "suspicious" votes, and trying to make people "prove" they've discussed wealth of nations on this forum before. This was not set at the outset - it was a rule change in the middle. Notably, this ONLY applied to Wealth of Nations, and no other book.

The Lusty Argonian maid - a complete meme of a book - he didn't disqualify even a single vote.

It's because the process doesn't matter. It's only the result that matters, and if his system doesn't produce the desired result, then you gotta change the rules in the middle until it does - no matter what.


The reason this is important, incidentally, is if you're constantly changing rules in the middle, none of the systems can be said to produce the final result (whatever that is), as none of them did it by themselves.

[Galloism]

Here's the model: voting elevates trash while spending elevates treasure

Hmm, that's weird.

Fifty Shades of Grey is treasure, while Wealth of Nations is trash?

That's an odd thing for you to assert.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

If it’s “basic”, then you should have some kind of model on your hands that might be able to make predictions based on the data we have. But since I see none of it and it doesn’t appear you’re in a mood to make one, there’s no point to your ramblings.

Here's the model: voting elevates trash while spending elevates treasure

I think this model is supported by the available evidence. Personally, I perceive all the top-ranked videos on Youtube to be trash. Many of the top-ranked non-profits however, are relatively valuable. But it's not like I 100% agree with how non-profits are ranked. The issue is that I perceive that non-profits are much better ranked than Youtube videos.

So when will you admit 50 shades is a better book than Wealth of Nations Xero? :^)

[Soldati Senza Confini]

There's something odd about Xero begging and begging and begging for constructive feedback... and then ignoring it outright.

Incidentally, this is a major major factor in how scientific tests are done, you know - if there's actual science. The rules of the experiment are set out before hand, and they are unchanged throughout the course of the experiment. This is a critically important factor.

This is true even if the rules of the experiment were badly designed. You keep them til the end. You can do another study later with different rules if your rules were flawed.

This is a pattern with Xero - he has no regard for the scientific method.

In his 4th grade "experiment", it started out by giving the kids money and it was a closed system.

Then he let the kids bring their own money, turning it from a closed system to an open one in the middle of things.

Then him and the teacher actually started participating, corrupting the results with their own input.

He then tried to get me to change the rules of my experiment, which of course I refused to do (and since we were doing real science, the professor would have refused anyway, and possibly had questions regarding my sanity).

Then in the first book thread, he shut down the "experiment" before it finished because he didn't like that 50 shades of grey was beating Wealth of Nations in the donating poll, but not the voting poll.

Then the second book thread, he started to invent rules in the middle - trying to weed out "suspicious" votes, and trying to make people "prove" they've discussed wealth of nations on this forum before. This was not set at the outset - it was a rule change in the middle. Notably, this ONLY applied to Wealth of Nations, and no other book.

The Lusty Argonian maid - a complete meme of a book - he didn't disqualify even a single vote.

It's because the process doesn't matter. It's only the result that matters, and if his system doesn't produce the desired result, then you gotta change the rules in the middle until it does - no matter what.


The reason this is important, incidentally, is if you're constantly changing rules in the middle, none of the systems can be said to produce the final result (whatever that is), as none of them did it by themselves.

You also forget he changed his own rules to prevent 50 Shades of Grey from exploding in value on the first thread, too.

[Xerographica]

All the resources that the Red Cross uses are resources that can't be used by other organizations.

Quick question: where do you think the money you donate to the Red Cross goes? Into a black hole that medical supplies pop out of? Because what happens is they spend it, it returns to the economy, and those exact same dollars can, in fact, then be given to and used by other organizations.

The Red Cross uses its money to help rank other organizations.

[San Macalin]

Here's the model: voting elevates trash while spending elevates treasure

I think this model is supported by the available evidence. Personally, I perceive all the top-ranked videos on Youtube to be trash.

That's just, like, your opinion, man.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Quick question: where do you think the money you donate to the Red Cross goes? Into a black hole that medical supplies pop out of? Because what happens is they spend it, it returns to the economy, and those exact same dollars can, in fact, then be given to and used by other organizations.

The Red Cross uses its money to help rank other organizations.

Oh this is rich, please explain to us, armchair economist, how that one works.

[Xerographica]

There's something odd about Xero begging and begging and begging for constructive feedback... and then ignoring it outright.

I'll let you know when you offer some useful feedback.

[Xerographica]

Here's the model: voting elevates trash while spending elevates treasure

I think this model is supported by the available evidence. Personally, I perceive all the top-ranked videos on Youtube to be trash.

That's just, like, your opinion, man.

Heh. Care to share some top-ranked Youtube videos that aren't trash?

[Galloism]

There's something odd about Xero begging and begging and begging for constructive feedback... and then ignoring it outright.

I'll let you know when you offer some useful feedback.

"Changing the rules in the middle invalidates the experiment" isn't useful feedback? What IS useful feedback if telling your methodology (or more importantly, your lack thereof) invalidates your own... what I will generously call work... is not useful feedback?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

There's something odd about Xero begging and begging and begging for constructive feedback... and then ignoring it outright.

I'll let you know when you offer some useful feedback.

This coming from Mr. "pls don't bulli my test guis".

It would benefit you to listen, considering we both proved you wrong and proved ourselves right in your experiments.

[Bombadil]

Anyway.. as said before, the largest non-profit is the Catholic Church who's purpose is to promote a myth.. great fucking value.

[Xerographica]

The Red Cross uses its money to help rank other organizations.

Oh this is rich, please explain to us, armchair economist, how that one works.

It works exactly the same as an individual using their donations to help rank non-profits.

[Xerographica]

Anyway.. as said before, the largest non-profit is the Catholic Church who's purpose is to promote a myth.. great fucking value.

And what's the top-ranked Youtube video?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Oh this is rich, please explain to us, armchair economist, how that one works.

It works exactly the same as an individual using their donations to help rank non-profits.

I didn't ask you to tell me a comparative method, I am asking you the mechanism behind it.

How exactly is the Red Cross using its money to help rank other organizations? Which organizations? In which manner are they being ranked?

[Xerographica]

I'll let you know when you offer some useful feedback.

"Changing the rules in the middle invalidates the experiment" isn't useful feedback? What IS useful feedback if telling your methodology (or more importantly, your lack thereof) invalidates your own... what I will generously call work... is not useful feedback?

It would be useful if you actually suggested some useful rules BEFORE I conducted an experiment. Have you ever done so? Nope.