Pragmatarian Discussion Thread

[The Holy Therns]

As you can see, the moderator who responded did not prohibit us from doing this.

...that's a fascinating interpretation of what Fris said lol

I don't think I've seen a more self-serving reading of anything.

[Legit Charlie Economist]

I also would like to note, that Samuelson's research has been mostly refuted, and this idea is not necessarily new of trying to find revealed value. If you need to see a few good refutations to revealed preference, you can check Amartya Sen's series of articles into the subject.

That being said, this new attempt has to try to do something different than what Samuelson did with his research. But unless OP explains why does he think this idea will work better than Samuelson's, it doesn't seem to have much merit as an economic argument on its own.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

The outcome of the DV survey isn't very consequential. Earlier in the thread I brought up the idea of replacing "NationStates" at the top of the page with the #1 political system. Just now in the moderation area I brought up the idea of interested parties using their signature to display the #1 system. As you can see, the moderator who responded did not prohibit us from doing this.

Is anybody interested in using their sig to display the winning system? You can see my signature for an example of what I'm talking about.

Wait, I thought this was a test of your system, not a real implementation of it.

[Xerographica]

Many hands make light work.

1. science hasn't been used to determine whether BV or DV is better
2. my hypothesis is that DV is better than BV

See, here's my problem right here, underlines mine. I don't care about your experiment or the rest of the thread, not really. The idea isn't interesting to me and I'm not an economics buff to begin with so most of this is over my head already. The part that confuses me is that you seem to be deflecting criticism with demands others seek out experts to... prove your hypothesis wrong.

You're completely agnostic about the topic? You wouldn't at all mind if DV was used instead of BV to rank politicians? I doubt that this the case. But even if it is, it's not like this thread is 100 pages of me arguing with myself. There are many people who genuinely believe that BV is sometimes better than DV at ranking things. These people should make a reasonable effort to substantiate their belief. This entails e-mailing some subject matter experts. As you yourself said, this really isn't that onerous...

How hard can it be to set aside a few free hours, shoot out some emails, and see what comes back? You have literally nothing to lose if they don't respond and everything to gain if they do.

It's your job to find someone who actually wants to take you seriously and write back to you supporting your hypothesis with thoughts of their own that would strengthen your argument, then post screencaps of the actual emails to the thread, if your big hang-up here is "expert testimony". Especially since it looks like everyone but you is entirely uninterested in doing some sort of study.

I never said that it was not my job to e-mail the experts. It is my job and I've been doing it. In the OP I mentioned one expert that I e-mailed. In the course of this thread I've e-mailed a few others. Before this thread I e-mailed experts and I'll continue doing so after this thread. It really isn't difficult to e-mail an expert. In most cases I don't get a response, occasionally I do. Sometimes it's more or less a brush off...

Your work is fascinating, and I wish I could engage with you on it, but I am already overcommitted, so I cannot. - Thomas Seeley

Sometimes there's a bit more engagement...

This is a good idea for a testable experiment, though you need to set the parameters just right (eg, by ensuring people who vote know they are not pivotal). Voting is a commons, not a market, so we expect people to behave differently in each. - Jason Brennan

But in no case has any expert said that I'm wrong. Maybe I'm lying? I'm not, but it's not unreasonable to suspect that I'd be motivated to not share any negative responses. This is why it's just as important for those many people who disagree with me to also e-mail the experts.

Again, I'm not the only person in this thread making arguments. Others have argued that sometimes BV is better than DV at ranking things. These people should make the nominal effort to contact some subject matter experts. This way we can all have a much more informed discussion.

Props on posting what is probably an email though, I appreciate the effort there. No shittiness intended, I'm serious.

Thanks for the props.

[Bombadil]

...that's a fascinating interpretation of what Fris said lol

I don't think I've seen a more self-serving reading of anything.

Xero is the world's greatest optimist.. he's optimistic about people voting with pure intentions and he's optimistic about reading a post telling him not to do this again as not exactly saying he can't do what he proposes.

He's optimistic that even if the idea were implemented the results would meet his expectations.

One would hate to be around when the optimism dies..

[The Holy Therns]

One would hate to be around when the optimism dies..

With thunderous applause?

[The South Falls]

As you can see, the moderator who responded did not prohibit us from doing this.

...that's a fascinating interpretation of what Fris said lol

More like, "we don't care. Stop with your deal ideas."

[Legit Charlie Economist]

You're completely agnostic about the topic? You wouldn't at all mind if DV was used instead of BV to rank politicians? I doubt that this the case. But even if it is, it's not like this thread is 100 pages of me arguing with myself. There are many people who genuinely believe that BV is sometimes better than DV at ranking things. These people should make a reasonable effort to substantiate their belief. This entails e-mailing some subject matter experts. As you yourself said, this really isn't that onerous...

I actually am the expert one of your participants has been emailing for a while.

I still would like to know what makes your attempt better, and in which ways have you improved on Samuelson's work on revealed preference, which was refuted in his time and there's a lot of research done and influential documents written by Sen.

[Xerographica]

I don't think I've seen a more self-serving reading of anything.

Xero is the world's greatest optimist.. he's optimistic about people voting with pure intentions and he's optimistic about reading a post telling him not to do this again as not exactly saying he can't do what he proposes.

He's optimistic that even if the idea were implemented the results would meet his expectations.

One would hate to be around when the optimism dies..

How, exactly, would my optimism die? It's a fact that science has not been used to compare the relative effectiveness of BV and DV. This is the biggest problem, but I'm optimistic that it will be solved. This optimism isn't going anywhere. It isn't going to die. It is immortal. It will live forever, right here, in these words.

[Bombadil]

Xero is the world's greatest optimist.. he's optimistic about people voting with pure intentions and he's optimistic about reading a post telling him not to do this again as not exactly saying he can't do what he proposes.

He's optimistic that even if the idea were implemented the results would meet his expectations.

One would hate to be around when the optimism dies..

How, exactly, would my optimism die? It's a fact that science has not been used to compare the relative effectiveness of BV and DV. This is the biggest problem, but I'm optimistic that it will be solved. This optimism isn't going anywhere. It isn't going to die. It is immortal. It will live forever, right here, in these words.

Apropos of nothing you might enjoy this.. https://www.fastcompany.com/3057178/wha ... le-to-vote

[Legit Charlie Economist]

Xero is the world's greatest optimist.. he's optimistic about people voting with pure intentions and he's optimistic about reading a post telling him not to do this again as not exactly saying he can't do what he proposes.

He's optimistic that even if the idea were implemented the results would meet his expectations.

One would hate to be around when the optimism dies..

How, exactly, would my optimism die? It's a fact that science has not been used to compare the relative effectiveness of BV and DV. This is the biggest problem, but I'm optimistic that it will be solved. This optimism isn't going anywhere. It isn't going to die. It is immortal. It will live forever, right here, in these words.

From what I understand your system would fundamentally reveal preferences through ranking things by purchasing votes.

But then again, this isn't too dissimilar from Samuelson's work aside from how you go about it. If you do think your system is an improvement on Samuelson's idea of revealed preference I would like to hear it.

[Bombadil]

Also this.. https://www.fastcompany.com/3029124/the ... ax-dollars

[Galloism]

Xero is the world's greatest optimist.. he's optimistic about people voting with pure intentions and he's optimistic about reading a post telling him not to do this again as not exactly saying he can't do what he proposes.

He's optimistic that even if the idea were implemented the results would meet his expectations.

One would hate to be around when the optimism dies..

How, exactly, would my optimism die? It's a fact that science has not been used to compare the relative effectiveness of BV and DV. This is the biggest problem, but I'm optimistic that it will be solved. This optimism isn't going anywhere. It isn't going to die. It is immortal. It will live forever, right here, in these words.

Relevant.

[Galloism]

Also this.. https://www.fastcompany.com/3029124/the ... ax-dollars

Huh, the New IRS project website is gone.

I'm guessing the results weren't what they wanted.

[Herador]

I never said that it was not my job to e-mail the experts. It is my job and I've been doing it. In the OP I mentioned one expert that I e-mailed. In the course of this thread I've e-mailed a few others. Before this thread I e-mailed experts and I'll continue doing so after this thread. It really isn't difficult to e-mail an expert. In most cases I don't get a response, occasionally I do. Sometimes it's more or less a brush off...

Sometimes silence is a response.

What I saw was you getting defensive about your theory and demanding others find expert testimony of their own, which is dumb. Then you go and do this-

Your work is fascinating, and I wish I could engage with you on it, but I am already overcommitted, so I cannot. - Thomas Seeley

Sometimes there's a bit more engagement...

This is a good idea for a testable experiment, though you need to set the parameters just right (eg, by ensuring people who vote know they are not pivotal). Voting is a commons, not a market, so we expect people to behave differently in each. - Jason Brennan

But in no case has any expert said that I'm wrong. Maybe I'm lying? I'm not, but it's not unreasonable to suspect that I'd be motivated to not share any negative responses. This is why it's just as important for those many people who disagree with me to also e-mail the experts.

These are just words in a quote box. This proves nothing to anyone about anything other than you might be familiar with the quoted authors writing style. I'm not taking your word on it.

Again, I'm not the only person in this thread making arguments. Others have argued that sometimes BV is better than DV at ranking things. These people should make the nominal effort to contact some subject matter experts. This way we can all have a much more informed discussion.

Why (first underline)? Underlines mine. I know for a fact at least one person in this thread, someone who it seems like gives thorough breakdowns of your work every time he posts, is a tax professional, if nothing else he hardly needs to message anyone else. And I've seen you use the second underline before, why do you hang on to the idea that other people can't be reasonably educated in the field?

I'll freely admit I'm not, I'm a college dropout who digs graves, but there are people in this thread besides the previously mentioned Gallo who is well versed in the topic, why do they need to match you if they already know what they're talking about? I don't want to make the assumption you're just assuming people who disagree with you know less than you, but the picture seems to be getting painted that way.

[Bombadil]

Also this.. https://www.fastcompany.com/3029124/the ... ax-dollars

Huh, the New IRS project website is gone.

I'm guessing the results weren't what they wanted.

94% of tax dollars were voted towards the education of goats for their eventual rule.

[Hammer Britannia]

Huh, the New IRS project website is gone.

I'm guessing the results weren't what they wanted.

94% of tax dollars were voted towards the education of goats for their eventual rule.

And the other 6% directly to my bank account

[Bombadil]

94% of tax dollars were voted towards the education of goats for their eventual rule.

And the other 6% directly to my bank account

Mostly I pity Alex Ebert who will shortly be receiving a lengthy email from Xero.

[The Holy Therns]

And the other 6% directly to my bank account

Mostly I pity Alex Ebert who will shortly be receiving a lengthy email from Xero.

Somehow I read "Alex Trebek" there.

[Galloism]

Mostly I pity Alex Ebert who will shortly be receiving a lengthy email from Xero.

Somehow I read "Alex Trebek" there.

Ah hah hah ho ho.

The day is mine!

[The Holy Therns]

Somehow I read "Alex Trebek" there.

Ah hah hah ho ho.

The day is mine!

"I DV'd for your mother last night!"

[Galloism]

(Image)

Ah hah hah ho ho.

The day is mine!

"I DV'd for your mother last night!"

Nana says she loves you and you can marry both of us.

[Xerographica]

I never said that it was not my job to e-mail the experts. It is my job and I've been doing it. In the OP I mentioned one expert that I e-mailed. In the course of this thread I've e-mailed a few others. Before this thread I e-mailed experts and I'll continue doing so after this thread. It really isn't difficult to e-mail an expert. In most cases I don't get a response, occasionally I do. Sometimes it's more or less a brush off...

Sometimes silence is a response.

What I saw was you getting defensive about your theory and demanding others find expert testimony of their own, which is dumb.

Why is it dumb for people to find expert testimony that supports their own beliefs? Are you arguing that everybody in this thread is agnostic?

Then you go and do this-

Sometimes there's a bit more engagement...


But in no case has any expert said that I'm wrong. Maybe I'm lying? I'm not, but it's not unreasonable to suspect that I'd be motivated to not share any negative responses. This is why it's just as important for those many people who disagree with me to also e-mail the experts.

These are just words in a quote box. This proves nothing to anyone about anything other than you might be familiar with the quoted authors writing style. I'm not taking your word on it.

LOL. Do you think I'm forcing you to take my word for it? Did I expressly forbid you from contacting those experts yourself? Uh, nope. If you think that I'm lying, go ahead and e-mail them.

Again, I'm not the only person in this thread making arguments. Others have argued that sometimes BV is better than DV at ranking things. These people should make the nominal effort to contact some subject matter experts. This way we can all have a much more informed discussion.

Why (first underline)? Underlines mine. I know for a fact at least one person in this thread, someone who it seems like gives thorough breakdowns of your work every time he posts, is a tax professional, if nothing else he hardly needs to message anyone else. And I've seen you use the second underline before, why do you hang on to the idea that other people can't be reasonably educated in the field?

Doing taxes for a living isn't the same thing as studying public finance. Because I have studied public finance I know for a fact that Galloism has not. Yet, he is one of my most outspoken opponents. It's not a coincidence that he doesn't think it's necessary to e-mail subject matter experts.

It really seems like you have a blatant double standard. First you told me that I should e-mail experts myself because it wasn't that difficult to do. Now you're arguing that my opponents should not have e-mail experts themselves. Why shouldn't they have to make a little effort to substantiate their own beliefs?

There should only be one standard... in all cases you should make the effort to substantiate your beliefs. This means asking the subject matter experts.

My opponents believe that BV is sometimes more effective than DV at ranking things. Therefore, they should substantiate their beliefs by asking the subject matter experts. Like you yourself said, it's not that difficult to do.

[The Holy Therns]

"I DV'd for your mother last night!"

Nana says she loves you and you can marry both of us.

Did we ever get an answer on the Rothbard thing?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I love how Xero keeps quoting relevant people who agree with him, so here's an excerpt by Sen which very much is on point on what happened the last three test between me and Xero:

There is another non-empirical- and possibly simpler-reason why the conception of man in economic models tends to be that of a self-seek- ing egoist. It is possible to define a person's interests in such a way that no matter what he does he can be seen to be furthering his own interests in every isolated act of choice.⁹ While formalized relatively recently in the context of the theory of revealed preference, this approach is of respectable antiquity, and Joseph Butler was already arguing against it in the Rolls Chapel two and a half centuries ago. The reduction of man to a self-seeking animal depends in this approach on careful definition. If you are observed to choose x rejecting y, you are declared to have "revealed" a preference for x over y. Your personal utility is then defined as simply a numerical representation of this "preference," assigning a higher utility to a "preferred" alternative. With this set of definitions you can hardly escape maximizing your own utility, except through inconsistency. Of course, if you choose x and reject y on one occasion and then promptly proceed to do the exact opposite, you can prevent the revealed preference theorist from assigning a preference ordering to you, thereby restraining him from stamping a utility function on you which you must be seen to be maximizing. He will then have to conclude that either you are inconsistent or your preferences are changing. You can frustrate the revealed-preference theorist through more sophisticated inconsistencies as well. But if you are consistent, then no matter whether you are a single-minded egoist or a raving altruist or a class conscious militant, you will appear to be maximizing your own utility in this enchanted world of definitions. Borrowing from the terminology used in connection with taxation, if the Arrow-Hahn justification of the assumption of egoism amounts to an avoidance of the issue, the revealed preference approach looks more like a robust piece of evasion.

9. If a person's actions today affect his well-being in the future, then under this approach his future interests must be defined in terms of the way they are assessed today. In general, there is no reason to presume that the future interests as assessed today will coincide with those interests as assessed in the future. This adds an additional dimension to the problem, and I am grateful to Derek Parfit for convincing me of the conceptual importance of this question. Io. J. Butler, Fifteen Sermons Preached at the Rolls Chapel (London, 1726); see also T. Nagel, The Possibility of Altruism (Oxford, 1970), p. 8I.