The Relationship Between Cooperation And Feedback

[Forsher]

Why? Wouldn't it just prove that less people want to buy a copy of the Wealth of Nations?

There's no point in anybody buying The Wealth of Nations... it's freely available online. From my perspective The Wealth of Nations is the most important book. So if voting ranked it higher than donating did, then this would falsify my belief in spending.

How many people do you know that buy, say, sandwiches? These are literally the easiest thing in the world to make. People know how to make them. In fact, very rarely are bought sandwiches nicer than home-made ones. So why on earth do people buy them?

The answer is that people buy things for more than just having the things. With the case of sandwiches, coffee and slices of cake it's frequently time that people are buying.

The generalisable lesson is that the expenditure of a person on any arbitrary thing never has an obvious meaning. In fact, we can't believe that the underlying meanings are consistent.

And sure we could just say that people only do stuff that makes them happy, but what you're wanting and requiring is that we break utility down... decompose it into its component parts... but we just can't do that. Not in any generalisable fashion anyway.

see also: involvement (marketing)

[Galloism]

Yet you've never once argued that spending should be abolished and replaced with voting.

Because spending isn't about communication. Some communication takes place when money is spent, but it may be what the person intended, more than the person intended, less than the person intended, or literally the polar opposite of what the person intended.

Spending is about compensation for goods and services, not communication. It's horrible as a communications basis. It's not that I'm arguing that voting is a superior communication system to spending and therefore we need to replace spending with voting, because voting doesn't do what spending does - compensate people for goods provided and services rendered.

I'm not saying spending is good because of what it communicates. I'm saying spending is good as a medium of exchange but communicates horribly. Even though it communicates horribly, money works well as a medium of exchange.

Does this clear things up?

To put it in an illustration because you love illustrations so much - if you see a person running like hell through an airport, they're effectively communicating to anyone within sight range that they're late for their flight. It communicates so very very clearly, moreso than a person who says they're late for their flight.

But despite running being a terribly good communicative indication, I don't propose that all spending be replaced with running. Because even though running is more accurate of a communication than speaking, AND a more accurate communication than spending, it doesn't mean we have to use the same thing for every damn thing forever. The runner isn't trying to communicate with you. He's trying to catch his flight. The running is about covering a certain amount of distance in a certain amount of time. Communication is accidental.

Why is imperfect information only sometimes better than no information?

Different problems, different solutions.

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

It doesn't tell you anything about the question asked - who is more valuable as a poster, you or IM.

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

I wouldn't, but money isn't for communication. It's for trade. Once you learn this young padawan, you will understand why voting makes for terrible spending, and spending makes for terrible voting.

Go forth young one, and learn about the world.

[Galloism]

You buy milk to own it, but the amount you spend on it helps to determine its rank, which determines its supply.

This isn't actually true, incidentally.

How many of you would be willing to spend $8 on a gallon of milk? I'd pay $8 for a gallon of milk if that's what the prices were. I really like milk.

I have never ever come close to paying $8 for a gallon of milk. Why?

What matters is getting the supply of milk right, which depends on ranking it correctly. Do you believe that milk would be incorrectly ranked by voting? If so, then why do you believe that voting correctly ranks anything?

There's no such thing as "correct" or "incorrect" "ranking" when it comes to milk, to start with. Without that, the whole question breaks down.

[Dogmeat]

With respect Xero, I think you've proven that you're a hindrance. You're convinced you already know what the truth is, and you won't accept any other conclusions.

It's entirely possible for my belief in the superiority of spending to be falsified. Here's the list of 10 books that I shared earlier...

1. The Origin Of Species
2. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone
3. The Cat in the Hat
4. 50 Shades of Grey
5. Principia
6. The Bible
7. War and Peace
8. 12 Rules For Life
9. A Theory of Justice
10. The Wealth of Nations

Let's say that NS members used voting and donating to rank these books. If voting ranked The Wealth of Nations higher than donating did, then this would falsify my belief in the superiority of spending.

This is a relatively simple experiment that could potentially falsify my belief. Could this experiment potentially falsify your belief? If not, then could any experiment potentially falsify your belief?

People seem to be ranking Mushroom higher then the donations. Though, it is obviously a terrible experiment, since it is in no sense blind, and you participated in it. With that last point in mind, I'm not convinced of your dedication to scientific rigor.

[Xerographica]

There's no such thing as "correct" or "incorrect" "ranking" when it comes to milk, to start with. Without that, the whole question breaks down.

How would you personally rank these ten books? And, do you think your preferred ranking would be closer to the voting ranking or the donating ranking?

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

[Xerographica]

It's entirely possible for my belief in the superiority of spending to be falsified. Here's the list of 10 books that I shared earlier...

1. The Origin Of Species
2. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone
3. The Cat in the Hat
4. 50 Shades of Grey
5. Principia
6. The Bible
7. War and Peace
8. 12 Rules For Life
9. A Theory of Justice
10. The Wealth of Nations

Let's say that NS members used voting and donating to rank these books. If voting ranked The Wealth of Nations higher than donating did, then this would falsify my belief in the superiority of spending.

This is a relatively simple experiment that could potentially falsify my belief. Could this experiment potentially falsify your belief? If not, then could any experiment potentially falsify your belief?

People seem to be ranking Mushroom higher then the donations. Though, it is obviously a terrible experiment, since it is in no sense blind, and you participated in it. With that last point in mind, I'm not convinced of your dedication to scientific rigor.

With this experiment so far we've learned that many people will vote for IM, but only one person, myself, would donate for him. You say that this is a terrible experiment. But do you think that you could have predicted this outcome?

Let's say that we conducted the voting vs donating experiment with these 10 books. People could vote for the books in a multiple choice poll and/or they could donate for them. Of course again the money would be donated to this forum. Max Barry gets the money. Maybe he uses it to help pay for this website, or maybe he buys beer with it.

Do you think you can predict the outcome of this experiment? Do you think you can correctly guess how many people would donate? Do you think you can correctly guess how much would be donated? Do you think you can correctly guess how differently the books will be ranked by voting and donating?

[Free Arabian Nation]

There needs to be a neither option, no post on NSG is worth anything

Except for every single post made by Washington Resistance Army

[The Liberated Territories]

part of me wonders if the people listed in the poll are actually the same person given the types of threads created by them...

[Dogmeat]

People seem to be ranking Mushroom higher then the donations. Though, it is obviously a terrible experiment, since it is in no sense blind, and you participated in it. With that last point in mind, I'm not convinced of your dedication to scientific rigor.

With this experiment so far we've learned that many people will vote for IM, but only one person, myself, would donate for him. You say that this is a terrible experiment. But do you think that you could have predicted this outcome?

Let's say that we conducted the voting vs donating experiment with these 10 books. People could vote for the books in a multiple choice poll and/or they could donate for them. Of course again the money would be donated to this forum. Max Barry gets the money. Maybe he uses it to help pay for this website, or maybe he buys beer with it.

Do you think you can predict the outcome of this experiment? Do you think you can correctly guess how many people would donate? Do you think you can correctly guess how much would be donated? Do you think you can correctly guess how differently the books will be ranked by voting and donating?

With respect Xero, there's a very obvious lack of scientific literacy indicated by your post. The ability to predict the outcome of an experiment isn't what makes the experiment good or bad. What does make your experiment very bad is that you influenced the outcome of it yourself.

[Xerographica]

part of me wonders if the people listed in the poll are actually the same person given the types of threads created by them...

My threads are mostly about economics... so...

A Herbert Spencer quote in your sig? Are you a fan of him or something?

[Galloism]

There's no such thing as "correct" or "incorrect" "ranking" when it comes to milk, to start with. Without that, the whole question breaks down.

How would you personally rank these ten books? And, do you think your preferred ranking would be closer to the voting ranking or the donating ranking?

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

Well, I haven't read them all, but ranking the ones I've read at least part of:

1) Bible
2) A theory of justice
3) Wealth of Nations
4) War and Peace
5) Cat in the Hat
6) Origin of Species
5,000,000) 50 Shades of Grey

My money valuation if I had to "donate" to "show ranking" would be:

Bible - $0
Wealth of Nations - $0
War and Peace - $0
Theory of Justice - $0
Origin of Species - $0
50 Shades of Grey - $0
Cat in the Hat - $0

If you understand that spending is not intentional communication, I'm sure you can see why you would get this result.

It roughly mirrors your thread result, incidentally.

[Xerographica]

With this experiment so far we've learned that many people will vote for IM, but only one person, myself, would donate for him. You say that this is a terrible experiment. But do you think that you could have predicted this outcome?

Let's say that we conducted the voting vs donating experiment with these 10 books. People could vote for the books in a multiple choice poll and/or they could donate for them. Of course again the money would be donated to this forum. Max Barry gets the money. Maybe he uses it to help pay for this website, or maybe he buys beer with it.

Do you think you can predict the outcome of this experiment? Do you think you can correctly guess how many people would donate? Do you think you can correctly guess how much would be donated? Do you think you can correctly guess how differently the books will be ranked by voting and donating?

With respect Xero, there's a very obvious lack of scientific literacy indicated by your post. The ability to predict the outcome of an experiment isn't what makes the experiment good or bad. What does make your experiment very bad is that you influenced the outcome of it yourself.

Heh, what makes the experiment AWESOME is that we can all influence the outcome! How do you not appreciate this? I can't prevent you from donating $3 dollars, or $300 dollars, for Harry Potter. I can't prevent everybody from voting for The Cat in the Hat.

The point is that we would rank these 10 books as a group... and we would do so using voting and/or donating. Of course I'm going to donate for the Wealth of Nations. But do you think I'd be able to outspend all of you donating a dollar for a Theory of Justice? No way.

So yeah, I can influence the outcome, but so can everybody else. The objective is to compare how differently these 10 books are ranked by voters, as a group, and donors, as a group.

With all of this in mind, can you make any predictions?

[Kara Koyun]

With respect Xero, there's a very obvious lack of scientific literacy indicated by your post. The ability to predict the outcome of an experiment isn't what makes the experiment good or bad. What does make your experiment very bad is that you influenced the outcome of it yourself.

Heh, what makes the experiment AWESOME is that we can all influence the outcome! How do you not appreciate this?

I imagine it has something to do with a basic understanding of how double-blind research works.

[Xerographica]

How would you personally rank these ten books? And, do you think your preferred ranking would be closer to the voting ranking or the donating ranking?

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

Well, I haven't read them all, but ranking the ones I've read at least part of:

1) Bible
2) A theory of justice
3) Wealth of Nations
4) War and Peace
5) Cat in the Hat
6) Origin of Species
5,000,000) 50 Shades of Grey

I wouldn't have come even close to correctly guessing your preferred ranking. Do you think your preferred ranking would be closer to the voting ranking or the donating ranking?

[Galloism]

With respect Xero, there's a very obvious lack of scientific literacy indicated by your post. The ability to predict the outcome of an experiment isn't what makes the experiment good or bad. What does make your experiment very bad is that you influenced the outcome of it yourself.

Heh, what makes the experiment AWESOME is that we can all influence the outcome! How do you not appreciate this? I can't prevent you from donating $3 dollars, or $300 dollars, for Harry Potter. I can't prevent everybody from voting for The Cat in the Hat.

The point is that we would rank these 10 books as a group... and we would do so using voting and/or donating. Of course I'm going to donate for the Wealth of Nations. But do you think I'd be able to outspend all of you donating a dollar for a Theory of Justice? No way.

So yeah, I can influence the outcome, but so can everybody else. The objective is to compare how differently these 10 books are ranked by voters, as a group, and donors, as a group.

With all of this in mind, can you make any predictions?

I predict wealth of nations would win the donor group, because the donor group would contain one person, you, and you’ve communicated, at great length, long after we all wished you would stop, in a more pointed and obvious fashion than money could ever convey, how much you love Wealth of Nations.

The voting group, I’m not sure.

[Galloism]

Well, I haven't read them all, but ranking the ones I've read at least part of:

1) Bible
2) A theory of justice
3) Wealth of Nations
4) War and Peace
5) Cat in the Hat
6) Origin of Species
5,000,000) 50 Shades of Grey

I wouldn't have come even close to correctly guessing your preferred ranking. Do you think your preferred ranking would be closer to the voting ranking or the donating ranking?

Well, that’s just asking me if my ranking would be closer to the crowd ranking or your personal ranking.

Regarding your personal ranking, I’m pretty sure 50 shades of grey is in the same place. I’m also pretty positive wealth of nations isn’t.

Regarding the voting ranking, I also suspect 50 shades of grey is in the same place. Not sure on wealth of nations.

[Xerographica]

Heh, what makes the experiment AWESOME is that we can all influence the outcome! How do you not appreciate this?

I imagine it has something to do with a basic understanding of how double-blind research works.

Wow, you're the second first time poster in this thread. Welcome to the community. The primary point of the book ranking experiment would be to see how differently the books are ranked by voting and donating. The voting poll is pretty self-explanatory. With the donating poll, people would donate as much as they wanted to this website and use their donated dollars to help rank the books. Donors would continue making donations and ranking the books until they were happy with the rankings or didn't want to donate any more money. We'd all compare the voting rankings to the donating rankings and then decide for ourselves which ranking is better. Make sense?

[Kara Koyun]

I imagine it has something to do with a basic understanding of how double-blind research works.

Wow, you're the second first time poster in this thread. Welcome to the community.

Yes, first time, definitely. It's just a coincidence we have the same flag and basically the same name. Don't look behind the curtain.

The primary point of the book ranking experiment would be to see how differently the books are ranked by voting and donating. The voting poll is pretty self-explanatory. With the donating poll, people would donate as much as they wanted to this website and use their donated dollars to help rank the books. Donors would continue making donations and ranking the books until they were happy with the rankings or didn't want to donate any more money. We'd all compare the voting rankings to the donating rankings and then decide for ourselves which ranking is better. Make sense?

Umm... no one is confused about that. We're pointing out that you don't seem to understand proper experiential procedure. I'm not trying to be mean about this, but your reactions seem like deflection.

[Xerographica]

I wouldn't have come even close to correctly guessing your preferred ranking. Do you think your preferred ranking would be closer to the voting ranking or the donating ranking?

Well, that’s just asking me if my ranking would be closer to the crowd ranking or your personal ranking.

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

Regarding your personal ranking, I’m pretty sure 50 shades of grey is in the same place. I’m also pretty positive wealth of nations isn’t.

Regarding the voting ranking, I also suspect 50 shades of grey is in the same place. Not sure on wealth of nations.

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

[Bakery Hill]

I imagine it has something to do with a basic understanding of how double-blind research works.

Wow, you're the second first time poster in this thread. Welcome to the community. The primary point of the book ranking experiment would be to see how differently the books are ranked by voting and donating. The voting poll is pretty self-explanatory. With the donating poll, people would donate as much as they wanted to this website and use their donated dollars to help rank the books. Donors would continue making donations and ranking the books until they were happy with the rankings or didn't want to donate any more money. We'd all compare the voting rankings to the donating rankings and then decide for ourselves which ranking is better. Make sense?

Why?

[Kara Koyun]

Heh, what makes the experiment AWESOME is that we can all influence the outcome! How do you not appreciate this? I can't prevent you from donating $3 dollars, or $300 dollars, for Harry Potter. I can't prevent everybody from voting for The Cat in the Hat.

The point is that we would rank these 10 books as a group... and we would do so using voting and/or donating. Of course I'm going to donate for the Wealth of Nations. But do you think I'd be able to outspend all of you donating a dollar for a Theory of Justice? No way.

So yeah, I can influence the outcome, but so can everybody else. The objective is to compare how differently these 10 books are ranked by voters, as a group, and donors, as a group.

With all of this in mind, can you make any predictions?

I predict wealth of nations would win the donor group, because the donor group would contain one person, you, and you’ve communicated, at great length, long after we all wished you would stop, in a more pointed and obvious fashion than money could ever convey, how much you love Wealth of Nations.

The voting group, I’m not sure.

Yeah, it's not a great experiment if the researcher is 100% of the participants. Ideally you'd like that number to be, well, Xero. (I'm sorry for that right there)

[Galloism]

Well, that’s just asking me if my ranking would be closer to the crowd ranking or your personal ranking.

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.

Regarding your personal ranking, I’m pretty sure 50 shades of grey is in the same place. I’m also pretty positive wealth of nations isn’t.

Regarding the voting ranking, I also suspect 50 shades of grey is in the same place. Not sure on wealth of nations.

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

Dunno.

[Galloism]

I predict wealth of nations would win the donor group, because the donor group would contain one person, you, and you’ve communicated, at great length, long after we all wished you would stop, in a more pointed and obvious fashion than money could ever convey, how much you love Wealth of Nations.

The voting group, I’m not sure.

Yeah, it's not a great experiment if the researcher is 100% of the participants. Ideally you'd like that number to be, well, Xero. (I'm sorry for that right there)

I made roughly the same joke. No apology necessary.

[Xerographica]

Wow, you're the second first time poster in this thread. Welcome to the community.

Yes, first time, definitely. It's just a coincidence we have the same flag and basically the same name. Don't look behind the curtain.

I didn't even know there was a curtain.

The primary point of the book ranking experiment would be to see how differently the books are ranked by voting and donating. The voting poll is pretty self-explanatory. With the donating poll, people would donate as much as they wanted to this website and use their donated dollars to help rank the books. Donors would continue making donations and ranking the books until they were happy with the rankings or didn't want to donate any more money. We'd all compare the voting rankings to the donating rankings and then decide for ourselves which ranking is better. Make sense?

Umm... no one is confused about that. We're pointing out that you don't seem to understand proper experiential procedure. I'm not trying to be mean about this, but your reactions seem like deflection.

Admittedly I'm no scientist. But I do know that formal experiments typically have a control group and are double blind. A control group obviously isn't relevant in this case... and the point of the double blind is to try and prevent scientists from inadvertently biasing the results. This isn't relevant either. We'd all be conducting and participating in the experiment. Our biases are part of the experiment. I'm biased towards donating just like I'm biased to The Wealth of Nations. And maybe you're biased towards voting and to A Theory of Justice. The rankings are going to reflect all our biases. It will just be a matter of deciding for ourselves whether we prefer the donating rankings or the voting rankings.

[Senkaku]

A control group obviously isn't relevant in this case... and the point of the double blind is to try and prevent scientists from inadvertently biasing the results. This isn't relevant either.

These are two of the most staggeringly retarded sentences I've ever had the grave misfortune to read on NSG.