Pragmatarian Discussion Thread

[Galloism]

What'd she spend? I'm going through my finances as we speak.

BRING IT, SWEDE!! (ง •̀_•́)ง

In the spirit of donation voting, all donations go to my private account, whether you win or lose.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

BRING IT, SWEDE!! (ง •̀_•́)ง

In the spirit of donation voting, all donations go to my private account, whether you win or lose.

I has these many: eleventy billion dollah, mistah.

[The Holy Therns]

What'd she spend? I'm going through my finances as we speak.

BRING IT, SWEDE!! (ง •̀_•́)ง

I need a number!

[Galloism]

You know xero, with two women willing to bid vast sums to be married to me, I’m pretty sure that means, under your definition of ranking, I am the highest ranked man on earth.

You can start bowing now. Yes.

[Grenartia]

For $3 dollars I was able to...

move pragmatarianism into the #1 spot

Uh, no, you weren't. I negative DV'd $20 from pragmatarianism. Update your records accordingly.

[The Two Jerseys]

For $3 dollars I was able to...

move pragmatarianism into the #1 spot

Uh, no, you weren't. I negative DV'd $20 from pragmatarianism. Update your records accordingly.

We've been waiting even longer for actual proof that Xero paid for it in the first place...

[Xerographica]

Admittedly, I am pretty ignorant about the exact mechanics of the brain. But I'm pretty sure that no single neuron has a monopoly on information. Right? Each neuron has somewhat different information. If not, then it would be pointless for the neurons to communicate with each other.

Here you and I are communicating with each other. Obviously we have different information. So what's the major difference between you and I exchanging information and two neurons doing so? I honestly don't see any sort of meaningful difference between a brain and a collective brain.

Good of you to first admit that you aren't knowledgeable on the subject, but then how can you claim to be "pretty sure"?

You define 'information' with an excessively broad brush. The data stored inside a single neuron is perhaps (metaphorically) comparable to that of a single bit, whereas our entire brains hold complex information

In order to constitute a thought or a memory, neurons are REQUIRED to communicate. Their individual states and the way they interact all determine the information they compose.

You are trying to compare a brain to a neuron. You are trying to compare an entire hard drive to a single bit of a hard drive. The component of a thing is not equal to the thing itself. A standalone neuron is pretty useless. A standalone brain is not.

So suggesting there's no major difference between how neurons interact does demonstrate your inexperience on the subject and I'd suggest to no longer state such an assertion so carelessly. The reasons for the interaction, the content, etc. are all significantly different.

You've fallen in a common pitfall associated with excessive reductionism, and I hope this experience helps you to at least apply some hedging to your statements. Being confident in what you say can make a positive impression, but when you're talking about a subject you don't know all that much about it just makes you come across as cocky, dense and/or ignorant.

I'm sure you know that our society is based on a division of labor, which is the same thing as a division of knowledge. This means that a standalone brain is far less useful than a network of brains. It's true that a single individual can survive on a deserted island while a single neuron can't survive on its own. But this is entirely irrelevant to the main issue... intelligence. In terms of intelligence, I don't think there's any really difference between a network of neurons and a network of people. A network of neurons is smarter than any single neuron in the network. A network of people is smarter than any single person in the network. This is the key issue.

The members of NationStates are networked to form a collective brain. But is this network optimal? I sure don't think so, which means that the NS collective brain isn't nearly as intelligent as it really could, and should, be.

I recently made a suggestion to feature the five very best threads right below the section where the five most recently updated topics are displayed. Everything I know about economics, which is quite a lot, leads me to believe that this idea would greatly improve the forum. Unfortunately, the mods shot the idea down and locked the thread. The problem is that the mods are ignorant about economics... just like I'm ignorant about the inner workings of this website. We used our words to try and transmit our information to each other. But it's not like anybody actually saw the demand for my suggestion. Seeing and knowing the demand for things isn't some sort of minor detail. It's a fundamental detail... so it must have a fundamental impact on the intelligence of the collective brain. My theory is that demand revelation incredibly increases the intelligence of the collective brain. The challenge is that it really isn't easy to show the relationship.

Here's a short video clip of a coywolf deciding to choose a roadkill over a goose egg. She ranked the roadkill higher than the egg. This is what intelligence is all about. Like I acknowledged, I don't understand the exact biology that allowed her brain to reach the conclusion that the roadkill is more useful than the egg. But I'm pretty sure that the general process isn't fundamentally different from a beehive reaching the conclusion that one flower patch is more useful than another. Biology can never trump economics.

Given that BV and DV are very different ways to rank things, it's an elementary fact that one ranking mechanism has to be a lot smarter than the other.

[Galloism]

Everything I know about economics, which is quite a lot,

<guffaws>

Remember the time I had to explain to you the difference between a public good, a private good, a club good, and a common pool resource, because you kept getting confused as to what a public good and a private good were?

Good times, good times.

[The Holy Therns]

I recently made a suggestion to feature the five very best threads right below the section where the five most recently updated topics are displayed. Everything I know about economics, which is quite a lot, leads me to believe that this idea would greatly improve the forum. Unfortunately, the mods shot the idea down and locked the thread. The problem is that the mods are ignorant about economics... just like I'm ignorant about the inner workings of this website. We used our words to try and transmit our information to each other. But it's not like anybody actually saw the demand for my suggestion. Seeing and knowing the demand for things isn't some sort of minor detail. It's a fundamental detail... so it must have a fundamental impact on the intelligence of the collective brain. My theory is that demand revelation incredibly increases the intelligence of the collective brain. The challenge is that it really isn't easy to show the relationship.

Everything I know about how often you make yourself look silly by thinking you're more insightful than you are, which is quite a lot, leads me to believe this is complete nonsense.

[Bombadil]

Given that BV and DV are very different ways to rank things, it's an elementary fact that one ranking mechanism has to be a lot smarter than the other.

Yeah, in all practical experiments based on reality seems you've proved it's BV.. good job.

BV gives more 'neurons' a say in the matter, as you note more is better.
BV elevates Wealth of Nations to the top of any 'best book' list over DV, which ranks Shades of Grey.. same in movies..
DV skews to the extreme in politics over equal BV.
DV results in smoother traffic flow than BV
If DV was true then betting companies would all be bankrupt

Of course I would personally argue that there's circumstances for all, that some methods work in some circumstances, much like evolution results in different solutions given environment.. and other solutions such as data are apt, it's not isolated to just two things. Do you think if we designed the Saturn V rocket by DV or BV we'd have made it to the moon?

You should read Voltaire's Bastard by John Ralston Saul, about how pure logic can lead to very dumb conclusions.

[Xerographica]

There are geniuses on Youtube that aren't being rewarded by the market. Well yeah, this is simply because Youtube is not a market. This would quickly change if BV was replaced with DV. Again, assuming of course that my theory is correct.

Content creators with large audiences are generally rewarded, either through ad revenue or through applications/sites like Patreon - which I'm not advocating for or endorsing on NS. A number of the channels I like, mostly educational ones related to biochemistry, history, Judaism, and politics, are affiliated with larger organizations or have generous patrons. That said, I'm certain that with looser restrictions that YouTube would become just as easily a place where donations rewarded pornographic content, racist content, or vapid content. It all depends on the interests of those most capable of paying. As I've mentioned, Danielle Steele, not Salman Rushdie or Haruki Murakami, is the top-selling still living author.

My favorite author is Adam Smith. Yet, I've never purchased even one of his books. Instead, I've purchased numerous books by Dean Koontz, who is far less important to me than Adam Smith is. The issue isn't just that markets are missing, it's also that different types of markets (ie buying and donating) are going to rank things very differently. Regarding racism, I'm pretty sure that it's higher ranked on Youtube than it is in the non-profit sector. In any case, BV and DV aren't going to rank racism equally. It would behoove us to conclusively determine whether it's higher ranked by BV or DV. Here's a passage which supports my theory that racism ranks a lot higher with BV than with DV...

Expressions of malice and/or envy no less than expressions of altruism are cheaper in the voting booth than in the market. A German voter who in 1933 cast a ballot for Hitler was able to indulge his antisemitic sentiments at much less cost than she would have borne by organizing a pogrom. — Loren Lomasky, Democracy and Decision

Your story isn't very consistent. You say (more or less) that Moore panders to poor liberals, but then you also say that this disregards the interests of the poor and middle class.

I never stated that Moore panders to poor liberals. I asserted that he pandered to the lowest common denominator in that political circle at their weakest moments, generally rootless, middle-class, metropolitan types who perceive everything as intrinsically political because it would strike them as vacuous otherwise. In this set of circumstances, Moore would have more power to dictate policy than an old rancher who is an expert in his field or a university professor.

If you're not a fan of Moore because he panders to the lowest common denominator, then you shouldn't be a fan of democracy. Here are three passages that I shared in my second NS experiment/thread's OP...

Technorati, if you’re unfamiliar with it, is one of those services that watches activity on the web, and then puts up metrics and ranks and scores, and tries to distill the flux into something simpler and more comprehensible, which often reduces to telling you how many people are trying to find pictures of a naked Paris Hilton. When the mob votes, it always seems to lead to the lowest common denominator. - PZ Myers, WAAGNFNP declares war on Technorati

We are biased toward the democratic/republican side of the spectrum. That’s what we’re used to from civics classes. But the truth is that startups and founders lean toward the dictatorial side because that structure works better for startups. It is more tyrant than mob because it should be. In some sense, startups can’t be democracies because none are. None are because it doesn’t work. If you try to submit everything to voting processes when you’re trying to do something new, you end up with bad, lowest common denominator type results. — Peter Thiel, Girard in Silicon Valley

In the first instance, it is probably true that in general the higher the education and intelligence of individuals becomes, the more their views and tastes are differentiated and the less likely they are to agree on a particular hierarchy of values. It is a corollary of this that if we wish to find a high degree of uniformity and similarity of outlook, we have to descend to the regions of lower moral and intellectual standards where the more primitive and "common" instincts and tastes prevail. This does not mean that the majority of people have low moral standards; it merely means that the largest group of people whose values are very similar are the people with low standards. It is, as it were, the lowest common denominator which unites the largest number of people. If a numerous group is needed, strong enough to impose their views on the values of life on all the rest, it will never be those with highly differentiated and developed tastes it will be those who form the "mass" in the derogatory sense of the term, the least original and independent, who will be able to put the weight of their numbers behind their particular ideals. - Friedrich Hayek, Why the Worst Get on Top

But I think you're forgetting the fact that all the non-profits in the world are ranked by DV.

All DV tells us is how much is donated to a non-profit. It does not tell us how efficient a non-profit is, how virtuous and honest it is, or how effective it is at raising the quality of life of those it seeks to help. It's a popularity contest that gives more weight to the affluent, that's about it.

Thanks to the ranking decisions of donors, in terms of determining how society's limited resources are used, the Red Cross has far more weight/influence than the KKK does.

How can the onus be on me, or solely on me, to prove that this is a superior way of ranking things?

It's a positive claim and one that would necessitate the restructuring of society to adhere to a theoretical model. There are numerous reasons why the onus must be on you and those in your camp.

But the fundamental issue that should super concern us both is that our society's current theoretical model has absolutely no scientific basis. There's absolutely no evidence that BV is better than DV at ranking/prioritizing things. I'm just the guy pointing out that the Emperor has no clothes.

BV would give both men one vote. Push-ups would give both men 200 votes. Each man is able to do the same amount of push-ups. But what are the chances that each man is willing to do the same amount of push-ups?

It depends on the men in question. That said, what if one man could do ten and another could do two hundred? What if the first did ten and the second did only a hundred? Who's vote should count for more?

This is why money is far more effective than push ups at ranking things. I can't transfer some of my physical power to somebody who represents/protects/serves my interests. But I can transfer some of my monetary power to them, in order to help them win contests that will benefit me.

Put it in terms of tug of war. There are two equally strong men on both sides of the rope. Ok, they are equally strong. But do they equally care about every topic? Of course not. If the topic is immigration then it's extremely doubtful that they would pull equally hard on the rope. They might not even be on opposite sides of the rope. Maybe they both support open borders... albeit unequally so.

Why allow money to decide this of all things?

Money already decides, to a significant extent, the division of labor. Naturally the division of labor and migration are closely related. Same thing with the minimum wage. Nobody truly benefits from the suboptimal (inefficient) distribution/allocation/division of labor.

Imagine replacing vanilla ice cream with stinky tofu. Have you ever tried stinky tofu before? I haven't. When I lived in China I frequently smelled it. The smell deterred me from wanting to try it. If you ask any given group of Americans to rank stinky tofu and chocolate ice cream then chances are good that the ice cream will win every time with both BV and DV. But the larger the group is, the better that stinky tofu will do with DV than with BV. This is because BV is always tyranny of the majority. With DV, on the other hand, there's a chance that the minority can win, if it cares more strongly than the majority does.

Or if the wealth disparity between the majority and minority is great enough. A single billionaire could dictate that stinky tofu is the better option.

In the market I really don't have to worry about my "representatives" (champions?) using too much of my money to try and win contests that aren't relevant to my interests.

A lack of participation in these experiments makes it challenging for me to show you, and everybody else, that BV and DV rank things differently.

I have no objection to participation necessarily beyond that I'm a touch wary of getting involved in threads that are likely to blow up with needless chatter.

Heh. You don't like searching for needles in haystacks?

Ok, I'll update the BV poll in the OP. I value our exchange so I'm going to gift you Supporter and put the $3 dollars on my preferred system.

I'm thankful, but you could have done anything with that money. Why this?

You're welcome. In a subsequent post, which you might have mistaken for needless chatter, I shared the following...

For $3 dollars I was able to...

1. communicate with actions my appreciation for a discussion
2. purchase Supporter for Fahran
3. help pay for this website
4. move pragmatarianism into the #1 spot

That's a lot of bang for my buck.

[Galloism]

You're welcome. In a subsequent post, which you might have mistaken for needless chatter, I shared the following...

For $3 dollars I was able to...

1. communicate with actions my appreciation for a discussion
2. purchase Supporter for Fahran
3. help pay for this website
4. move pragmatarianism into the #1 spot

That's a lot of bang for my buck.

You still need to amend #4 for my $3 to Ism.

Rule by goats is more valuable again.

[The Holy Therns]

Goats seem to know what's up.

[Xerographica]

(5000 x 10 / 60) x $11 = $9166.67

Is that correct?

The contest, for most of the time that I've been a member here, has primarily involved words and minutes. Now we've graduated to also involving dollars.

I know that, for some people, it's really hard to remember the basic economic problem. So here it is again...

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

Society's limited resources have to somehow be divided among its unlimited desires. How should the resources be divided? This is what the contest is all about. It's convenient for me to compare this contest to tug of war. But in reality, the contest is incredibly complex.

This thread provides all of us the opportunity to use BV and/or DV to help our preferred political ideology compete resources, such as attention, away from the alternatives. Naturally the contest hasn't gone quite like I expected, but this doesn't at all diminish its significance. I readily acknowledge and admit that I'm a lousy scientist. Does this fact diminish the quality of the work? Sure. But does it diminish its importance? Not at all. I'd much rather do a terrible job of barking up the right tree than an awesome job of barking up the wrong tree.

[Xerographica]

You're welcome. In a subsequent post, which you might have mistaken for needless chatter, I shared the following...

You still need to amend #4 for my $3 to Ism.

Rule by goats is more valuable again.

It was sweet while it lasted. Now I gotta go sell a kidney on the black market. How absurd is it that I don't have the freedom to legally sell my kidney? If you can legally give something away, then selling it should also be legal.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Everything I know about economics, which is quite a lot, leads me to believe that this idea would greatly improve the forum. Unfortunately, the mods shot the idea down and locked the thread. The problem is that the mods are ignorant about economics... just like I'm ignorant about the inner workings of this website.

Top ten lies ever told on NSG.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

In the market I really don't have to worry about my "representatives" (champions?) using too much of my money to try and win contests that aren't relevant to my interests.

This coming from the person who just wasted over 30 dollars in a silly vendetta against me and Gallo.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

(5000 x 10 / 60) x $11 = $9166.67

Is that correct?

The contest, for most of the time that I've been a member here, has primarily involved words and minutes. Now we've graduated to also involving dollars.

I know that, for some people, it's really hard to remember the basic economic problem. So here it is again...

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

Society's limited resources have to somehow be divided among its unlimited desires. How should the resources be divided? This is what the contest is all about. It's convenient for me to compare this contest to tug of war. But in reality, the contest is incredibly complex.

This thread provides all of us the opportunity to use BV and/or DV to help our preferred political ideology compete resources, such as attention, away from the alternatives. Naturally the contest hasn't gone quite like I expected, but this doesn't at all diminish its significance. I readily acknowledge and admit that I'm a lousy scientist. Does this fact diminish the quality of the work? Sure. But does it diminish its importance? Not at all. I'd much rather do a terrible job of barking up the right tree than an awesome job of barking up the wrong tree.

Yes, yes it has diminished its significance.

Xero, you are competing against rule by fucking goats, we're paying for you to keep us entertained with your bullshit.

Jesus Christ, you're being made a fool in this website and you still think your vendetta is relevant to anything?!

Also, you are not just a "lousy scientist", you're not a scientist at all.

Also, for all you claim to know about economics, your knowledge of economics doesn't seem to be beyond basic mathematics and elementary economics a child can learn at elementary school.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I love how one of your own sources is a damning indictment against your silly idea:

We are biased toward the democratic/republican side of the spectrum. That’s what we’re used to from civics classes. But the truth is that startups and founders lean toward the dictatorial side because that structure works better for startups. It is more tyrant than mob because it should be. In some sense, startups can’t be democracies because none are. None are because it doesn’t work. If you try to submit everything to voting processes when you’re trying to do something new, you end up with bad, lowest common denominator type results. — Peter Thiel, Girard in Silicon Valley

Also, the contest was never about proving how should resources be divided, so you can stop lying about that too.

The contest for you has become personal. It has become a matter of you being able to lord shit over everyone, but most importantly, Gallo and me, you know, those "stupid critics that aren't even experts". And you have become every bit like a gambling addict in your pursuit of such.

[The Holy Therns]

Also, the contest was never about proving how should resources be divided, so you can stop lying about that too.

The contest for you has become personal. It has become a matter of you being able to lord shit over everyone, but most importantly, Gallo and me, you know, those "stupid critics that aren't even experts". And you have become every bit like a gambling addict in your pursuit of such.

Xero's the sunk cost fallacy given flesh.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

It's a positive claim and one that would necessitate the restructuring of society to adhere to a theoretical model. There are numerous reasons why the onus must be on you and those in your camp.

But the fundamental issue that should super concern us both is that our society's current theoretical model has absolutely no scientific basis. There's absolutely no evidence that BV is better than DV at ranking/prioritizing things. I'm just the guy pointing out that the Emperor has no clothes.

Except all of history?

I mean, your system effectively creates plutocracies. If your system was accurate then plutocracies would still exist nowadays.

They don't anymore, so that says a lot about democratic states than it does about plutocratic ones.

I mean, I don't need to chase a disproval of a method that has been consistently tried and has come out successful (albeit with flaws) over long periods of time.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Also, the contest was never about proving how should resources be divided, so you can stop lying about that too.

The contest for you has become personal. It has become a matter of you being able to lord shit over everyone, but most importantly, Gallo and me, you know, those "stupid critics that aren't even experts". And you have become every bit like a gambling addict in your pursuit of such.

Xero's the sunk cost fallacy given flesh.

I mean, there's a reason why I labeled this "casino-style politics"

[The Grim Reaper]

I'd like to cast a BV vote for my preferred system, rechtgläubigen vollhandarbeiter alltagslebener sexualitätsapathischer antipragmatartistischer Syntheseanarchismus.

This is the six-word political ideology I myself have coined to describe a political system which, based on an extension of what is an orthodox interpretation of the central provocation of synthesis anarchism, offers a post-left inspired recognition, rather than obscuration, of traditional left-wing movements like the labour movement and the gender & sexuality movement, by providing an explicit rejection of the sexuality binary as unnecessary structuring of the free expression of consensual love, and of the accusations that anarchism can only function 'post-scarcity', by recognising that anarchism is a fully-manual labour movement that can bring politics into everyday, terrestrial life. Also, it is antipragmatarianist. It is named in German as a commemoration of the anarchist, LGBT, labour-movement, and 'everyday' political dissidents and racial minority victims of the Nazi Reich, and then the Stalinist regime over Eastern Germany.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I'd like to cast a BV vote for my preferred system, rechtgläubigen vollhandarbeiter alltagslebener sexualitätsapathischer antipragmatartistischer Syntheseanarchismus.

This is the six-word political ideology I myself have coined to describe a political system which, based on an extension of what is an orthodox interpretation of the central provocation of synthesis anarchism, offers a post-left inspired recognition, rather than obscuration, of traditional left-wing movements like the labour movement and the gender & sexuality movement, by providing an explicit rejection of the sexuality binary as unnecessary structuring of the free expression of consensual love, and of the accusations that anarchism can only function 'post-scarcity', by recognising that anarchism is a fully-manual labour movement that can bring politics into everyday, terrestrial life. Also, it is antipragmatarianist. It is named in German as a commemoration of the anarchist, LGBT, labour-movement, and 'everyday' political dissidents and racial minority victims of the Nazi Reich, and then the Stalinist regime over Eastern Germany.

Whatever you have done to this thread, you are a genius.

[Neutraligon]

I'm still waiting for those definitions and methodology Xero. Is there a reason you stopped replying to my comments?

(5000 x 10 / 60) x $11 = $9166.67

Is that correct?

The contest, for most of the time that I've been a member here, has primarily involved words and minutes. Now we've graduated to also involving dollars.

I know that, for some people, it's really hard to remember the basic economic problem. So here it is again...

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

Society's limited resources have to somehow be divided among its unlimited desires. How should the resources be divided? This is what the contest is all about. It's convenient for me to compare this contest to tug of war. But in reality, the contest is incredibly complex.

This thread provides all of us the opportunity to use BV and/or DV to help our preferred political ideology compete resources, such as attention, away from the alternatives. Naturally the contest hasn't gone quite like I expected, but this doesn't at all diminish its significance. I readily acknowledge and admit that I'm a lousy scientist. Does this fact diminish the quality of the work? Sure. But does it diminish its importance? Not at all. I'd much rather do a terrible job of barking up the right tree than an awesome job of barking up the wrong tree.

Yes, yes it has diminished its significance.

Xero, you are competing against rule by fucking goats, we're paying for you to keep us entertained with your bullshit.

Jesus Christ, you're being made a fool in this website and you still think your vendetta is relevant to anything?!

Also, you are not just a "lousy scientist", you're not a scientist at all.

Also, for all you claim to know about economics, your knowledge of economics doesn't seem to be beyond basic mathematics and elementary economics a child can learn at elementary school.

You are paying to keep us entertained. I haven't spent a sent, and would be entertained regardless of if you paid or didn't pay because the result would basically be the same.

Oh and Xero...you aren't a scientist, a lousy scientist would still provide definitions and a methodlogy.