26-07-2004 08:34									#91
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker Tell me this - would Hobbes consider buying a fancy car (as opposed to a cost-efficient one) or paying a hooker to be self-interested?

Well, since both are acts of lust, a sin, probably not- specially since you will go to hell for it, as Hobbes would say.

Lets say I have a dollar: if I give it to a beggar, then PA would say I amd doping it to feel good about giving to a beggar- a minor warm and fuzzy feeling. Of course, I could have used the dollar to buy a food item I crave, which from experience, since I have done both, would give me longer lasting pleasure than givng to the beggar.

So, was my acdt of "self-interest" also inherently irrational if I gave to the beggar, forsaking an even greater joy?

The fundamental problem with PA and Sky and Imran here is thjat they base tyheir argumene ton the fact that human beings create meaning for everything, even their own actions- every human being must create a reason for their actions, whether its before, during, or after the fact- they create a rationalization for their action-that is simply human. Then then make the leap to saying this assumed reason is always clear and correct and discernable, and they try to reduce what are invariably the mutitude of reasons for most acts into a set of few generalities.

I agree with Kid in that for a term like self-interest to have meaning, it must be tighly defined. PA and Sky and Imran not only argue against altruism but in essecence self-interest by making it a meaningless thing with their overtly broad meaning. After all, they would say a murder of passion was a self-interested act- heck, it achieved a goal and it satiates a need for vengence, so yes, a murder of passion is a self-interested act....And in doing so they would show the bankruptness of their definition.

	26-07-2004 08:41									#92
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by GePap Lets say I have a dollar: if I give it to a beggar, then PA would say I amd doping it to feel good about giving to a beggar- a minor warm and fuzzy feeling. Of course, I could have used the dollar to buy a food item I crave, which from experience, since I have done both, would give me longer lasting pleasure than givng to the beggar.

Then why don't you buy the food item? (Because you would feel guilty if you did, reducing the pleasure from the food enough that you'd be happier giving the money to the beggar.)

quote: I agree with Kid in that for a term like self-interest to have meaning, it must be tighly defined. PA and Sky and Imran not only argue against altruism but in essecence self-interest by making it a meaningless thing with their overtly broad meaning. After all, they would say a murder of passion was a self-interested act- heck, it achieved a goal and it satiates a need for vengence, so yes, a murder of passion is a self-interested act....And in doing so they would show the bankruptness of their definition.

Uh, no, because any other meaning is essentially arbitrary.

	26-07-2004 09:04									#93
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker Then why don't you buy the food item? (Because you would feel guilty if you did, reducing the pleasure from the food enough that you'd be happier giving the money to the beggar.)

NO. Seeing beggard daily, I can tell you you are wrong.But to go on a more genral answer-I could pl;ay the game backwards- I could feel sad for having given away the buck and not bought that great icecream, thus lessining the happiness of giving to the beggar. See, the game goes both ways.

quote: Uh, no, because any other meaning is essentially arbitrary.

Your meaning is as arbitrary actually, which means the definition should be based on use. This is true for all words.

	26-07-2004 09:08									#94
	Support Apolyton

quote: NO. Seeing beggard daily, I can tell you you are wrong.But to go on a more genral answer-I could pl;ay the game backwards- I could feel sad for having given away the buck and not bought that great icecream, thus lessining the happiness of giving to the beggar. See, the game goes both ways.

Why did you do it, then?

quote: Your meaning is as arbitrary actually,

Actually, my meaning is clear-cut. Yours requires some stupid distinction between "material" self-interest and happiness.

	26-07-2004 09:09									#95
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker Why did you do it, then?

Do I actually need a rational reason for the action? Please tell me why first, then we can go on.

quote: Actually, my meaning is clear-cut. Yours requires some stupid distinction between "material" self-interest and happiness.

Since you can;t even define happiness, which supposedly is one of the pillars of your argument, yours is as arbitrary as mine.

	26-07-2004 09:12									#96
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Do I actually need a rational reason for the action? Please tell me why first, then we can go on.

Some thought process led to you doing it.

quote: Since you can;t even define happiness, which supposedly is one of the pillars of your argument, yours is as arbitrary as mine.

Why do you think I can't define happiness?

	26-07-2004 09:19									#97
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Park Avenue An altruistic act would be someone performing a completely selfless act. But... i) I doubt any act is completely selfless ii) and if there was, no-one would do it THis is just rationality.

Cool, so people never act anything else but purely rational.

	26-07-2004 09:23									#98
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker Some thought process led to you doing it.

But most that thought have been a choice towards an action for the purpose of achieving some goal? Are all your thoughts only that? Man, what a broing mind.

quote: Why do you think I can't define happiness?

Because you haven't yet. Try.

	26-07-2004 10:34									#99
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by GePap Lets say I have a dollar: if I give it to a beggar, then PA would say I amd doping it to feel good about giving to a beggar- a minor warm and fuzzy feeling. Of course, I could have used the dollar to buy a food item I crave, which from experience, since I have done both, would give me longer lasting pleasure than givng to the beggar.

You get diminishing returns from consuming goods. You could say that charity is given when the warm fuzzy feeling of giving either equals or is greater than the next best alternative. This is all theoretical of course. I think the last time I gave a bum some money I thought back on it and figured that I gave him some money because he didn't really look like a bum, and I felt bad for not giving other bums money. Assuming people behave rationally is best as a policy tool, and not always as good for theory.

	26-07-2004 10:41									#100
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by BeBro Cool, so people never act anything else but purely rational.

Yeah, they don't. Usually I could really care less if what I do is rational. The poorer you are the more concerned about saving extra change and stuff, but most people would rather not bother about it.

	26-07-2004 11:01									#101
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Park Avenue They've got either accept that i) Altruism doesn't exist or ii) Altruism makes the giver feel some satisfaction too (so it is thus in his self-interest)

The problem with the followers of the "feelgood factor" school of thought is they assume that people carry out altruistic acts after some sort of careful, deliberate cost-benefit analysis.

This of course is pure fantasy.

	26-07-2004 11:53									#102
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

No one has as yet provided an explanation for why I can have preferences about things that will occur long after my death, preferences which when satisfied or frustrated cannot make me happy or unhappy because I'll be dead.

	26-07-2004 13:49									#103
	Suffering from ads?

quote: I think the last time I gave a bum some money I thought back on it and figured that I gave him some money because he didn't really look like a bum, and I felt bad for not giving other bums money.

Your utility function can change over time, meaning that things you did rationally in the past no longer appear so (perhaps as a result of the past action taking place under uncertainty that is no longer there).

You thought the beggar was genuine, therefore at the time, giving money to him was a rational act. Later on, however, you thought you might have been fooled. It doesn't make your original act any less rational - it was just rational under uncertain conditions.

quote: No one has as yet provided an explanation for why I can have preferences about things that will occur long after my death, preferences which when satisfied or frustrated cannot make me happy or unhappy because I'll be dead.

Current satisfaction that you've laid things out as you want them to be for when you die.

Think about it. How would your current satisfaction level be different if you knew that your family would struggle in poverty for the rest of their lives? Or if you knew they were going to be comfortable and healthy?

Expectations of the future can give us current satisfaction and utility too.

	26-07-2004 14:49									#104
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Current satisfaction that you've laid things out as you want them to be for when you die. Think about it. How would your current satisfaction level be different if you knew that your family would struggle in poverty for the rest of their lives? Or if you knew they were going to be comfortable and healthy? Expectations of the future can give us current satisfaction and utility too.

That's a pretty good answer. BTW I agree with your earlier point about there being no essential conflict between our interests and those of others.

However, I'm not satisfied with this one. Why do I have to know that it will be achieved or that it is likely in order for my preference to be satisfied?

Consider the following Men in Black case. Some men in black suits arrive at my door and offer me the following choice.

(1) We will make sure that things turn out as you want after your death, but the catch is that we will erase your memory so that you don't remember this conversation and it will seem that things will not turn out as you wish after your death.

or:

(2) We will make sure that things do not turn out as you wish after your death, but we will make it appear as though they will. Again, you will not remember this conversation.

Which would you choose?

(you can make this case less "sci fi" if you imagine the case as one dealing with lies or false appearances. Would you rather that things appeared as if they weren't going your way at your death when things would in fact turn out as you wanted, or would you rather have it appear that things were going your way, when in fact they won't?

	26-07-2004 14:58									#105
	Remove this text

quote: And I did. I first asked you to provide an example of a completely selfless act.

I doubt there is an act that would provide no happiness what soever. But that's not the definition of altruism.
It's giving up some of your own happiness to make other people happy. By recieving less happiness that you could've you're, in fact, giving up on it, in order to make other people happier.

	26-07-2004 18:54									#106
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Park Avenue Your utility function can change over time, meaning that things you did rationally in the past no longer appear so (perhaps as a result of the past action taking place under uncertainty that is no longer there). You thought the beggar was genuine, therefore at the time, giving money to him was a rational act. Later on, however, you thought you might have been fooled. It doesn't make your original act any less rational - it was just rational under uncertain conditions.

No. I look back on it and think, "why did I do that? I never do that." I did something irrational. It happens. If you don't think it does then you are simply very confused about the real world. Anyone in touch with the real world knows that people don't always behave either rationally, or irrationally.

	26-07-2004 19:36									#107
	Increase Your PM Length

Kidicious

"Anyone in touch with the real world knows that people don't always behave either rationally, or irrationally."

I'm with you. I think this is a lot more difficult to think about than many people give credit for.

The classic irrationality that I'm aware of is to do with impatience, ie if you give someone the choice of something in either 6 months time or 12 months time, they'll generally be indifferent.

If you give them the choice of the same thing now, or in six months. They'll tend to choose to have it now.

Is this irrationality/inconsistency of preferences?

	26-07-2004 23:56									#108
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Park Avenue Kidicious "Anyone in touch with the real world knows that people don't always behave either rationally, or irrationally." I'm with you. I think this is a lot more difficult to think about than many people give credit for. The classic irrationality that I'm aware of is to do with impatience, ie if you give someone the choice of something in either 6 months time or 12 months time, they'll generally be indifferent. If you give them the choice of the same thing now, or in six months. They'll tend to choose to have it now. Is this irrationality/inconsistency of preferences?

Actually, I think that most people would prefer to have something in 6 months rather than 12 months if you asked them. However, say that you only offer it to them in 12 months and your competitor offers it to them in 6 months. In this case they might just as well buy from you unless it was a very big purchase and they had accountants working on the problem. You can call that irrational, or you can just say they weren't being rational.

As you know, economists don't assume that people always behave rationally. They only say that we can expect people to generally behave rationally, and we can make policy with that expectation.

	27-07-2004 00:06									#109
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

"As you know, economists don't assume that people always behave rationally."

They do. They have to. Otherwise there's no sound basis.

	27-07-2004 00:14									#110
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger The problem with the followers of the "feelgood factor" school of thought is they assume that people carry out altruistic acts after some sort of careful, deliberate cost-benefit analysis. This of course is pure fantasy.

A rational decision is the best decision one can make under the current circumstances, including inaccurate and incomplete information. Regardless of how trivial the decision, it is made after some sort of cost-benefit analysis. It need not be careful, nor even a conscious action, but the analysis is doneon some level.

	27-07-2004 00:35									#111
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Park Avenue "As you know, economists don't assume that people always behave rationally." They do. They have to. Otherwise there's no sound basis.

I'm sorry, but you didn't learn much during your studies. Did you go to Imran's college.

	27-07-2004 00:51									#112
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: economists don't assume that people always behave rationally. They only say that we can expect people to generally behave rationally

They say both. Economists do say that generally people behave rationally. But PA is also correct, economists, in creating their models and theories, assume that people always behave rationally. It's an assumption that must be made in order for any kind of model to be created.

To say otherwise means you were snoring through your classes.

	27-07-2004 00:54									#113
	Increase Your PM Length

Don't listen to them.

	27-07-2004 01:08									#114
	Full PM-box? Change here!

And generally the largest qualification to the rationality theory is that it is rationality under massive uncertainty.

How rational can that be really?

	27-07-2004 04:03									#115
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: economists don't assume that people always behave rationally. They only say that we can expect people to generally behave rationally They say both. Economists do say that generally people behave rationally. But PA is also correct, economists, in creating their models and theories, assume that people always behave rationally. It's an assumption that must be made in order for any kind of model to be created. To say otherwise means you were snoring through your classes.

With the graphs you have to assume rational agents. I was talking about over all theory.

	27-07-2004 08:35									#116
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Skanky Burns A rational decision is the best decision one can make under the current circumstances, including inaccurate and incomplete information. Regardless of how trivial the decision, it is made after some sort of cost-benefit analysis. It need not be careful, nor even a conscious action, but the analysis is doneon some level.

Really?

Suppose you see a man is about to be run over by a car. You have just a fraction of a second to decide whether you act to save him or not. Under such a situation, what factors go into said analysis, how do you weight them, and on what level would such an analysis occur? How do you demonstrate that such an analysis did in fact occur?

	27-07-2004 08:39									#117
	Inflate your Upload Space

Because he made a decision! Impulses actually traveled to and from his brain!

	27-07-2004 08:58									#118
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker Because he made a decision! Impulses actually traveled to and from his brain!

Impulses are not analysis.

	27-07-2004 09:00									#119
	Support Apolyton

That's a completely meaningless statement.

Impulses traveled to his brain, as opposed to stopping at some point midway and simply causing a reflexive action. His brain, his seat of conciousness, made a decision. The thought processes - however brief - that led to the decision are the analysis. Even if it was just "oh ****, that car's coming strait at me" and he jumps aside.

	27-07-2004 09:04									#120
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker That's a completely meaningless statement. Impulses traveled to his brain, as opposed to stopping at some point midway and simply causing a reflexive action. His brain, his seat of conciousness, made a decision. The thought processes - however brief - that led to the decision are the analysis. Even if it was just "oh ****, that car's coming strait at me" and he jumps aside.

First, any decision is rational, and now any impulse to the brain is analysis.