David Sklansky is an ACist

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There's a very big difference between something that has been proved mathematically and something that seems like a reasonable conclusion based on certain premises.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's the difference? What is "math" (as it relates to the poker example) if not merely a tool for reaching and demonstrating a logical conclusion? The point is, if you can demonstrate that one action is good in all instances (however you are able to demonstrate it), then that action is good in all instances!

[/ QUOTE ]

Math is rigorous and, as far as we can tell, infallible. It takes everything into account and each step in the proof is perfectly justified based on the original axioms. Of course, if you could prove that an action is always good using formal logic with premises that everyone agrees with, that would be the same. But you can't.

[ QUOTE ]
If we could see each other's cards, then I suppose you could say it is a "well-defined game with a small number of variables and a smaller number of steps" (and even then it's iffy, in some ways). But the nature of imperfect information makes poker a very complicated game with infinite variables.

[/ QUOTE ]

A probabilistic game can be solved easily, and without psychological input of some kind all unknown cards are functionally random. What happens in poker is that you do have some information about the cards in your opponent's hand, but that information is derived from his psychology rather than from any game information. A hand of hold'em has, I believe, something on the order of 10^40 permutations. It's brutally simple even compared to chess (10^120) or Go (10^holy [censored]). But all of those games combined are nothing compared to a single dynamic interaction. Because you're dealing with people in poker, the game-theory correct response isn't always the best way to play.

[ QUOTE ]
And that's why the analogy is so good. Because of all the unique variables, in almost all instances the answer is "it depends." I wouldn't tell you it's "wrong" to raise a certain hand from a certain position, because so much depends on your unique assessment of the exact situation at a unique time (i.e. your ability to play later streets, things you know about the people behind you, etc.). "It depends." But still, there are *some* instances, where all you need to say is "I had AA preflop in a ring game and someone pushed in front of me" or, I suppose "I had KK and 900 chips, 5 people left in a sng, blinds 200-400, I'm first to act" and I wouldn't need any other information; because I know it couldn't possibly mitigate a good decision that was anything but call/push (respectively). In life, things like theft, murder, and rape can be demonstrated to be -EV all the time. If you said "I raped someone because X" I wouldn't care what the X was. It's impossible that it was good. It's always a mistake. So, while I don't like the idea of confining myself to rigid moral views (in the same way I don't like the idea of thinking it is always "good" or "bad" to act a certain way in some generic poker situation), there are *some* actions that just will never be good, even if I evaluate the unique situation in its own right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some poker situations are clear because it is mathematically always advantageous to take a certain action. Psychology doesn't matter at all, and so it can be established mathematically (ie formally, rigorously) that the action is correct (give certain assumptions - that the goal is to win money, for instance). It is only when the human variables are irrelevant that an action is always right or wrong in poker. You can never have a theory of human action that is analogous, because human variables are always relevant in human action.

[ QUOTE ]
If we didn't live in a world where the term "moral" was tossed around so loosely, I think my point might be easier to swallow. So forget the word. Do you think stealing is ever +EV? Please give me an example of when it can be.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no way possible way to get food within the next 24 hours other than to steal it. If you don't get food within the next 24 hours, you will die of starvation. If you do get food within the next 24 hours, you will live a happy life and soon be able to replace the food you stole (with interest).

You can argue whether this scenario is possible given certain assumptions and definitions of property, but I think it's (at least hypothetically) possible given conventional assumptions and definitions.


[ QUOTE ]
Why is this particular hand so likely to stick in your opponents head

[/ QUOTE ]

I can come up with a contrived reason (A certain song just came on the radio that happens to cause the opponent to behave irrationally - now's your chance!), but that would miss the point. Which is that variables outside the context of the specific hand are relevant, and that the number of things that can potentially affect human action is almost infinite (there's some crazy stuff out there due to pure variance in psychology and brain mutations/etc).

[ QUOTE ]
I think your denial of truth in the name of maintaining some political philosophy sucks. Does the fact that you've forced yourself to defend the idea of folding aces preflop in a cash game lead you to believe that maybe you might be on the wrong track here?

[/ QUOTE ]

I proudly defend the statement that the earth could spontaneously turn into a ball of cheese at any time. It's a true statement, and worthy of defense. Denial of truth is claiming that because something is extremely improbable, that means it is impossible. This is without even going into the relevant probabilities.

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't find you unpleasant to joust with at all. How old are you btw? Late high school/early college? (Hope I'm not way off, as that would probably be offensive.) You just remind me of the way I used to see things, before the broader idea really hit me. A lot of your arguments seem sort of impulsive, and I'm trying to demonstrate a broader perspective.

[/ QUOTE ]
I feel like I’m talking to a Mormon missionary when you say things like this. I’m a senior in college. Like I said, if your premises are faulty then your broader perspective has less value. I’m trying to be as logical as I can and if I see something that doesn’t appear to hold up logically, then I will (perhaps “impulsively”) try to dissect it. You may see it as nitpicking, but tangible/sound premises are essential when you’re trying to argue for an absolutist position.

[ QUOTE ]
This thread is getting a bit tiresome, and I feel like all the points have basically been made, but I don't really feel any need to "stop."

[/ QUOTE ]
Have they? I think you have a great deal of work ahead of you if you want to demonstrate that AC is the only logically correct political philosophy.


[ QUOTE ]
How can it be that a human or a group of humans who are detached from a situation will be more likely to know what is best than a human or a group of humans who are experience the situation first hand.

[/ QUOTE ]
That’s why power isn’t completely centralized in effective governments. We have city, county, state and federal levels. And someone who is somewhat detached will be able to make better judgements than someone who is emotionally involved in a situation.

[ QUOTE ]
And that's all a law is. It's a decision made by one human being FOR another human being. Why are the people making the laws so superior to the people acting?

[/ QUOTE ]
It’s a decision made by a group of individuals who were selected by means of voting to represent their constituents. And it applies to everyone including those who came up with it.

[ QUOTE ]
If all the white people wanted to murder the black people... how/why the hell would they ever pass a law that said you couldn't do this???

[/ QUOTE ]
They wouldn’t. That’s why I was confused about what you meant by “solution”. The whites might not see anything needing to be solved.

[ QUOTE ]
But in the absence of centralized law of all sorts (and a dependence on first hand human nature -- the thing that got us here), when individuals have the right to travel, are not captured, displaced, enslaved, and then systematically segregated, it's entirely irrational to imagine a society where blacks and whites coexist, but that one group decides they want to murder the others!

[/ QUOTE ]
Since I’m not sure what reasoning you’re basing this on, all I can say is “no it’s not.”

[ QUOTE ]
Moreover, my question that started this tangent (I think) was simply, "Do you think murder can ever be good?" And this was your hypothetical. So let me ask you, if this group of human beings who irrationally valued killing people because of their skin color (even when it comes at the obvious expense of wealth and prosperity) did indeed exist, what exactly do you think of this society? Is this good, or are they making some sort of mistake? Do you consider this a good place to live?

[/ QUOTE ]
I challenge the notion that it comes at “the obvious expense of wealth and prosperity”. I’ve already said that they may reserve more power and resources for themselves this way.
But my subjective opinion is that the society blows. I’m an empathetic person who dislikes racism and murder. I wouldn’t want to live there personally, but I’ve encountered a fair number of racist a-holes who may well say they’d love to live there. I can’t objectively call it good or bad, nor can I objectively point to any mistake. What is the mistake?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not familiar with this idea “when all actions are voluntary”. Can you explain it? I didn’t leave it out out of maliciousness, btw. I assumed that mugging someone was a voluntary act.

[/ QUOTE ]

No! Mugging someone is bad. Do you disagree?

[/ QUOTE ]
It’s subjective.

[ QUOTE ]
It's voluntary in the sense that someone did it, sure. But a voluntary action is one that both parties agree to (presumably because they consider it in their best interest). So that's the whole point.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ok, let me backpedal a bit, with this new information.
I said: “My point is that a given individual may not care whether something (such as stealing) is beneficial for society as a whole or not. It's beneficial to him, because it makes him money.”
You said: “My point is that what's best for him *will* be best for society when all actions are voluntary.”
Why are we working within the context of “when all actions are voluntary”? Why would all actions ever be voluntary?

[ QUOTE ]
I know that mugging is bad, in all circumstances, because one party did not agree to it.

[/ QUOTE ]
So you’re claiming that any action involving two parties that one party does not agree to is “bad”? How so? There are lots of holes in this and I can elaborate, but I’d like to just verify that it’s your stance.

[ QUOTE ]
Everyone by and large agrees with this. Even if you want to consider whether or not theft is bad as a preference (which I have no problem with, because it eventually leads to the same conclusion) you have to admit that then, well, universally it is agreed that this preference is BAD.

[/ QUOTE ]
Again since I don’t know what you’re basing this claim on all I can say is “no it’s not”.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no way possible way to get food within the next 24 hours other than to steal it. If you don't get food within the next 24 hours, you will die of starvation. If you do get food within the next 24 hours, you will live a happy life and soon be able to replace the food you stole (with interest).

[/ QUOTE ]

ACers agree that this is completely OK. I certainly think this is OK. But your last sentence is the key. Just because it was "OK" to steal in an act of self-defense, it does not mean that you don't owe whomever you stole from some compensation for your action. It sounds like you agree entirely.

[ QUOTE ]
Denial of truth is claiming that because something is extremely improbable, that means it is impossible. This is without even going into the relevant probabilities.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what's the difference?

This is why I really wish David thought about this stuff. Bayes' theorem. (I put that in there because I imagine David's brain working like google, so I figure that ups the chance he sees it, and maybe thinks about it.) Bayesian. Bayes.

Wouldn't you say the thing that makes you 99% to die is 100% BAD? Why would you ever choose to favor a social norm where (you basically concede that) it's more likely to do bad than good. If I get my chips in with pocket aces against pocket jacks (and am only concerned about money) that's GOOD. It's 100% good even though there is only an 80% chance that it will work. Just accept it.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
You may see it as nitpicking, but tangible/sound premises are essential when you’re trying to argue for an absolutist position.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, nitpicking I'd have no problem with.

[ QUOTE ]
Have they? I think you have a great deal of work ahead of you if you want to demonstrate that AC is the only logically correct political philosophy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't know I was trying to demonstrate that. My OP says it's the logical destination *to me*. But I realize that convincing others of this is a tedious, drawn out endeavor, and I have no interest in doing so right now. This gynormous tangent started when soon2bepro argued there is no way I could have much insight into David's moral beliefs based on observing his logic. I'm merely arguing (in addition to all the minor tangents) that "morality" should not be seen as separate from logic, and that it's reasonable to gain insight into a man's "moral" assumptions based on his logical application of various hypotheticals.

And it isn't that other philosophies aren't "logical" in some limited/myopic sense, or that people who hold them aren't logical people. It's just that AC, to me, is human nature. It's truth. And I eventually realized it. It's not like I believe in AC, so I want to do my best to convince everyone to join me. I just believe in truth and logic, and can't help but concede that AC is exactly that.

I made some posts in politics recently where I tried arguing against AC; because I really, desperately, wanted to believe that there was some merit to the state and all that stuff that's ingrained in our heads to be good. And I really like being tolerant of other people's thoughts, so I wanted to find some logical justification to be able to be. And eventually I came to the conclusion that there isn't one. Tolerance of the statism bias is separate from logic. Oh well.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Mugging someone is bad. Do you disagree?

[/ QUOTE ]It’s subjective.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why won't you answer the question? I'm asking what YOU think. I'm willing to admit it's subjective in some sense. But my point is that if every human being who logically examines the issue will conclude one thing, then it's effectively objective. It's subjective in the sense that human reason is not necessarily objectively good. But if you accept human reason as objectively good, then so too are its conclusions.

Nothing is objective in the grand scheme of things. I could jump off a building, and what the [censored] does it matter? My friends and family would be sad, but why do their feelings matter? Ultimately everything is subjective. So in a sense you're right. But to whatever extent human life is objectively worthwhile, it follows that so too must be something that the human condition universally determines is a good preference. If you don't consider that objective, then in your mind there just is no objective.

I understand your position. It leads to the conclusion that human life is not objectively good, and the destruction of it is not necessarily bad. My argument maintains the assumption that human life is good and worthwhile. If you disagree with such assumption, then that's fine. I've smoked enough blunts in my life to erode a lot of my human bias, so I can relate. But eventually you just realize that while there may be no true "objective goodness," the natural bias we have as humans is such where it seems good to conclude that life is better than destruction. Whether or not you want to consider this objective or subjective is pretty semantical. But what you should be able to agree to is that if life, rather than destruction, is objectively good, then so too are the things that encourage it.

[madnak]

Much of the time the distinction isn't important. Unfortunately, we can't predict when it will be. If we treated 10^-500 as being "equal to zero," math and science would fall apart reasonably quickly. In some cases I can't foresee any specific threats, in others I can. But just because I can't foresee a given issue doesn't mean that issue doesn't exist. Hell, if we find a way to iterate something infinitely, "extremely improbable" might end up meaning "certain." But there are subtler differences. With a 99% chance of death, that 1% chance of life seems insignificant. What if it were the other way around? I think a 1% chance of death is worth worrying about.

Security is a good concrete example, because one person can do a lot of harm. As technology moves forward at a more and more rapid pace, the weapons people can manufacture in their garages will become more and more powerful. Maybe someday a person will be able to blow up a city with equipment bought at Radio Shack. And if that day comes, a single wacky anomaly could be the end of everyone. Some decisions must be made based on what applies to "most people," other decisions have to be made with possible exceptions in mind. Either way, I think having all the information is important. I value my awareness that AA may lose sometimes, even if it doesn't serve me in any concrete way.

[ALawPoker]

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say. The reason individual acts of theft might once in a while be +EV is because life is a random assortment of a bunch of variables. Maybe I stole my friend's $5 bill and bought a lottery ticket, won, and now will help him pay for his sister's knee surgery. That happened to work out for me.

Theoretically, there was a better chance that more harm than good could come from it (when you factor, among other things, the guilt I might feel, and the chance he would notice).

The reason why theft may as well be looked at as bad is because it's more likely to be bad and you have no way of knowing when it will be good. You could say the same about slitting your wrists. It isn't like I'm unwilling to consider that there are a bunch of factor's unique to an individual going into a certain decision; it's just that given what I sense about human nature and how we got here, the action is blatantly destructive to human prosperity.

My argument is that the move is always -EV (in the same way getting it in against aces is always -EV). If you're determined to look at it as some subjective "it can be right sometimes" type of thing, then you must hold the axiom that -EV poker decisions can be "right" when they work. Or you must think there exist instances where theft can be +EV. I don't agree with either claim.

So even though ya, sure, you may as well be aware that sometimes your mistake can work, there still never exists an instance where you should *do* it. Have you ever encountered an instance where you concluded stealing something was to your best advantage? That little nagging voice inside you is pretty powerful. Years of trial and error at work.

So while I'm not omniscient, and thus can't predict exactly how the pieces will fall given an action, I know that the one which is more likely to be a success is objectively better. Since humans can't see through the back of playing cards, I know that holding AA is objectively 100% better than holding KK. I know that respect for property rights is 100% objectively better than theft in all instances, even though some of those instances will get lucky.

And please, if you choose to respond, don't nit about the poker analogy by introducing the idea that players are cheating or terrorists will blow up the world if X happens. It should be pretty clear my analogy assumes a straightforward poker game (since the "theft" we're talking about does not include the idea that aliens or God came down and told us something).

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't know I was trying to demonstrate that. My OP says it's the logical destination *to me*.

[/ QUOTE ]
My mistake. Looking back I remember that you were merely trying to demonstrate that morals can be logically deduced.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Mugging someone is bad. Do you disagree?

[/ QUOTE ]It’s subjective.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why won't you answer the question? I'm asking what YOU think. I'm willing to admit it's subjective in some sense. But my point is that if every human being who logically examines the issue will conclude one thing, then it's effectively objective.

[/ QUOTE ]
I understand you're asking what I think. What I think is that it's relative, meaning it can't be called good or bad in an absolute sense. If you're asking if I like mugging my answer is no. I'm sure I could think of a circumstance in which I endorsed it, but I generally don't. Are you saying that everyone dislikes mugging? Because I'm sure that's not the case. If it was the case mugging would never happen.

[ QUOTE ]
But to whatever extent human life is objectively worthwhile, it follows that so too must be something that the human condition universally determines is a good preference. If you don't consider that objective, then in your mind there just is no objective.

[/ QUOTE ]
I can't think of anything that humans universally agree is a good preference.

[ QUOTE ]
the natural bias we have as humans is such where it seems good to conclude that life is better than destruction.

[/ QUOTE ]
I can't agree on this. Partly because the terms "life" and "destruction" are far too vague and partly because humans as a whole are highly destructive, therefore a claim that we have a natural bias against it will take some convincing.

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
Have you ever encountered an instance where you concluded stealing something was to your best advantage?

[/ QUOTE ]
Does downloading music and sharing software count?

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why did you edit out the Dutch?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because I am not as conversant in Dutch history as I am the Roman, Spanish, British, and American.

[/ QUOTE ]


The Dutch colonies around the world seem like a perfectly valid example of empire.


[ QUOTE ]
The Dutch Empire[1] is the name given to the various territories controlled by the Netherlands from the 17th to the 20th century. The Dutch followed Portugal and Spain in establishing a colonial global empire outside of continental Europe. Their skills in shipping and trading and the surge of nationalism and militarism accompanying the struggle for independence from Spain aided the venture. Alongside the British, the Dutch initially built up colonial possessions on the basis of indirect state capitalist corporate colonialism, primarily with the Dutch East India Company. Direct state intervention in the colonial enterprise came later.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Empire


[/ QUOTE ]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ImageutchEmpire.png

[/ QUOTE ]

Then by all means, include it in the list. Didn't mean to belittle your warmongers. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
If you're determined to look at it as some subjective "it can be right sometimes" type of thing, then you must hold the axiom that -EV poker decisions can be "right" when they work. Or you must think there exist instances where theft can be +EV. I don't agree with either claim.

[/ QUOTE ]

You said in your last response that theft in self-defense is okay. This seems to contradict that.