Nice little article introducing neuro-economics

[Propertarian]

[ QUOTE ]
I would muchly prefer that my boss gives me the money out of the cash register. I'm not going to actually try to rob him, though, unless I'm actually screwed and willing to deal with/don't care about the reprocussions. Same with revolutions. Excessive oppression results in revolution, as we've seen in the last two centuries.

The reason the peasants aren't revolting like they did centuries ago is because they're not being oppressed enough to warrant any action...at which case we have to ask, just how bad is the problem if they don't want to do anything about it

[/ QUOTE ] Good point.

However, it is still pretty obvious to me that people are much more likely to do something if no collective action problem is involved. For example, I'm willing to type this because I know nobody else has to do anything in order for it to be posted. But if I had to get 5,000 other people to type the same thing in order for this post to be created, their is no way I'm going to write up this post.

Another example: I'd much rather have a more egalitarian society than a night on the town. But since all I have to do in order to go out is to walk into a bar, I do that.

Also, see my reply to Borodog re: they are willing to do something about it if doing something does not come at a potentially great cost to themselves.

[Propertarian]

[ QUOTE ]
They are doing something about it. They're voting themselves the property of others, because people like you have convinced them it's morally right.

[/ QUOTE ] Right, and they can be convinced that is the case despite the fact that the wealthy control almost everything in the society (politicans are wealthy, media owners are wealthy, business owners are usually wealthy etc.) and despite the social norms in favor of property, demonstrating that people have a tendency to be averse to hierarchy.

Notice, however, that voting is much less costly to the individual involved then fighting in a revolutionary war is, and that many people vote because they believe it is the right thing to do, not because of any instrumental considerations (other than them feeling better about themselves for doing the right thing), whereas war is considered something that should be avoided if possible.

[Borodog]

If any appreciable fraction of the people in society agreed with you because of an innate righteous indignation about material disparity, getting your egalitarian society would be just as easy as picking up a torch and a pitchfork and joining the mob. There is no freerider problem. The odds of you or any other individual being harmed are incredibly small because of the numbers involved. Even a fraction of the population is far larger than the ruling class. And you are all innately hopping mad, filled with righteous indignation, remember?

The American Revolution was fought and won by 9% of the colonists, for entirely economic, philosophical and ideological, i.e. cultural and not biological, reasons.

[Propertarian]

Once again, this is pure assertion. The chances of someone being harmed in a war you are talking about is actually quite high, because the ruling class can buy the best weapons and hire soldiers. And being injured in the war is not the only cost of participitation: people who fight in a war must also injure or kill other human beings (a huge cost to one's psyche, and many if not most people consider these things to be highly immoral and take the time and effort to do the work.

Also, "hopping mad, filled with righteous indignation" might be a little strong for the tendency that occurs. Evolution makes me hungry, but I don't get "hopping mad, filled with righteous indignation" because I've gone eight hours without food.

Also, while people are averse to being at the bottom a hierarchy (that is, being dominated), many if not most people are not opposed to being at the top of one (dominating).

[ QUOTE ]
There is no freerider problem.

[/ QUOTE ] Just because you don't understand something does not mean it does not exist. I saw your post on it in politics. I know others have told you this, but you are really going to have to read and refute Mancur Olson's work on collective action if you want to convince anybody who is educated on the subject.

[ QUOTE ]
economic, philosophical and ideological, i.e. cultural and not biological, reasons.

[/ QUOTE ] Economic, philosophical and ideological reasons, like all reasons, are all some kind of blend between "biological and cultural reasons"; no action makes sense otherwise.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Effectively , for humans there are no single iterations" .. seems a hi-falootin way of covering up emotionalism. ??

[/ QUOTE ]
Who's trying to cover it up? Most humans are emotional and its illogical to ignore that when we make decisions. I'm trying to get the non-math phobics to stop being so irrational.

If I try to cut a cake in half and chose who gets the biggest bit then you do.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Aren't you looking at a different level? Of course his action ( saying 'stuff it, you prk) is rational from my outside view...the researcher. Just as the bird flying away when I open the door is rational, or hortense jumping when I grab him from behind. But at the Hortense level, it's an emotional decision not a rational one. When he jumps up and puts his head thru the glass and loses an eye, I don't think he'll claim.."hey, that was a well thought out, reasoned, heck, even rational response I came up with".

Sure, in the big picture our instinctive actions 'make sense' but they can be ludicrously stupid one-by-one case-specific. Well, they don't even qualify as stupid because they aren't formed by intelligence/non-intelligence, we simply pull our hand back from the fire because it has usually been the right thing to do and it's automatic.
Saying 'stuff it' is in that league.

luckyme

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Once again, this is pure assertion. The chances of someone being harmed in a war you are talking about is actually quite high, because the ruling class can buy the best weapons and hire soldiers. And being injured in the war is not the only cost of participitation: people who fight in a war must also injure or kill other human beings (a huge cost to one's psyche, and many if not most people consider these things to be highly immoral) and take the time and effort to do the work.

Also, "hopping mad, filled with righteous indignation" might be a little strong for the tendency that occurs. Evolution makes me hungry, but I don't get "hopping mad, filled with righteous indignation" because I've gone eight hours without food.

[ QUOTE ]
There is no freerider problem.

[/ QUOTE ] Just because you don't understand something does not mean it does not exist. I saw your post on it in politics. I know others have told you this, but you are really going to have to read and refute Mancur Olson's work on collective action if you want to convince anybody who is educated on the subject.

[ QUOTE ]
economic, philosophical and ideological, i.e. cultural and not biological, reasons.

[/ QUOTE ] Economic, philosophical and ideological reasons, like all reasons, are all some kind of blend between "biological and cultural reasons"; no action makes sense otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Blah blah blah. Your point is refuted by the fact that when significant fractions of the populace actually have become hopping mad at the ruling elite they actually do violently overthrow them, so apparently the "freerider problem" didn't actually stop them, and the fact that societies with dramatic wealth disparity between enormous populations and tiny ruling elites persisted for thousands of years, so apparently whatever level of inherent righteous indignation over material disparity they might have had, it couldn't be too [censored] much.

Christ.

[Propertarian]

Please. Have you ever heard of something being ceterius paribus true? The logic of collective action problems is utterly impecable (I gave the logic of them in a post during that thread about an "economic AC problem"). Perhaps we should see them more as a strong constraint than an absolutely, positively impenetrable barrier against cooperation??????????????????????????????????????

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Effectively , for humans there are no single iterations" .. seems a hi-falootin way of covering up emotionalism. ??

[/ QUOTE ]
Who's trying to cover it up? Most humans are emotional and its illogical to ignore that when we make decisions. I'm trying to get the non-math phobics to stop being so irrational.

If I try to cut a cake in half and chose who gets the biggest bit then you do.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Aren't you looking at a different level? Of course his action ( saying 'stuff it, you prk) is rational from my outside view...the researcher. Just as the bird flying away when I open the door is rational, or hortense jumping when I grab him from behind. But at the Hortense level, it's an emotional decision not a rational one. When he jumps up and puts his head thru the glass and loses an eye, I don't think he'll claim.."hey, that was a well thought out, reasoned, heck, even rational response I came up with".

Sure, in the big picture our instinctive actions 'make sense' but they can be ludicrously stupid one-by-one case-specific. Well, they don't even qualify as stupid because they aren't formed by intelligence/non-intelligence, we simply pull our hand back from the fire because it has usually been the right thing to do and it's automatic.
Saying 'stuff it' is in that league.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
people involved in an experiment about their decisions only operate at one level. They make the decision they prefer and if someone is going to be happier telling someone else to stuff it then that's rationally what they should do if they want to maximise their happiness.

but the anti-emotion argument is self-defeating. On a purely rationally basis it makes no difference which decision you make.

All rationality is good for is taking us from what we emotionally want to making good decisions.

chez

[Propertarian]

[ QUOTE ]
when significant fractions of the populace actually have become hopping mad at the ruling elite they actually do violently overthrow them

[/ QUOTE ] Every single time in history when "significant fractions of the populace have become hoping mad at the ruling elite they actually overthrow them"???? You might want to check the history books again. I would estimate that less than 1 in ten times that "significant fractions of the population become hopping mad at the ruling elite" they overthrow them, probably less than 1 in 100 times. "Significant fractions" of the populace are hopping mad at the ruling elite in most countries AT THIS VERY SECOND!!!!

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Please. Have you ever heard of something being ceterius paribus true? The logic of collective action problems is utterly impecable (I gave the logic of them in a post during that thread about an "economic AC problem"). Perhaps we should see them more as a strong constraint than an absolutely, positively impenetrable barrier against cooperation??????????????????????????????????????

[/ QUOTE ]

Purple monkey dishwasher?

Do you realize that your thesis on this topic is (thank you hmkpoker for pointing this out over IM) that the only reason we don't have perpetual violent class warfare is the freerider problem? Not to mention that you've violated the Superfluous Punctuation Rule?

I'm done with this branch of the discussion.