Our brains (preferences and the such)

[tomdemaine]

I mean differences that relate to their mroal nature. A man doesn't become "not a man" because he happens to work for an agency calling themselves the IRS so any moral rules that apply to other men must apply to him. A man doesn't have to follow different moral rules because he is above 6ft.

I'm not saying you can't have your preferences influencved by outside sourcves and by aquiring more information just that noone knows your preferences (at any one point in time) better than you do.

Person A is saying I prefer music of type X person Y can give him more information and maybe change his preferences but in what possible world could he argue no you don't. Say I say I love thrash metal and I love early britney spears music. This might seem strange to you but you can't say "sorry your preferences are in fact that you like thrash metal and death metal but you hate britney".

So someone else know more about who I love than I do? Again they can bring me new information and maybe I'll modify my preferences but they can't say your preferences are wrong.

As for the last one there are many many thing that it is my preference to get outside help on. But I don't see the problem here.

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]

I mean differences that relate to their mroal nature.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is a moral nature and what is the specific difference in play here and how does it apply to the matter at hand?

[ QUOTE ]
{Rest of your post}

[/ QUOTE ]

We are probably using a different definition of preference. I tried to give examples that covered different definitions, but that doesn't seem to have helped.

By preferences, do you mean preferred actions, or preferred end results (or something else)?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Who is most likely to know someone's preferences and act in the best way to achieve them?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you think it is reasonable that this sort of question should have a simple answer? Sometimes the person himself. Sometimes someone else.

[/ QUOTE ]

Examples of these "sometimes" please.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They may not be perfect but they are the best.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. If you think about, for example, children, you can why this is wrong. Just carry it to the logical conclusion

[/ QUOTE ]

Who didn't see that one coming? Children make bad decisions, so we can't let YOU make decisions for yourself.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, I'm actually quite interested in maximizing other people's utility. I don't see why anyone other than a complete misanthrope wouldn't be interested in this to some degree.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because people who aren't micromanaging busybodies respect other people's autonomy. If someone asks you for help, great.

If not, MYOFB.

[/ QUOTE ]

The first problem with this is that it certainly doesn't (and shouldn't) hold at all social levels. What you said is true of some random guy in the street that I come across (under most circumstances).

[/ QUOTE ]

So at what "social levels" does this hold?

[ QUOTE ]
The second problem is actually that people are not time consistent. It's actually an interesting thought experiment to see what you'd have to say about someone who says something along the lines of "tomorrow do X to me" but the next day tells you not to. I know this seems overly pedantic but I think it's an important case that certainly has pragmatic applications.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, people change their mind. So what?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Does this mean I want to force people to control their lives to strict degrees? No, but one of the main reasons for this is that utility cannot be maximized (for many people) under conditions where their choices are not theirs to make.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if it weren't for that pesky fact, you'd be all for directly controlling every aspect of other people's lives in the name of utility maximization?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your asking me if it would be a problem to take away people's freedom in the hypothetical situation in which people did not value their freedom?

Yeah, I'd say it's ok.

[/ QUOTE ]

So from there, it's pretty easy to tell yourself "well, they'll enjoy the results of my bossing them around a lot more than the tiny little bit of freedom I'm taking away from them."

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
This is what I was trying to get across in that other thread, but got off on the wrong foot more often than a blind man trying to dance the waltz with his deaf wife:

Clearly, our brain is where we make decisions. Our brain is a very, very, complex piece of machinery. I believe the following things are true:

1. A very large part, and sometimes all of, a decision occurs at what we may call the "pre-conscious" level. I prefer the term "pre-conscious" here to "sub-conscious" because frequently these things become apparent to our consciousness only after the fact. Things like word choice, risk tolerance and the such are frequently assumed to be conscious but frequently are not (or at least not entirely).

2. As such, we frequently make decisions that are contrary to our consciously stated goals, even if those goals may in fact be best for us in the long run. This is because our pre-conscious decision making system is often faulty, picks up on false cues, or some factor is so overpowering that we almost cannot act otherwise (drug addiction being a powerful example).

3. I do not like to view people as neuro-chemical machines. When we are aware of our biases and take enough time, we can overcome them. We can adjust our decisions based on known biases by our "gut instincts" and we can furthermore actually reduce certain physiological symptoms/functions simply through conscious decisions (mind over matter - true story!).

As such, I think there has to be a lot more to "revealed preferences" than merely saying "actions reveal what we prefer, because what we prefer is what we do". That is a compact definition but does not really tell us much about the world, wherein it often "feels" like we do the opposite of what we had wanted and are at a loss as to why.

I think that there are two general ways people make mistakes, and it is important to clarify this difference (although both can be present in varying degrees):

1. Mistaken beliefs/information: As Borodog mentioned in the previous thread, if I believe that tap dancing through the night will cure cancer, you might find me tap dancing through the night quite frequently. This won't cure cancer. That does not mean I've acted irrationally or contrary to my preferences or anything. More subtly, our brain machinery frequently picks up on certain cues and makes certain assumptions. Teacher sees a black student is more likely to assume (pre-consciously) that this student comes from a disadvantaged situation and is more likely to put the kid into a special needs class where he chronically under performs. Is teacher being irrational? No, teacher simply has false beliefs, beliefs which teacher does not even know about! The great philosopher Slavoj Zizek refers to these things as "unknown knowns" in the tradition of the slightly less great philosopher Donald Rumsfeld.

2. Acting contrary to utility maximization: This one is obviously where things become a whole lot trickier, because utility maximization can only be known to an omniscient force to whose mind we are not privy. However, we frequently act opposed to that voice in our head. I think these voices are very real in the sense that different parts of your brain actually prefer different things, and whichever yells louder (pumps out more chemical/electric signal) "wins". It is quite clear to me that even if this is hard to formalize it is a very real effect that should not be ignored.

Fin.

[/ QUOTE ]

People are far more than their actions yes. Several mechanisms can make people act in direct disaccord with their preference.

Obedience and conformity are two of the strongest factors, and these are also built in fairly strongly in us most likely as evolutionary adaptions to a life as social primates. It should be noted that these are not negatives or normative expressions, just names given to certain common social behaviors. These mechanisms will make us act against our preferences and convictions if put in the right situation, something shown countless times in experiments and which has shown consistency across most cultures.

You can also point to fairly strong evidence that perceived fairness may mean more than perceived autonomy for task satisfaction. Systems/organizations are also often judged on the perceived level of fairness. This is psychological term and must not be confused with 'being treated right' (which has little to do with it, fairness isn't a normative term when used scientifically) - instead it is refers to the perception of being treated equally with your peers.

'Actions show what we prefer' is a very behavioristic term, and behaviorism normally does not concern itself with whatever processes takes place in the brain.

Purely behavioristic ideals were left behind in 60s because there were so many things/behaviors they could not explain properly based only on stimuli-models. The development of language is usually used as the classic example, since behaviorist theories simply failed to propose good enough theories for it.

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Who is most likely to know someone's preferences and act in the best way to achieve them?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you think it is reasonable that this sort of question should have a simple answer? Sometimes the person himself. Sometimes someone else.

[/ QUOTE ]

Examples of these "sometimes" please.

[/ QUOTE ]

Already given.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They may not be perfect but they are the best.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. If you think about, for example, children, you can why this is wrong. Just carry it to the logical conclusion

[/ QUOTE ]

Who didn't see that one coming? Children make bad decisions, so we can't let YOU make decisions for yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

As soon as you explain why children magically become adults at age 18 (or whatever other age you'd like), I'll start to take this objection seriously.

And, of course, I'm not trying to stop people from making decisions themselves.

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Because people who aren't micromanaging busybodies respect other people's autonomy. If someone asks you for help, great.

If not, MYOFB.

[/ QUOTE ]

The first problem with this is that it certainly doesn't (and shouldn't) hold at all social levels. What you said is true of some random guy in the street that I come across (under most circumstances).

[/ QUOTE ]

So at what "social levels" does this hold?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your friends? Family? Neighbor? Guy at work? I don't know where you would personally draw the line, but I'd say I'm clearly right here.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The second problem is actually that people are not time consistent. It's actually an interesting thought experiment to see what you'd have to say about someone who says something along the lines of "tomorrow do X to me" but the next day tells you not to. I know this seems overly pedantic but I think it's an important case that certainly has pragmatic applications.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, people change their mind. So what?

[/ QUOTE ]

So, what do you do? Respect their current wishes or respect their previous wishes? How can you determine what "pvn's" preference is if "pvn" changes from day to day, but the preference is over something that has long lasting effects? I think it's a very important question that simply saying something along the lines of "actions reveal preferences" doesn't quite address.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So if it weren't for that pesky fact, you'd be all for directly controlling every aspect of other people's lives in the name of utility maximization?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your asking me if it would be a problem to take away people's freedom in the hypothetical situation in which people did not value their freedom?

Yeah, I'd say it's ok.

[/ QUOTE ]

So from there, it's pretty easy to tell yourself "well, they'll enjoy the results of my bossing them around a lot more than the tiny little bit of freedom I'm taking away from them."

[/ QUOTE ]

If it is the case that people actually achieve the highest possible utility when they are being bossed around, who are you to tell them it's wrong? We may be crossing into different grounds here, but I think it's an interesting trail.

[TomCollins]

I think Xorbie and other acedemic socialist/liberal types comes down to the same basic philosophy:

"I am smart and you are not."

[xorbie]

tame_deuces,

Good post. I hadn't even really thought about linguistics much when making my post, but I'd agree that the field has a wealth of information on how our brain functions.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
As soon as you explain why children magically become adults at age 18 (or whatever other age you'd like), I'll start to take this objection seriously.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't support arbitrary age cut-offs.