The Axiom of Choice

[xorbie]

Re: prisoner's dilemna... it was meant to be a metaphor. The point is that given many options, our optimal play is always going to be to choose the one that is best for us. And given this, the optimal play for a corporation is to give us more and more (and "better") to choose from. However, it is possible that this is actually leading to a situation in which EVERYONE is worse off than before, in the sense that people are generally a lot less happy.

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

What's better or worse for me is for me to decide.


[/ QUOTE ]

LOL.

Ok let me try this. You at 1 year old. Still true? 3? 5? 7? Yesterday?

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, the tired old "kids can't make their own decisions, therefore I can boss adults around" argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually it's the rather refreshing "you are making claims about some essential characteristic of humans which you cannot actually point to" argument.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
You ever ask for anyone's advice?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah. So what? Last time I asked someone for advice, I wasn't compelled to follow it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Missing the point appears to be your forte.

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]

You linked to a talk that, presumably given the context of the discussion, trots out the old argument that too many choices are somehow bad for consumers. I merely pointed out that the market automatically limits the number of choices.

[/ QUOTE ]

The idea that the market limits the number of choices is laughable. It limits the form of the choices, not the number. There are more choices now than before, this is clear.

I'm also not arguing that it is somehow worse for consumers to have more choices in the sense that I'm somehow going to end up with a crappier toaster. My argument is that perhaps having a better toaster will still end up leaving me less well off.

So like I said, read the thread and try again.

[Nielsio]

xorbie,

The consumerist mentality is grossly stimulated by the state.

For example the mindless fluff you see on television is something the state would much rather prefer us seeing instead of having rational debate and thinking for ourselves. Public school is another example of this. Our souls are drained of life-lust and filled with worthless [censored] and lies. Anyone who is mildly above average intelligence is bored out of his skull in public education. And ofcourse then the children get blaimed for not conforming, for being over-energetic, uncontrollable.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
However, it is possible that this is actually leading to a situation in which EVERYONE is worse off than before, in the sense that people are generally a lot less happy.


[/ QUOTE ]

i must be missing the point that shows this to be case.

He says people start to regret decisions when they have alternatives to track the quality of their decision making by. The fact that people are made aware of their poor decision making is in their worst interest in your opinion? They would be better being ignorantly bliss? Is he really saying anymore?

This also doesn't account for the people who aren't ignorantly bliss like all the anti-government/monopolists on this board who realize because they dont have choices they have no way of knowing whether they are really making themselves best off.

If you think about all the poker players who highly regret what they used to do before discovering sound poker strategy, then, you could say that the option of sound poker made them less happy. Are those who play poorly but don't know of alternative strategies really better off?

If it makes them less happy then this is just because they don't know how to learn from mistakes and were deeply delusional before (which is likely to be consequentially negative for their life in general) and then barry's points proves no more than people who don't learn from mistakes are unhappy - whoopydoo [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[valtaherra]

[ QUOTE ]
Thank you for making it clear you aren't worth my time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did that make you feel good about yourself?

Grow up.

[valtaherra]

[ QUOTE ]
The idea that the market limits the number of choices is laughable. It limits the form of the choices, not the number.

[/ QUOTE ]

It literally limits the number of choices to that number which consumers actually choose.

What is so difficult to understand about that?

[valtaherra]

[ QUOTE ]
There are more choices now than before, this is clear.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ayup, the different varieties of typewriters I have to choose from is more now than ever before, this is clear.

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You linked to a talk that, presumably given the context of the discussion, trots out the old argument that too many choices are somehow bad for consumers. I merely pointed out that the market automatically limits the number of choices.

[/ QUOTE ]

The idea that the market limits the number of choices is laughable. It limits the form of the choices, not the number. There are more choices now than before, this is clear.

I'm also not arguing that it is somehow worse for consumers to have more choices in the sense that I'm somehow going to end up with a crappier toaster. My argument is that perhaps having a better toaster will still end up leaving me less well off.

So like I said, read the thread and try again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you being deliberately obtuse again, just so you don't have to concede a simple point, again? The market limits choices to those actually chosen by consumers. There are certainly more choices now that ever before (thanks capitalism!), but that does not mean that the market does not limit choices.

Also, if your "argument" is that having a better toaster will end up leaving you less well off, all you have shown is that your decision to purchase a toaster turned out to be erroneous, and that you will have reaped a psychic loss rather than a psychic profit. Think more carefully next time before making your decisions. Which, magically, your prior psychic losses incentivise you to do.

Is it your contention that somehow government should forceably reduce the number of consumer choices? And if not, WTF is the purpose of this thread?

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You have been conflating "knowing what I want", "knows what is best for me", and "the freedom to decide what my best interests are".

1) Clearly no other individual can know what I want.

2) Clearly others with highly specialized skillsets (medicine, law) have a much better idea of what is best for me in their fields (theyre hardly right all of the time, though)

3) Clearly no one else has any legitimate right to coercively interfere in my life based on either claiming to know what I want better than I do (Barry) or claiming to know what is best for me, regardless of if its true or not.

Barry disagrees with both 1 and 3. Barry knows what I want, and he'll hold a gun to my head to take away my property in order to restrict my choices (because he knows I want less choices). Actually, the sniveling turd would never hold a gun to my head, but he would gladly authorize others to do his dirty work.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for making it clear you aren't worth my time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Brilliantly rebutted, as always.