4 ms·
> So I hear what you're saying, but if that's the case then everyone, everywhere acts irrationally all the time. More like: a sufficient number of independent
by Goladus 11y ago
> So I hear what you're saying, but if that's the case then everyone, everywhere acts irrationally all the time.
More like: a sufficient number of independent agents (or aggregate populations behaving as an agent) behave irrationally often enough to make discrete predictions impossible.
- msandford 11y agoI don't think that predictions have anything to do with rationality. Just because YOU think people should behave one way with the information that YOU have doesn't necessarily have any bearing on what they will do. Especially since you don't know what information they have that you don't, and what information you have that they don't.
- Goladus 11y agoEven when you know the information they have it's (currently) impossible to predict what someone will do. It's impossible to know what information they will care about, what they think is in their best interests versus what actually is in their best interests by a more objective standard, etc.
- msandford 11y ago> It's impossible to know what information they will care about, what they think is in their best interests versus what actually is in their best interests by a more objective standard, etc. Don't you think it's a little crazy to say that someone else can know what's in a persons' best interests by a more objective standard? I feel like it's incredibly arrogant and belies a substantial lack of induction. You almost certainly believe that you know what's best for you. By induction we can conclude that everyone knows what's best for themselves, and that those who claim to know better are either charlatans or have a distinct lack of empathy.