3 ms·

It does mean that the pool isn't the thing you value most though, since you value your commute more than the pool.

hoorayimhelping 11y ago
Not necessarily. In this case, OP values the commute more. What if it's a tossup between a 10 minute commute with no backyard and 25 minute commute with a backyard with two trees to put a hammock on. Maybe in that case, OP would take a longer commute to get a shady backyard. I think that's why the logic is fallacious - it only works for a specific question phrased in a specific way.
- bweitzman 11y ago
  Well I suppose the issue is muddled because having a pool is a binary thing where as commute time is not. That makes them hard to rank. Suppose instead of just saying that you're choosing between a house with no pool but a short commute over a house with a pool and a long commute you try to rank your priorities: 1. Pool 2. Commute < 1.5 h (choosing an arbitrary cutoff to turn this constraint into a binary one) Now if the pool is really the most important thing to you, then you will have to forfeit the < 1.5 h commute no matter how long it is. If you decided to forgo the pool for a shorter commute, then that is sort of exposing a hidden priority, it would look something more like 1. Commute < 2 h 2. Pool 3. Commute < 1.5 h The point being that if we haven't fulfilled a certain priority, then it cannot be the most important priority. At least in this binary priority model, there are of course other ways you could lay this out. I just don't think it's fair to call the logic "frighteningly fallacious"
rayiner 11y ago
It depends on the shape of your preference curves. If you're a 1.5 hour commute from work, your highest value change might be a shorter commute. But if you're a 20 minute commute from work, your highest value change might be a pool. Similarly, if you live in a rich society, you might prefer a more equal society to one that's somewhat more wealthy on average. But if you live in a poor society, you might prefer one that's wealthier even if it has more inequality. For example, the U.S. has 25-35% higher PPP GDP per capita than Germany and France. However, the ratio between the income of the top 10% and the bottom 10% is twice as wide in the U.S. as in those countries. I imagine a lot of Germans and French are okay with that state of affairs.
- bweitzman 11y ago
  Yeah I agree, I think the issue is that "really value" is ambiguous and implies that there's only one thing which we can optimize for at a time. I don't think that's true, but I don't think it's a logical fallacy either, just a bad assumption.

Not necessarily. In this case, OP values the commute more. What if it's a tossup between a 10 minute commute with no backyard and 25 minute commute with a backyard with two trees to put a hammock on. Maybe in that case, OP would take a longer commute to get a shady backyard. I think that's why the logic is fallacious - it only works for a specific question phrased in a specific way.

bweitzman 11y ago
Well I suppose the issue is muddled because having a pool is a binary thing where as commute time is not. That makes them hard to rank. Suppose instead of just saying that you're choosing between a house with no pool but a short commute over a house with a pool and a long commute you try to rank your priorities: 1. Pool 2. Commute < 1.5 h (choosing an arbitrary cutoff to turn this constraint into a binary one) Now if the pool is really the most important thing to you, then you will have to forfeit the < 1.5 h commute no matter how long it is. If you decided to forgo the pool for a shorter commute, then that is sort of exposing a hidden priority, it would look something more like 1. Commute < 2 h 2. Pool 3. Commute < 1.5 h The point being that if we haven't fulfilled a certain priority, then it cannot be the most important priority. At least in this binary priority model, there are of course other ways you could lay this out. I just don't think it's fair to call the logic "frighteningly fallacious"

rayiner 11y ago

It depends on the shape of your preference curves. If you're a 1.5 hour commute from work, your highest value change might be a shorter commute. But if you're a 20 minute commute from work, your highest value change might be a pool. Similarly, if you live in a rich society, you might prefer a more equal society to one that's somewhat more wealthy on average. But if you live in a poor society, you might prefer one that's wealthier even if it has more inequality. For example, the U.S. has 25-35% higher PPP GDP per capita than Germany and France. However, the ratio between the income of the top 10% and the bottom 10% is twice as wide in the U.S. as in those countries. I imagine a lot of Germans and French are okay with that state of affairs.

bweitzman 11y ago
Yeah I agree, I think the issue is that "really value" is ambiguous and implies that there's only one thing which we can optimize for at a time. I don't think that's true, but I don't think it's a logical fallacy either, just a bad assumption.