21 ms·

The challenge here is that there's equal and opposing problem - the social sciences (Econ, Psych, etc.) have established that what people say (expressed prefere

by Tyrek 9y ago

The challenge here is that there's equal and opposing problem - the social sciences (Econ, Psych, etc.) have established that what people say (expressed preferences) and how they act (implied preferences) are inconsistent. So you're adding an additional dimension here that further complicates the calculation.

naravara 9y ago
>the social sciences (Econ, Psych, etc.) have established that what people say (expressed preferences) and how they act (implied preferences) are inconsistent. This is obvious enough. But if I tell you I would like to lose weight and improve my diet, yet you, knowing I have a sweet-tooth, opt to keep offering tempting sweets and desserts anyway, that would make you kind of a jerk wouldn't it? I wouldn't want to spend much time around someone who actively tries to undermine my attempts at personal growth or improvement.
- bo1024 9y ago
  That's a nice example.
- AndrewKemendo 9y ago
  knowing I have a sweet-tooth, opt to keep offering tempting sweets and desserts anyway No, it means you aren't actually doing what you say you want to do. If you however gave the system input about wanting to lose weight, say by buying weight loss supplements, exercise clothes etc... then the "system" will adjust to give you what you want. Your example is basically akin to a scenario where you frequently order dessert at your favorite restaurant, then decide you want to lose weight, never tell anyone you want to lose weight, then get upset when the server brings you the dessert menu.
  - majormajor 9y ago
    > Your example is basically akin to a scenario where you frequently order dessert at your favorite restaurant, then decide you want to lose weight, never tell anyone you want to lose weight, then get upset when the server brings you the dessert menu. Except for the part where he said "if I tell you I would like to lose weight and improve my diet"? So not like the "never tell anyone" part at all? What he's describing is more like a system which learns "most people who research and buy diet stuff end up failing and going back to the ice cream and junk food, so let's start aggressively targeting them with unhealthy crap once they start looking up diets." That may be accurate regarding behavior and revenue maximization, but it's also pretty shitty.
- tomc1985 9y ago
  Then why are you on the internet?
dionidium 9y ago
Which, in my view, just means we've vastly overstated the case for revealed preferences. A heroin addict doesn't actually care more about heroin than about his kids, no matter what his actions seem to say. He's an addict.
- fallous 9y ago
  I'm not sure the case for revealed preferences is overstated as much as it is so often misapplied.
- AndrewKemendo 9y ago
  This argument is the common sense fallacy. Your personal bias is that Family > Heroin. In this example that seems to also be the social consensus (which I hold as well) however that doesn't mean that the individually must certainly value family over heroin. Your actions are directly tied to your preferences - whether optimal or not. If you neglect your family because of heroin, it's because at some point your reasoning system decided that the hit was more important than the relationship. You can argue that preferences can be hijacked by chemicals, but in that case it becomes a reductionist determinism argument - that can be easily argued down to biochemistry in either direction. It's too easy to fall into the "common sense" trap when trying to evaluate human behavior.
  - dionidium 9y ago
    >You can argue that preferences can be hijacked by chemicals, but in that case it becomes a reductionist determinism argument - that can be easily argued down to biochemistry in either direction. Well, yes, exactly :)
  - klibertp 9y ago
    I'm sorry if I'm wrong, but you sound as if you know nothing about addiction, especially to opiates (but not really limited to them), at all. Unless you can somehow back up your statements or otherwise explain them, I'd like to ask you to stop using heroin addiction rethorically...
- philwelch 9y ago

by Tyrek 9y ago

naravara 9y ago

>the social sciences (Econ, Psych, etc.) have established that what people say (expressed preferences) and how they act (implied preferences) are inconsistent. This is obvious enough. But if I tell you I would like to lose weight and improve my diet, yet you, knowing I have a sweet-tooth, opt to keep offering tempting sweets and desserts anyway, that would make you kind of a jerk wouldn't it? I wouldn't want to spend much time around someone who actively tries to undermine my attempts at personal growth or improvement.

bo1024 9y ago
That's a nice example.
AndrewKemendo 9y ago
knowing I have a sweet-tooth, opt to keep offering tempting sweets and desserts anyway No, it means you aren't actually doing what you say you want to do. If you however gave the system input about wanting to lose weight, say by buying weight loss supplements, exercise clothes etc... then the "system" will adjust to give you what you want. Your example is basically akin to a scenario where you frequently order dessert at your favorite restaurant, then decide you want to lose weight, never tell anyone you want to lose weight, then get upset when the server brings you the dessert menu.
- majormajor 9y ago
  > Your example is basically akin to a scenario where you frequently order dessert at your favorite restaurant, then decide you want to lose weight, never tell anyone you want to lose weight, then get upset when the server brings you the dessert menu. Except for the part where he said "if I tell you I would like to lose weight and improve my diet"? So not like the "never tell anyone" part at all? What he's describing is more like a system which learns "most people who research and buy diet stuff end up failing and going back to the ice cream and junk food, so let's start aggressively targeting them with unhealthy crap once they start looking up diets." That may be accurate regarding behavior and revenue maximization, but it's also pretty shitty.
tomc1985 9y ago
Then why are you on the internet?

dionidium 9y ago

Which, in my view, just means we've vastly overstated the case for revealed preferences. A heroin addict doesn't actually care more about heroin than about his kids, no matter what his actions seem to say. He's an addict.

fallous 9y ago
I'm not sure the case for revealed preferences is overstated as much as it is so often misapplied.
AndrewKemendo 9y ago
This argument is the common sense fallacy. Your personal bias is that Family > Heroin. In this example that seems to also be the social consensus (which I hold as well) however that doesn't mean that the individually must certainly value family over heroin. Your actions are directly tied to your preferences - whether optimal or not. If you neglect your family because of heroin, it's because at some point your reasoning system decided that the hit was more important than the relationship. You can argue that preferences can be hijacked by chemicals, but in that case it becomes a reductionist determinism argument - that can be easily argued down to biochemistry in either direction. It's too easy to fall into the "common sense" trap when trying to evaluate human behavior.
- dionidium 9y ago
  >You can argue that preferences can be hijacked by chemicals, but in that case it becomes a reductionist determinism argument - that can be easily argued down to biochemistry in either direction. Well, yes, exactly :)
- klibertp 9y ago
  I'm sorry if I'm wrong, but you sound as if you know nothing about addiction, especially to opiates (but not really limited to them), at all. Unless you can somehow back up your statements or otherwise explain them, I'd like to ask you to stop using heroin addiction rethorically...
philwelch 9y ago