4 ms·

Depends on how you define "preference". Any number of people would "prefer" any number of things in a vacuum that fall apart when put up against the real world

Depends on how you define "preference". Any number of people would "prefer" any number of things in a vacuum that fall apart when put up against the real world. That's not a particularly useful definition of "preference". I'd argue what people truly "prefer" is revealed by what they are willing to take action on.

dnautics 5y ago
Many people prefer that china not torture uighurs, but they are, understandably, not willing to take action on it. Preferences are not 'revealed' by action because even if we were hyper rational, action would take into account expected success, which may be depressed by factors that have nothing to do with our preferences. I reject your operational definition of preferences. I Think most people would be with me on this one.
- scottLobster 5y ago
  I'd argue most people would be willing to take action on it, they simply don't have to power to do so and can't be reasonably expected to achieve that power. Whereas people in SF who have voting rights DO have power over what politicians do about the local homeless situation. When a group has the power to change something but chooses to prioritize other things instead (which may be a valid response, depending on circumstances), it's clear that the group "prefers" the thing they do over whatever they might say. This is all a long-winded version of "Actions speak louder than words", or more in context: "votes speak louder than opinions". I reject your purely theoretical definition of "preferences". I imagine most people would "prefer" to eat and drink whatever they want, never exercise and still maintain perfect health. Unfortunately in the real worth that "preference" is completely irrelevant, and plenty of people (myself included) don't "prefer" health all the time for any number of reasons.
  - dnautics 5y ago
    You're contradicting yourself. > Whereas people in SF who have voting rights DO have power over what politicians do about the local homeless situation. But they don't. Politics is a winner-take-all system, as you said yourself: "voting out the ruling government might mean voting in someone they disagree with on other issues" As we know from arrow's theorem, a sufficiently complex schedule of multiple choices (in this case competing policy issues that must be represented by a slate of government officials) can wind up misrepresenting group preferences no matter what the preference selection criteria. The answer of course could be to fix the homelessness situation outside of the political system, however as the tiny homes for homeless in LA guy found out, often people are powerless to go outside the system, too, they will find themselves shut out for trying to do some good.

dnautics 5y ago

Many people prefer that china not torture uighurs, but they are, understandably, not willing to take action on it. Preferences are not 'revealed' by action because even if we were hyper rational, action would take into account expected success, which may be depressed by factors that have nothing to do with our preferences. I reject your operational definition of preferences. I Think most people would be with me on this one.

scottLobster 5y ago
I'd argue most people would be willing to take action on it, they simply don't have to power to do so and can't be reasonably expected to achieve that power. Whereas people in SF who have voting rights DO have power over what politicians do about the local homeless situation. When a group has the power to change something but chooses to prioritize other things instead (which may be a valid response, depending on circumstances), it's clear that the group "prefers" the thing they do over whatever they might say. This is all a long-winded version of "Actions speak louder than words", or more in context: "votes speak louder than opinions". I reject your purely theoretical definition of "preferences". I imagine most people would "prefer" to eat and drink whatever they want, never exercise and still maintain perfect health. Unfortunately in the real worth that "preference" is completely irrelevant, and plenty of people (myself included) don't "prefer" health all the time for any number of reasons.
- dnautics 5y ago
  You're contradicting yourself. > Whereas people in SF who have voting rights DO have power over what politicians do about the local homeless situation. But they don't. Politics is a winner-take-all system, as you said yourself: "voting out the ruling government might mean voting in someone they disagree with on other issues" As we know from arrow's theorem, a sufficiently complex schedule of multiple choices (in this case competing policy issues that must be represented by a slate of government officials) can wind up misrepresenting group preferences no matter what the preference selection criteria. The answer of course could be to fix the homelessness situation outside of the political system, however as the tiny homes for homeless in LA guy found out, often people are powerless to go outside the system, too, they will find themselves shut out for trying to do some good.