4 ms·

So to sum up, you don't know what utility is, you've looked it up on investopedia, and on the basis of a web page, and your own entirely mistaken imagination of

by dash2 4y ago

So to sum up, you don't know what utility is, you've looked it up on investopedia, and on the basis of a web page, and your own entirely mistaken imagination of what the maths might be, you're gonna pontificate? I think you're proving my point!

carapace 4y ago
> you don't know what utility is I don't think anyone does. > you've looked it up on investopedia, and on the basis of a web page Is that definition wrong? Can you provide a better definition or link? > your own entirely mistaken imagination of what the maths might be But I do know what math is, eh? And I know how to use it to do things like design electronic circuits that work "like it says on the tin". Do economists have anything like Ohm's law? Can you describe the math? Does it makes predictions? How can it make predictions when there are no empirical ways to measure e.g. the "utility"?
- dash2 4y ago
  Sure. Utility is a way of representing preferences. A utility function goes from the choice set X to the real number line. A preference relation, in turn, is a binary relation on X satisfying completeness and transitivity. Utility function u represents preference relation >> if and only if u(x) > u(y) iff x >> y. Yes, utility makes predictions, because preference relations make predictions. See the Weak Axiom of Revealed Preference and its cousins. If I see you choosing oranges over apples, and then the price of apples falls and you still choose oranges, we have learned that you strictly preferred oranges at the old price. More generally, some patterns of choices are rationalizable by a preference ordering. Others aren't. So a claim about someone's preference ordering has empirical content. (It sounds as if you imagine measuring utility as something that might need a brain scanner. We haven't thought that way since about World War II.) This is all Econ 101 (at a bit higher level than a first year undergrad). I don't expect you to know it. I do expect you to know it if you intend to pontificate about it. Similarly, I know nothing about Ohm's Law, and for this reason, I avoid making broad pronouncements about the invalidity of all of physics. I find this basic commitment to intellectual humility helpful.
  - carapace 4y ago
    First, thanks for putting your math where your mouth is, but I'm sorry to admit that I just hear "spherical cow in a vacuum" in what you describe. I mean it, I really do appreciate you trying, but what you're describing sounds ridiculous to me. Sorry for relying on investopedia again but, uh: > Weak Axiom of Revealed Preference (WARP): This axiom states that given incomes and prices, if one product or service is purchased instead of another, then, as consumers, we will always make the same choice. The weak axiom also states that if we buy one particular product, then we will never buy a different product or brand unless it is cheaper, offers increased convenience, or is of better quality (i.e. unless it provides more benefits). As consumers, we will buy what we prefer and our choices will be consistent, so suggests the weak axiom. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/revealed-preference.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/revealed-preference.asp The word "axiom" is inappropriate here. This isn't science, it's a "just so" story. It's cereal box psychology. It's an attempt to dress up in big kids' clothes and I've got no respect for it. > It sounds as if you imagine measuring utility as something that might need a brain scanner. We haven't thought that way since about World War II. That's a shame, disdaining the source of real data. Of course brain scanners weren't that good back then, eh? But you don't need them. Pupil dilation, changes in pulse and respiration, capillary response, there are all sorts of signals that let you see "inside" the brain w/o fancy technology. > I do expect you to know it if you intend to pontificate about it. First, I'm not pontificating, I'm decrying. Second, I don't need to know details about the nature of the BS, I can tell from the smell alone. Economics is in the same epistemological boat as Numerology and Astrology. Just as I don't need to study those in depth to know they're BS, I don't need to know much about economics to see that it's barren and, frankly, ridiculous. > I know nothing about Ohm's Law You might want to learn. Not only would learning electrical engineering give you a great working example of how to use math to reason about real world phenomenon, and unlike economics you can actually use it reliably to build useful devices. > I find this basic commitment to intellectual humility helpful. It would have been most welcome and helpful a couple of comments ago. - - - - See, the thing about Ohm's law is you don't have to take my word for it, or anyone's, not even Ohm's. You can build the circuit, apply the meter, and measure it for yourself. Humility or arrogance doesn't enter into it. The problem isn't that economists want to study the economy and are doing it badly, the problem is that they want to be treated as if they are physicists, and we want to treat them that way because of politics and psychology. And even that's isn't a problem until we make mistakes and our blind following of the not-physicists' "science" prevents us from stopping or fixing the errors. Next thing you know, the Aral Sea is gone! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea
engineeringwoke 4y ago
I studied economics. Everything except basic micro is nonsense. Intermediate micro is just calculus with silly variables. All the macro we studied was based on like fifty years of data, that of course showed the amazing power of economic theory, that everything compounds forever! Wow, what incredible achievements us humans have made. Pat on the back for us!

by dash2 4y ago

carapace 4y ago

> you don't know what utility is I don't think anyone does. > you've looked it up on investopedia, and on the basis of a web page Is that definition wrong? Can you provide a better definition or link? > your own entirely mistaken imagination of what the maths might be But I do know what math is, eh? And I know how to use it to do things like design electronic circuits that work "like it says on the tin". Do economists have anything like Ohm's law? Can you describe the math? Does it makes predictions? How can it make predictions when there are no empirical ways to measure e.g. the "utility"?

dash2 4y ago
Sure. Utility is a way of representing preferences. A utility function goes from the choice set X to the real number line. A preference relation, in turn, is a binary relation on X satisfying completeness and transitivity. Utility function u represents preference relation >> if and only if u(x) > u(y) iff x >> y. Yes, utility makes predictions, because preference relations make predictions. See the Weak Axiom of Revealed Preference and its cousins. If I see you choosing oranges over apples, and then the price of apples falls and you still choose oranges, we have learned that you strictly preferred oranges at the old price. More generally, some patterns of choices are rationalizable by a preference ordering. Others aren't. So a claim about someone's preference ordering has empirical content. (It sounds as if you imagine measuring utility as something that might need a brain scanner. We haven't thought that way since about World War II.) This is all Econ 101 (at a bit higher level than a first year undergrad). I don't expect you to know it. I do expect you to know it if you intend to pontificate about it. Similarly, I know nothing about Ohm's Law, and for this reason, I avoid making broad pronouncements about the invalidity of all of physics. I find this basic commitment to intellectual humility helpful.
- carapace 4y ago
  First, thanks for putting your math where your mouth is, but I'm sorry to admit that I just hear "spherical cow in a vacuum" in what you describe. I mean it, I really do appreciate you trying, but what you're describing sounds ridiculous to me. Sorry for relying on investopedia again but, uh: > Weak Axiom of Revealed Preference (WARP): This axiom states that given incomes and prices, if one product or service is purchased instead of another, then, as consumers, we will always make the same choice. The weak axiom also states that if we buy one particular product, then we will never buy a different product or brand unless it is cheaper, offers increased convenience, or is of better quality (i.e. unless it provides more benefits). As consumers, we will buy what we prefer and our choices will be consistent, so suggests the weak axiom. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/revealed-preference.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/revealed-preference.asp The word "axiom" is inappropriate here. This isn't science, it's a "just so" story. It's cereal box psychology. It's an attempt to dress up in big kids' clothes and I've got no respect for it. > It sounds as if you imagine measuring utility as something that might need a brain scanner. We haven't thought that way since about World War II. That's a shame, disdaining the source of real data. Of course brain scanners weren't that good back then, eh? But you don't need them. Pupil dilation, changes in pulse and respiration, capillary response, there are all sorts of signals that let you see "inside" the brain w/o fancy technology. > I do expect you to know it if you intend to pontificate about it. First, I'm not pontificating, I'm decrying. Second, I don't need to know details about the nature of the BS, I can tell from the smell alone. Economics is in the same epistemological boat as Numerology and Astrology. Just as I don't need to study those in depth to know they're BS, I don't need to know much about economics to see that it's barren and, frankly, ridiculous. > I know nothing about Ohm's Law You might want to learn. Not only would learning electrical engineering give you a great working example of how to use math to reason about real world phenomenon, and unlike economics you can actually use it reliably to build useful devices. > I find this basic commitment to intellectual humility helpful. It would have been most welcome and helpful a couple of comments ago. - - - - See, the thing about Ohm's law is you don't have to take my word for it, or anyone's, not even Ohm's. You can build the circuit, apply the meter, and measure it for yourself. Humility or arrogance doesn't enter into it. The problem isn't that economists want to study the economy and are doing it badly, the problem is that they want to be treated as if they are physicists, and we want to treat them that way because of politics and psychology. And even that's isn't a problem until we make mistakes and our blind following of the not-physicists' "science" prevents us from stopping or fixing the errors. Next thing you know, the Aral Sea is gone! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea

engineeringwoke 4y ago

I studied economics. Everything except basic micro is nonsense. Intermediate micro is just calculus with silly variables. All the macro we studied was based on like fifty years of data, that of course showed the amazing power of economic theory, that everything compounds forever! Wow, what incredible achievements us humans have made. Pat on the back for us!