In the 90% case, people's "wants" are absolutely not "consistent" for any definition of consistent. Inconsistent/contradictory answers can be easily elided thro

In the 90% case, people's "wants" are absolutely not "consistent" for any definition of consistent. Inconsistent/contradictory answers can be easily elided through question framing. Ask someone who responds to a "smaller vs bigger government" question with "smaller" something about concrete services that may or may not be provided by governments, and in most cases you can elicit support for much larger government apparatus than exists now anywhere. All people are shaped by unique experiences and productions of those experiences can be "consistent" and can hold firm in the face of even contradictory evidence. But in the absence of deep personal experience, people, like ChatGPT, are argument-producing machines, where the shape of the produced arguments depend more on prompt, social context like the status of other parties in the argument, and personal context like whether someone is hungry or tired, etc. Thank goodness the for-centuries-incorrect models of people as primarily intellectual creatures are subsiding and the reality of people being storytelling creatures are coming to the fore. Relatedly, agree completely that Reason lacks informed editing on many topics. Cheers.