4 ms·

No, that’s incorrect. Revealed preference theory applies only to purchases, not to non purchases, and not to whether to purchase. Revealed preference theory is

• scarface_74 2y ago
  You are trading your time for some good or service. Whether it’s free or not is irrelevant. If I said I don’t like Truth Social. But I’m always on it, what does that tell you?
  • tivert 2y ago
    > If I said I don’t like Truth Social. But I’m always on it, what does that tell you? Let's not play that game anymore. Be clear. What do you think that's supposed to tell me? Flip your question around: If I said I don’t like Truth Social. But I’m always on it, what conclusion would you infer from that?
    • scarface_74 2y ago
      The same - your “revealed preference” is different from your “stated preference”. Is that the point you were trying to make?
      • tivert 2y ago
        > The same - your “revealed preference” is different from your “stated preference”. Go on. How do you interpret that? What does that tell you?
        • scarface_74 2y ago
          It tells me that you really like Truth Social and I shouldn’t believe what you say - you “revealed” your true “preference”
          • tivert 2y ago
            >>> The same - your “revealed preference” is different from your “stated preference”. > It tells me that you really like Truth Social and I shouldn’t believe what you say - you “revealed” your true “preference” That's what I thought you where thinking. Thank you for at least not beating around the bush anymore. You're wrong though, and you're thinking about this too simplistically. Yours is one possible interpretation, but not the only one, and not necessarily the right one or even a likely one. The discrepancy between "revealed preference" and "stated preference," only gives you the barest scrap of information. You're jumping to conclusions when you go from that scrap to "you really like X" and "I shouldn’t believe what you say." With the information in the scenario you outlined, about as much as you can reasonably infer is "you can tolerate Truth Social." It's just like my scenario with the prison cell and the rotten food: if you eat it, it doesn't mean you "really like" it and "I shouldn’t believe what you say." It means you can tolerate it and you have a desire to avoid a negative outcome (starvation) that trumps whatever disgust you feel eating it. tl;dr: complex and ambivalent feelings are a real and common phenomenon that you should consider.
  • dahart 2y ago
    Wrong. Trading time for a good or service is simply not what the revealed preferences theory has evidence to demonstrate. You are jumping to a baseless conclusion. If it’s free, it’s not covered in revealed preference theory, by definition.
    • scarface_74 2y ago
      Maybe because revealed preference study came out before people could endlessly get services for free? Are you really saying it’s stretch that when people say one thing and do another, what they do is more indicative of their preferences than what they say?
      • dahart 2y ago
        No, there have always been free things. Revealed preference theory depends on the spending of money as the signal. That is the theory. It simply does not apply to free things. You’re trying to invent some other theory, for which you’re going to need to justify some other way. Revealed preference theory does not apply the way you’d like it to, and does not support your implied claims in this thread.
        • scarface_74 2y ago
          I mean this is simple English. I say I want to do one thing. But I do another. Which evidence do give more credence to?
          • dahart 2y ago
            You can say and do and give your own credence to whatever you want, but the evidence you are providing repeatedly is that you don’t understand what the economic concept of revealed preference actually is. If you did understand what revealed preference theory is trying to do, and how, then you’d understand why your “simple English” rhetorical question isn’t asking a useful or economically valid question.