4 ms·

"Ignorance is not a prerequisite for disagreement." This is a very memorable and useful quote. Thanks for saying it. It deserves to be a classic, in my opini

"Ignorance is not a prerequisite for disagreement." This is a very memorable and useful quote. Thanks for saying it. It deserves to be a classic, in my opinion.

Retra 12y ago
Except that it is not always true. Ignorance is a prerequisite for disagreement if you assume entirely rational decision-making. Without ignorance, if you have disagreement, you very likely have irrationality instead.
- recursive 12y ago
  Is rationality incompatible with subjectivity?
  - Retra 12y ago
    Of course it is. This is probably expressed most clearly in Bayes' Theorem. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes%27_theorem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes%27_theorem)
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > Ignorance is a prerequisite for disagreement if you assume entirely rational decision-making. This is only true with identical utility functions for all participants. Rational decision making means each actor acts with perfect information about expected utilities of all options and chooses the option that maximizes their own realized utility. Rational actors can easily disagree without ignorance, since rational actors can have different utility functions.
  - Retra 12y ago
    Only if they are ignorant of each others' utility functions.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      They can disagree in which programming language each prefers without ignorance of each others utility functions, or on questions such as "which programming language is best for X purpose?". While there are some questions where ignorance of each others utility functions could produce disagreement, I can't think of any where it is necessary for disagreement.
- nemo 12y ago
  "Ignorance is a prerequisite for disagreement if you assume entirely rational decision-making." You'd also have to be profoundly naive to ever assume entirely rational decision-making out of humans, though I get the sense that a number of those words must mean very different things to you than they do to most.

"Ignorance is not a prerequisite for disagreement." This is a very memorable and useful quote. Thanks for saying it. It deserves to be a classic, in my opinion.

Retra 12y ago

Except that it is not always true. Ignorance is a prerequisite for disagreement if you assume entirely rational decision-making. Without ignorance, if you have disagreement, you very likely have irrationality instead.

recursive 12y ago
Is rationality incompatible with subjectivity?
- Retra 12y ago
  Of course it is. This is probably expressed most clearly in Bayes' Theorem. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes%27_theorem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes%27_theorem)
dragonwriter 12y ago
> Ignorance is a prerequisite for disagreement if you assume entirely rational decision-making. This is only true with identical utility functions for all participants. Rational decision making means each actor acts with perfect information about expected utilities of all options and chooses the option that maximizes their own realized utility. Rational actors can easily disagree without ignorance, since rational actors can have different utility functions.
- Retra 12y ago
  Only if they are ignorant of each others' utility functions.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    They can disagree in which programming language each prefers without ignorance of each others utility functions, or on questions such as "which programming language is best for X purpose?". While there are some questions where ignorance of each others utility functions could produce disagreement, I can't think of any where it is necessary for disagreement.
nemo 12y ago
"Ignorance is a prerequisite for disagreement if you assume entirely rational decision-making." You'd also have to be profoundly naive to ever assume entirely rational decision-making out of humans, though I get the sense that a number of those words must mean very different things to you than they do to most.