Political Bent: Born this Way?

[adroit]

@WuWei

Great! And that is one of my issues with game theory. It requires a common optimum. Which doesn’t exist. It is even fluid in a single individual, as you so capably illustrated.

Well of course, but that’s somewhat of a tautology when it comes to applying game theory. With something like a Nash equilibrium, something has to be measured.

So, when I talk about game theory, I usually
make clear the context in framing it in. For example, aggregate health care outcomes like decreased mortality rates, higher 5 year cancer survival rates, lower bankruptcy rates from medical bills, lower per capita costs, etc. Now, if increased aggregate stats like that aren’t important to someone, compared to say an individual’s own financial obligations and self-interests, then sure, I see why they disagree. I simply value more people having overall better health outcomes at a lower per capita cost as a better result.

[WuWei]

@Blackwolf

@WuWei

Great post, thanks!

Are there value judgments in there?

Sorry, how do you mean?

Is “open” inherently “better”?

[adroit]

@WuWei

Is “open” inherently “better”?

Probably depends on what you mean by “better”. For example, it could be “better” for expanding empathy.

[WuWei]

@adroit

@WuWei

Great! And that is one of my issues with game theory. It requires a common optimum. Which doesn’t exist. It is even fluid in a single individual, as you so capably illustrated.

Well of course, but that’s somewhat of a tautology when it comes to applying game theory. With something like a Nash equilibrium, something has to be measured.

So, when I talk about game theory, I usually
make clear the context in framing it in. For example, aggregate health care outcomes like decreased mortality rates, higher 5 year cancer survival rates, lower bankruptcy rates from medical bills, lower per capita costs, etc. Now, if increased aggregate stats like that aren’t important to someone, compared to say an individual’s own financial obligations and self-interests, then sure, I see why they disagree. I simply value more people having overall better health outcomes at a lower per capita cost as a better result.

I disagree that it is a tautology.

And you proved my point very well. You assume lower mortality rates are “optimal” for the collective (for example). That’s emotion.

Love the value judgments in that one as well.

[WuWei]

@adroit

@WuWei

Is “open” inherently “better”?

Probably depends on what you mean by “better”. For example, it could be “better” for expanding empathy.

Exactly. Was that not implied in that post?

Or could it not be better for developing empathy?

[Blackwolf]

Ah, gotcha. Honestly, I don’t think it’s that simple. Being open to new experiences and being more social has certainly enriched my life. I still consider myself an introvert in a lot of ways, however, and I still withdraw into solitude and the comfort of routine when I need to recharge. One is not inherently better than the other - it depends on context and/or the individual.

[adroit]

@WuWei

And you proved my point very well. You assume lower mortality rates are “optimal” for the collective (for example). That’s emotion.

Would you make the argument that higher mortality is better?

[WuWei]

@Blackwolf

Ah, gotcha. Honestly, I don’t think it’s that simple. Being open to new experiences and being more social has certainly enriched my life. I still consider myself an introvert in a lot of ways, however, and I still withdraw into solitude and the comfort of routine when I need to recharge. One is not inherently better than the other - it depends on context and/or the individual.

Exactly, there’s nothing simple about it.

When I read your post, I see value judgments. If I am not open, I am worse.

Now the question is: innate or experience?

[WuWei]

@adroit

@WuWei

And you proved my point very well. You assume lower mortality rates are “optimal” for the collective (for example). That’s emotion.

Would you make the argument that higher mortality is better?

I can.

[adroit]

@WuWei

@adroit

@WuWei

And you proved my point very well. You assume lower mortality rates are “optimal” for the collective (for example). That’s emotion.

Would you make the argument that higher mortality is better?

I can.

I’d be interested in hearing the argument.

[WuWei]

@adroit

@WuWei

@adroit

@WuWei

And you proved my point very well. You assume lower mortality rates are “optimal” for the collective (for example). That’s emotion.

Would you make the argument that higher mortality is better?

I can.

I’d be interested in hearing the argument.

Overcrowding
Over population
Reduction of available resources
Famine
Communicable diseases
Pollution
Global warming - not that I believe in that hoax
Poverty
War
Domestic terrorism

More people = more bad. Collective.

Do you or do you not wish the Chinese the would have fewer babies?

[Jezcoe]

@WuWei

@Jezcoe

My man…

And on a side note, I’ve been meaning to mention this. I find it very disrespectful, condescending and off-putting. I’d appreciate it if you would not use it to address me.

I am sorry I hurt you.

[WuWei]

@Jezcoe

@WuWei

@Jezcoe

My man…

And on a side note, I’ve been meaning to mention this. I find it very disrespectful, condescending and off-putting. I’d appreciate it if you would not use it to address me.

I am sorry I hurt you.

You didn’t. You were asked nicely. Intent vs. Impact.

[adroit]

@WuWei

Overcrowding
Over population
Reduction of available resources
Famine
Communicable diseases
Pollution
Global warming - not that I believe in that hoax
Poverty
War
Domestic terrorism

More people = more bad.

I would make the argument that those are separate issues that aren’t necessitated by more people. For example, over the course of the last century, mortality has decreased, population has increased and things like poverty and war have reduced over that time. I think by most measures, our quality of life in the US has increased significantly over that time.

[blueapplepaste]

@Smyrna

Notice that even as babies, when they witnessed two people being equally told to do something but only one did it all and yet they both got an equal reward…that this was wrong. Lib adults could learn something from babies.

Yet cons have no issue if it’s women getting less for doing something equal.

[Jezcoe]

@adroit

@WuWei

Overcrowding
Over population
Reduction of available resources
Famine
Communicable diseases
Pollution
Global warming - not that I believe in that hoax
Poverty
War
Domestic terrorism

More people = more bad.

I would make the argument that those are separate issues that aren’t necessitated by more people. For example, over the course of the last century, mortality has decreased, population has increased and things like poverty and war have reduced over that time. I think by most measures, our quality of life in the US has increased significantly over that time.

Reduction in poverty leads to a reduction in birth rate.

Seems like that is self correcting population control in a lot of ways.

[WuWei]

@adroit

I would make the argument that those are separate issues that aren’t necessitated by more people. For example, over the course of the last century, mortality has decreased, population has increased and things like poverty and war have reduced over that time. I think by most measures, our quality of life in the US has increased significantly over that time.

I completely disagree. Poverty has not decreased one iota. We are flooded with economic refugees daily willing to die to get our resources. So is Europe. Neither has war. We haven’t had a named world war, but the world is at war.

Is it easier to feed 10 or 10,000? Which produces more trash (pollution)?

Look at the crowding in Japan for example. Or our own cities.

[Blackwolf]

@WuWei

Exactly, there’s nothing simple about it.

When I read your post, I see value judgments. If I am not open, I am worse.

Now the question is: innate or experience?

There is a value judgment there, in that I feel being more open and more social has been better - for me.

YMMV

Edit: And I’ll stick with the idea that it’s both nature and nurture. Both contribute to what a person is and does.

[WuWei]

@Jezcoe

Reduction in poverty leads to a reduction in birth rate.

Seems like that is self correcting population control in a lot of ways.

Correlation or causation?

[WuWei]

@Blackwolf

Edit: And I’ll stick with the idea that it’s both nature and nurture. Both contribute to what a person is and does.

I completely agree. I don’t think it’s ever either or.