Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Book Review: 23 Things They Donít Tell You About Capitalism

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Book Review: 23 Things They Donít Tell You About Capitalism

    Originally posted by c1ue
    I have yet to see any attempt whatsoever to actually look at the subject as opposed to try and pick arguments with it.
    That is a contradiction.

    Originally posted by c1ue View Post
    The original post and the subsequent one made no mention whatsoever of subjective rationality at you keep harping on.
    Yet here is what you said:
    Originally posted by c1ue
    2) Yet other experiments show that once more than 3 choices are offered, the choices actually made depend far more on what was last presented than any objective criteria of 'better value'.

    Value is inherently subjective in economics, yet in your summary of "other experiments" (still not cited in any way) you used the phrase, "objective criteria of 'better value'." You seemingly even acknowledge that value is subjective by putting it in half-quotation marks.

    You brought value into the discussion in an attempt to justify your position that rational choice is an illusion. In economics, however, value is subjective and unquantifiable.

    How many hedons is one extra apple worth to you, vice how many hedons is that same apple worth to me? Such a silly Benthamite notion has long been discredited, yet here you (and apparently behavioral psychologists as well, though we have to take your word for it) are trying to revive it.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Book Review: 23 Things They Donít Tell You About Capitalism

      Originally posted by Ghent12
      Yet here is what you said:
      Originally Posted by c1ue
      2) Yet other experiments show that once more than 3 choices are offered, the choices actually made depend far more on what was last presented than any objective criteria of 'better value'.




      Value is inherently subjective in economics, yet in your summary of "other experiments" (still not cited in any way) you used the phrase, "objective criteria of 'better value'." You seemingly even acknowledge that value is subjective by putting it in half-quotation marks.
      The problem here is that the assignation of value was not determined by me, but by the economists analyzing the experiment.

      Furthermore if you actually bothered to look into these experiments, perhaps you could either provide an understanding of the 'subjective' value or - less likely - acknowledge that you don't know what you're talking about.

      For example: I posted a recent experiment where the subject were told that the data in question consisted of completely random coin flips.

      The subjects knew explicitly then that the results of said coin flips are completely random and furthermore are 50% either heads or tails.

      Yet communication of 'successful tips' via results segregation led to those receiving the segregated successes choosing to subscribe to said service.

      Riddle me then the thought process which takes a completely random event - which you know to be random - and then causes you to subscribe to a service which purports to predict the result.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Book Review: 23 Things They Donít Tell You About Capitalism

        Originally posted by c1ue View Post
        The problem here is that the assignation of value was not determined by me, but by the economists analyzing the experiment.

        Furthermore if you actually bothered to look into these experiments, perhaps you could either provide an understanding of the 'subjective' value or - less likely - acknowledge that you don't know what you're talking about.
        You won't even give the title of these experiments so there really isn't anything to look up. I have no way of knowing if you are interpreting the results of these alleged experiments correctly or if you are doing what you normally do, which is to use words sloppily when discussing economics. Besides, if the economics' metrics of values were being used and compared, yet it was the participants' actions which resulted in gains or losses, then of course there would be a disconnect.

        A small example: even if you tell me what to value in a given experiment, then there's still no guarantee that I will do certain actions as if I value what you have told me to value. If I value what you value, or place value in your perception of my value, then I will behave appropriately. Value is inherently subjective and constantly changing to some degree or another.

        Originally posted by c1ue
        For example: I posted a recent experiment where the subject were told that the data in question consisted of completely random coin flips.

        The subjects knew explicitly then that the results of said coin flips are completely random and furthermore are 50% either heads or tails.

        Yet communication of 'successful tips' via results segregation led to those receiving the segregated successes choosing to subscribe to said service.

        Riddle me then the thought process which takes a completely random event - which you know to be random - and then causes you to subscribe to a service which purports to predict the result.
        (Bold emphasis mine.)
        There are plenty of reasons why people would do such a thing. First of all, what was at stake in that experiment? I see that the questionnaire was incentivized at S$0.20 per question, but I can't find the trade-in value of the tokens. Was it also S$0.20 per token? Regardless of what is at stake, do you assume that all participants value the tokens or the money equally? If so, why? All participants were undergraduates evidently, but what was their financial state?

        Further, do you understand what other things they could value more than tokens or twenty Singapore cents? Of course you do, you mention it enough. Perhaps they valued simply being alleviated of the responsibility of making the choice. Value is entirely subjective in economics, after all. You can try to say that money, for example, is objectively valued to one degree or another, but if you don't acknowledge that even a given quantity of money can be valued differently by different individuals then you seriously lack a realistic perspective on the human experience.

        Comment

        Working...
        X