News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

Voting VS Spending

Started by Xerographica, May 13, 2018, 12:28:01 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Jason78

Quote from: Xerographica on May 25, 2018, 12:55:03 PM
My hypothesis is that voting elevates trash while spending elevates treasure. 

But that's objectively not true.  People happily spend their money on trash all the time.

Quote from: Xerographica on May 25, 2018, 12:55:03 PM
Let's say that this forum used voting and donating to rank beers.  Which ranking would you prefer? 

Neither system would find the best beer.   Have you ever been to a beer festival?  The only real way you could rank those beers is by testing each of them.
Winner of WitchSabrinas Best Advice Award 2012


We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real
tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. -Plato

Cavebear

Quote from: trdsf on May 25, 2018, 01:18:23 PM
But it should be him too, and it's frustrating when the wall of faith goes up and the fingers go in the ears and the eyes close and all the response you get may as well be a loop of tape.  I mean, he's saying to you exactly the same thing he said to me, as if changing prominent atheists or cars to beer without actually changing the argument makes the argument valid.  I know you have more patience than I doâ€"but I will say good luck anyway.

And I'll admit, I don't have a lot of time or respect for libertarianism, which is a fine philosophy to have if you're a college professor/student or think-tank member or some other person who doesn't have to interact much with the real world if they don't want to.

I have learned that facts do not change the minds of those who will not change their minds.  And amazingly, some studies show that facts actively push some people into denying them.  You and I don't think like that, but some people do. 

I read an article (in Scientific American I think) that described some experiments that proved this odd mental ill-health.  Basicaiclly, the experiments suggested 2 approaches.

One was to ask indirect questions about outcomes (like "what would reduce planetary temperature increases?") No mention of "Global warming" that triggers some people.  The other suggestion was along the lines of "What would it take to change your mind on Topic X.  In other words, let the other person describe what really bothers the,. 

On climate change, that might be "Only God can change the climate"  or "We need the fuel" or "Its a natural event of the sun warming". 

THEN you have some idea how to discuss the matter further. 
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Xerographica

Quote from: Cavebear on May 25, 2018, 01:15:29 PM
You are obsessed with that analogy.  Was it used on Fox TV?

But even if all your thoughts are your own, your thinking condemns you to an elitism of the worst kind.  Your "more dollars" mean you are somehow more important than I am. 

BTW, how rich are you?  How many $1 votes do you command?  Fess up...

I'm talking about a potential experiment to test our beliefs.  Are you interested in discussing this experiment? 

And no, I'm not rich.  If I was rich then why wouldn't I simply pay some college professor to conduct this experiment? 

Cavebear

Quote from: Xerographica on May 25, 2018, 01:43:39 PM
I'm talking about a potential experiment to test our beliefs.  Are you interested in discussing this experiment? 

And no, I'm not rich.  If I was rich then why wouldn't I simply pay some college professor to conduct this experiment?

You expressed political views suggesting money was votes.

But OK. hit me with your beer experiment and lets see how I react.  And trust me, I will be honest even if I see through it.  If someone wants an experimebt, I a fair subject.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Xerographica

Quote from: Jason78 on May 25, 2018, 01:32:28 PM
But that's objectively not true.  People happily spend their money on trash all the time.

I'm not arguing that spending always elevates treasure.  Spending is just far more likely to elevate treasure than voting is. 

Quote from: Jason78 on May 25, 2018, 01:32:28 PMNeither system would find the best beer.   Have you ever been to a beer festival?  The only real way you could rank those beers is by testing each of them.

The beers would be ranked differently by voting and donating.  Do you agree?  If so, then isn't it likely that you would prefer one ranking more than the other? 

I have not been to a beer festival or a dog show.  But I have been to many plant shows.  I'm far more informed about plants than I am about beer and dogs.  Therefore, I'd be willing to spend more money ranking plants than beers and dogs. 

Are you more informed about beers or plants?  Would you be willing to spend more money to rank beers or plants? 

Xerographica

Quote from: Cavebear on May 25, 2018, 01:49:09 PM
You expressed political views suggesting money was votes.

But OK. hit me with your beer experiment and lets see how I react.  And trust me, I will be honest even if I see through it.  If someone wants an experimebt, I a fair subject.

Members of this forum would use voting and donating to rank beers.  We'd all compare the two rankings and decide for ourselves which one is better.  Which ranking do you think you'll prefer? 

Cavebear

Quote from: Xerographica on May 25, 2018, 01:52:22 PM
I'm not arguing that spending always elevates treasure.  Spending is just far more likely to elevate treasure than voting is. 

The beers would be ranked differently by voting and donating.  Do you agree?  If so, then isn't it likely that you would prefer one ranking more than the other? 

I have not been to a beer festival or a dog show.  But I have been to many plant shows.  I'm far more informed about plants than I am about beer and dogs.  Therefore, I'd be willing to spend more money ranking plants than beers and dogs. 

Are you more informed about beers or plants?  Would you be willing to spend more money to rank beers or plants?

Actually I like both.  Chose or use both.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Baruch

"Spending is just far more likely to elevate treasure than voting is." - Xerographics

Well that pretty much says you despise voters.  I do too, but I have a different theory ... humans are stupid.  With or without money.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Jason78

Quote from: Xerographica on May 25, 2018, 01:52:22 PM
The beers would be ranked differently by voting and donating.  Do you agree?  If so, then isn't it likely that you would prefer one ranking more than the other? 

I quite agree that the two methods would have different outcomes. 

And as I've said, I'd prefer neither because they would both fail to find the best beer.   

Quote from: Xerographica on May 25, 2018, 01:52:22 PM
I have not been to a beer festival or a dog show.  But I have been to many plant shows.  I'm far more informed about plants than I am about beer and dogs.  Therefore, I'd be willing to spend more money ranking plants than beers and dogs. 

Are you more informed about beers or plants?  Would you be willing to spend more money to rank beers or plants? 

I have a limited amount of resources but I have spent money so that I can rank beers.   I didn't pay for each beer though, I paid for the opportunity to go in and sample as much beer as I wanted.   Everyone paid the same, whether they sampled 1 beer or 100.
Winner of WitchSabrinas Best Advice Award 2012


We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real
tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. -Plato

Xerographica

Quote from: Jason78 on May 26, 2018, 06:21:32 AM
I quite agree that the two methods would have different outcomes. 

And as I've said, I'd prefer neither because they would both fail to find the best beer.   

I have a limited amount of resources but I have spent money so that I can rank beers.   I didn't pay for each beer though, I paid for the opportunity to go in and sample as much beer as I wanted.   Everyone paid the same, whether they sampled 1 beer or 100.

Right now you have a favorite beer.  This is the best beer that you know of.  With my proposed experiment let's say that you donate $10 to this forum to help promote your best beer.  I personally would only donate maybe like $5 dollars to promote my best beer.  Let's say that a total of 10 members would donate to promote their best beers.  Your beer ends up being the most highly ranked beer on the donating list.

All 100 or so members of this forum who haven't tried your best beer go out and try it.  Doing so naturally improves our own definition of "best".  Then, when we try new beers, we naturally judge them according to our improved definition of "best".  If I happen to find a better beer, then I make a donation to promote it, which further improves our definition of "best". 

Essentially, we all train each other and are trained by each other.  We all become more and more useful to each other. 

A while back I was visiting my friend Michelle.  We were standing in her front yard when I noticed a street tree with something yellow on the trunk.  I realized it was a chicken of the woods mushroom.  My friend didn't know that it's delicious.  She grabbed a knife and a bag so that I could harvest it.  I offered her some but she was too scared.  Some time afterwards she found another chicken of the woods and she harvested it and brought it over to my place.  I cooked it for us and this time she decided to try it.  She loved it. 

Really this is the only mushroom that I feel confident enough identifying.  Well, I think morel mushrooms are also pretty distinct... but I'm not 100% sure that there aren't similar looking mushrooms that are poisonous.   

Hunter gatherers were constantly improving each others' definitions of "useful".  It was important to learn the difference between a useful and a useless mushroom.   But this is where trade came into play.  The usefulness of a mushroom was defined by how many obsidian arrowheads you could get for it. 

All the members of this forum are essentially a tribe... but we don't use our money to improve each other's definitions of "useful".  As a result, we are all far less useful to each other than we could and should be. 

The $10 dollars that you donate would go into the owner's pocket.  However you would also have the opportunity to educate the rest of us about what you consider to be the most useful beer.  But it's not like your motive would be purely altruistic.  You would actually be training us to help you find an even better beer for you.  We would be your Igors searching for better beers instead of better brains.  We would be your beer minions swarming bars searching for better beers. 

It's rather mind-boggling that life remained unicellular for several billion years.  Then somehow multicellular organisms evolved and voila... here I am... more than a billion years later... making the case for us to become a multi-body organism.  Well, a more cohesive, coherent, communicative and cooperative multi-body organism.  Trying to persuade you all is hard work.  I wonder if this is why it took so long for multicellular organisms to develop. 

trdsf

And then some guy comes in and puts $10,000 on Bud Lite.  Hey, look, Bud Lite is the best beer!  We don't need  any taste trials, any discussion, any facts, one guy with a lot of money likes it so it must be the best.

Insert heartfelt eyeroll here.
"My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total, and I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution." -- Barbara Jordan

Xerographica

Quote from: trdsf on May 26, 2018, 04:21:27 PM
And then some guy comes in and puts $10,000 on Bud Lite.  Hey, look, Bud Lite is the best beer!  We don't need  any taste trials, any discussion, any facts, one guy with a lot of money likes it so it must be the best.

If this happens then you win and I lose.  This result would prove, at least from my perspective, that spending does not elevate treasure.  My belief in the superiority of spending would be effectively falsified. 

What's tricky though is that the owner of the website would be a big winner.  Naturally the very next week he'd announce a fundraiser to rank wine.  The week after it would be cheese.  Word would pretty quickly spread and then all the forum owners would be trying to get in on the action.  Eventually the biggest websites would provide this feature to all their members.  On the Epiphyte Society Facebook page, which I manage, I could create a fundraiser to rank epiphytes.  Boom!  $10,000 dollars on... on... mistletoe?  I was struggling to think of a trashy epiphyte.  Mistletoe isn't an epiphyte... it's a parasite.  Actually, I suppose the ubiquitous phalaenopsis orchid is the closest epiphyte equivalent to Bud Lite. 

What's fascinating is that over 100 years ago super rich guys would pay over $10,000 for even a very boring phalaenopsis.  They were super rare back then.  But, because some rich guys were willing to pay such stupid high prices for these orchids... production greatly increased.... innovative propagation techniques were discovered... and now you can find much higher quality phalaenopsis orchids at Trader Joes for less than $10 dollars.  After they finish blooming many people simply throw them away!  The phalaenopsis went from really rare to really abundant. 

But I certainly wouldn't spend any money to promote phalaenopsis.  Why would I spend my money to promote something that everybody already knows about?  If I was going to spend my money to promote an orchid maybe I'd choose Encyclia. 

Anyways, I'd be certainly surprised if somebody did decide to spend $10,000 to promote Bud Lite. 

trdsf

Quote from: Xerographica on May 26, 2018, 07:23:33 PM
If this happens then you win and I lose.  This result would prove, at least from my perspective, that spending does not elevate treasure.  My belief in the superiority of spending would be effectively falsified.
The fact that this is a perfectly possible outcome in your system means that it is falsified.  You can never know what you're measuring under your system.  If you can't differentiate between one person putting $10,000 on Bud Lite and 10,000 putting $1 each, you can't in any way, shape or form claim you're measuring public will.  And you can't even tell if that's what's happening without counting votes, one per person.

That means the vote is necessarily the accurate part, not the money.

You can not gloss over that with "but I still think my way works".  It is demonstrated that your proposal is incorrect.  That's not just disagreement, that's evidence that indicates your basic assumption is incorrect.

What part of "fatal fundamental flaw" is so difficult to grasp?
"My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total, and I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution." -- Barbara Jordan

Xerographica

Trdsf, for some reason you think the measurement is more important to me than the outcome.   It really isn't.  With voting the outcome of Socrates' trial was his execution.   I'm supposed to support/endorse/condone/accept this outcome simply because it was supported by a majority of the jurors?  No way. 

We already know that voters murdered Socrates.  We already know that voters elected Hitler.  We already know that voters chose prohibition.  We already know that voters are idiots.  What I want to know is whether the outcome is any smarter/wiser/better when it's determined by spenders. 

What I'm proposing is a very simple and straightforward contest between voters and spenders.   You strongly oppose this contest because you consider the voters to already be the technical winners.  The fact is that voters are not the winners, technical or otherwise, until I see that the outcome is just as dumb when it's determined by spenders. 

Baruch

Quote from: Xerographica on May 26, 2018, 10:07:36 PM
Trdsf, for some reason you think the measurement is more important to me than the outcome.   It really isn't.  With voting the outcome of Socrates' trial was his execution.   I'm supposed to support/endorse/condone/accept this outcome simply because it was supported by a majority of the jurors?  No way. 

We already know that voters murdered Socrates.  We already know that voters elected Hitler.  We already know that voters chose prohibition.  We already know that voters are idiots.  What I want to know is whether the outcome is any smarter/wiser/better when it's determined by spenders. 

What I'm proposing is a very simple and straightforward contest between voters and spenders.   You strongly oppose this contest because you consider the voters to already be the technical winners.  The fact is that voters are not the winners, technical or otherwise, until I see that the outcome is just as dumb when it's determined by spenders.

Some people can't get past the politics of 2016 CE, you can't get past the politics of 399 BCE.  A good study of Socrates is The Hemlock Cup, by Bettany Hughes.  Not unlike Cato the Younger, Socrates was in fact ... a pain in the ass with disastrous political associations (Pericles and Alcibiades and The Thirty).
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.