Robert Sutton |
| 08.31.07 - 2:51 pm |Fun at Voxulution
September 6, 2007
Voxpop : Evolution and game theory
In Vox's post he criticizes evolutionary theorists use of game theory as a means to describe evolution. I do agree with Vox that many people who are enthusiastic of evolution do so in inappropriate (and I'm sure I've been a culprit) ways and game theory is most likely one of them. However, in Vox's post the Christian blindness can be seen in that he unconsciously assumes evolutionary theorists assume an agent behind the process that produces complex organisms. He also assumes typical Human arrogance in declaring that other animals are incapable of thinking.
Voxpost states - "The fact that Darwinists are making this assumption of rational action in the case of plants and animals instead of humans only makes their theories look even more absurd"
Voxcomment - "...I am aware that no Darwinist believes intelligence drives evolution, they believe Natural Selection does."
It's safe to say that since we have reached a point were we can virtually eliminate the pressures nature presents, we've reached the end of a long evolutionary chain. The puzzling question is why the majority of Humans aren't concerned with (hopefully) our future generations. I almost envy people who believe in heaven, what a burden it would remove from my mind.
Robert Sutton | | 08.31.07 - 2:51 pm |
“are making the same mistake as the macroeconomists and game theoreticians in assuming perfectly rational decision makers.” - Vox
What is the meaning of “perfectly rational” here? I mean, is it logical and assuming a great knowledge on the subject, that people or groups will tend to make the same or similar decisions in a given situation (or make the same/similar assumptions).
I can understand how the outcome might be different than expectations, as economics is just one of the disciplines, and relying solely on that is kind of expecting a mechanic that specializes solely on tune-ups to state the likely performance of a vehicle, failing to take into account the tread wear, bearing greasing, torque, gear ratios, etc..
I told a friend of mine who specializes in economics, and is pretty good with currency trading (and would be rich if he would keep to his formula instead of being overly aggressive), the problems that would likely be encountered if the Fed raised rates during the summer of last year. He looked at me like I was mad, the reality of which is beside the point, and when I went through the other reasons why (outside of economics), he said it was logical but that he would have to disagree because he would stick with the economics. Low and behold, we are very near the risk of stagflation, and while the housing market wasn’t itself the bulk of the economy, the areas of lending, selling, and buying were strongly attached and could (have) provided for a set of predictable repercussions that were not predictable outside of pure economics (the beginning of a dynamic shift outside the scope of most existing generalized models, but which could have easily been incorporated).
If you are speaking of “rational” in the economic definition, then I would agree. In the bigger picture though, people are simply not all that mysterious or cognizant. You would figure that a people that, for a large part, are programmed through their experiences, might be a little more aware that the equivalent of a virus, backdoor, or hole might be part and parcel with their brain, or that reprogramming, oh, maybe for passivity or for a kill switch on action, might be present. The higher the IQ, the faster it can be processed, though the more subtle it must be.
David Caldwell for 2008 US President
David Caldwell | Homepage | 08.31.07 - 7:17 pm |
David, could you elaborate on this, please? How is reprogramming accomplished? and the kill switch installed...?
Make me believe it and you have my vote.
Thanks
Stan | 08.31.07 - 7:35 pm |
I don’t have the skills to make anyone believe anything. Generally, I have the tendency to be able to make people not believe something, unless people hear what I said from someone else later, and then come back to tell me about this great thing they heard. Generally speaking, I should actually be writing that the NAU is a good thing, that it is better to sit at home and not get involved, and that communism is the way to go. But that is another matter, one I may have to ponder for its’ usefulness to get the things that need to be done, done.
Anyway Stan, first off, lets see if there are some basic premises we can agree on.
1. Do you believe that humans are in part biological?
2. That aside from any born instincts, people are largely a blank slate?
3. That parents, peers, and other things encountered shape not only what we are exposed to for comparison, but how we feel about or perceive something?
4. that two identical babies, one raised in China, and one in the US, may have two very opposing views by adulthood as to what is right and wrong, as well as what society and system is best to live under, maybe even as to what happiness means or how it is achieved?David Caldwell
Caldwell for 2008 US President
David Caldwell | Homepage | 08.31.07 - 8:18 pm |
Yeah, I don't know DC. Advertising, marketing et al sound like they're working with a rational population en masse, but when they're trying to sell beer, lottery tickets or porn, they're just targeting the lowest common denominator. Bread and circuses is an old formula. Encouraging people to make irrational purchasing decisions, by definition, is not rational.
jer_the_bear | 08.31.07 - 8:20 pm |
I just answered my iPhone. It was Bill Gates. He told me that I was unaware of iPressure and I would be iSsimilated. Vox you are 33% right: "perfectly rational decision makers."
Buying bread and making bread are three different things.
I like blue; I'll vote for you DC ;)
Robert Sutton | | 08.31.07 - 8:39 pm |
Encouraging people to make irrational purchasing decisions, by definition, is not rational. jer_the_bear 08.31.07 - 8:20 pm
Rational, in terms of their best interest, I agree wholeheartedly. I see rational as a thought process that leads to predictable behavior or tendencies. That is, the person understands, but does not necessarily make the wisest choice, only a logical one based on the conditioning. The marketing affects the thought process, bringing in other variables, whereby it may not necessarily predict specific instances for all cases, but may work on a more generalized level.David Caldwell
Caldwell for 2008 US President
David Caldwell | | 08.31.07 - 8:45 pm |
"I like blue; I'll vote for you DC ;)"
Except on Fridays Robert, because pans are round.
And in case you were wondering, you are different, just like everybody else. (just love that quote).
Communal assertion of individuality is lovely. Is anyone else willing to conform to being rebellious or participate in responsive spontaneity?
David Caldwell
Caldwell for 2008 US President
David Caldwell | | 08.31.07 - 8:53 pm |
You've got it all wrong DC. You've lost my vote. The quote ""I am unique, just like everyone else."""
Robert Sutton | | 08.31.07 - 9:03 pm |
Gravatar Not trying to be malicious or anything tonight, just in a slightly jovial and light mood.
Anyway, most everything around you has been marketed, from the car and house desirable square footage, right down to the paperclip and push-pin, or at least where you buy them from. How effective is generating name recognition in all of this? (rhetorical question)
Anyway, are the four posits I have, well, er, posited “reasonable” assumptions (not just to Stan, as he may be busy or not, as I often am for days now)?
David Caldwell
Caldwell for 2008 US President
David Caldwell | | 08.31.07 - 9:06 pm |
I can see the similarities in the invisible hand of evolution and the partially visible hand of the free market. I just think evolutionary biologists carry the theory way too far and into areas it isn't relevant.
Robert Sutton | | 08.31.07 - 9:07 pm |
DC,
1. All biological to start with. (no immortal or pre-existant "soul". A human as constituted IS a "soul".)
"I'm a SOUL, Man." - Bleus Freres.
2. Brain shape is important. Neurotic people can change the shape of their brain with willpower by focusing on resisting a neurotic impulse and overcoming it.
3. Yes, except only negatively for people with Asperger's Syndrome.
4. Not if they are twins. Twins have a unique statistical probability to be twinlike and Geminiacle.
.
Bone Head | 08.31.07 - 9:23 pm |
Even among beer, the effects can be interesting. This one brand had been sitting there on one of the shelves for several months, with cases stacked in stock and doing nothing (I had been involved with the business only sparingly). Once I became more involved, I had the beer moved down one shelf to just at or below eye level of someone 5’6”-5’11”, which is where it had been several years before, back when it was a good seller. For the first week, no one touched it. The next week, stock of it was empty by ordering time, and it has moved quite well since. One shelf up, and it might have well as not existed. One shelf down and it is gone.
Because people don’t tend to pay great attention to things they do often, they rely more on patterned behavior. Placement requires taking into account the psychological impact of the placement. We simply have things we don’t want to spend a lot of time thinking in great detail about every time, especially for things that are repetitive in nature, and so understanding “behavior on auto-pilot” is important.
Being on “auto-pilot” also increases potential for suggestibility. Why else do you think illusionists often induce distraction in their acts? So they can direct the focus of your attention away from where they would like you to be on auto-pilot.
David Caldwell
Caldwell for 2008 US President
David Caldwell | | 08.31.07 - 9:23 pm |
I agree with 1,2 and half of 4.
3. "That parents, peers, and other things encountered shape not only what we are exposed to for comparison, but how we feel about or perceive something?"
3 and 3.5 bother me.
3: The ego and superego interact with each other. Therefor no outside source needs to be involved for feelings to be developed. certainly there can be a substantial amount of influence. But influence and cause are not the same thing.
3.5: Though I know that two different cultures can produce different opinions on right and wrong there are morals that transcend culture. The confusing and heavily philosophic issues of right and wrong are subject dependent. There is no such thing as the right "color", but there are universally right principles. Self ownership being the most important.
I know that many Eastern cultures and religions embrace the concept of "group thought" but it crumbles under the scrutiny of logic. Granted a City can be analogous to the mind: each neuron representing an individual resident in the community creating a "common good." But in reality a single neuron can not think independently, every human can.
Robert Sutton | | 08.31.07 - 9:26 pm |
I think it only works in terms of generating extra interest within the general population.
Many resist the brainwash, or ignore or forget it.
Marketers don't care about them, they are strickly concerned with the willing hearers.
And this way they grow rich. You don't need to reach everybody, just enough to make it pay.
This is not rocket surgery. (apologies to he or she I cannot recall on another or this thread)
.
.
Bone Head | 08.31.07 - 9:28 pm |
Bone Head, for a baby (1), generally in terms of after birth?
On (2), among a general population?
So, (3) is what you would expect of the norm?
(4) your response is better even in results of identical twins, in terms of patterns of behavior.I worded (4) poorly, as each assumption was supposed to build on another. That means that, aside from genetic tendencies in behavior (instincts). The first was whether or not someone agrees there is a biological component (identifies pure social cognitives), the second removed the biology (identifies pure naturalists), the third focuses on those close to us and society, and the fourth was supposed to be with those close to us stripped away (raised in, but not specifically based on parents).David Caldwell
Caldwell for 2008 US President
David Caldwell | | 08.31.07 - 9:51 pm |
DC, sir,On rerereading your #4, I should of course said "especially" instead of "not if".
Certainly a miniscule error, but OH, what the cost.
.
Bone Head | 08.31.07 - 10:13 pm |
Ok, on 3, you take more or less a Freudian approach. This basically breaks things down between desire, external rules, and the general arbiter when dealing with what is experienced. The ego is the arbiter, and the superego are the external rules. Id is the desire. According to Freudian thought, the arbiter does interact with the external/learned rules which are supposed to be in conflict with the born/internal desires. By this approach, parents, peers, and society would provide the basis for the superego. So I take it you mean the id and the ego interact? This is not a hypothetical on whether or not one can do without external experience, but whether or not the external has an impact. Freud would conclude “yes,” because the conflict brings about a set of emotions that would be less likely to be experienced had the superego not been present during an event.On 3.5, is the “group thought” enough to keep them on their path as a group, aside from a one on one logical conversation?
David Caldwell
Caldwell for 2008 US President
David Caldwell | | 08.31.07 - 10:17 pm |
“not if” was just as good Bone Head. I just wanted to let you know I understood and agreed with the natural/instinctual portion having a definite impact on overall behavior.David Caldwell
Caldwell for 2008 US President
David Caldwell | Homepage | 08.31.07 - 10:26 pm |
So Robert, does this suffice to make (3) and (4) reasonably agreeable, so as to move closer to me explanation on reprogramming and the kill switch? Basically they are designed to se if we agree that a large part of who we are comes from outside us, and that different experiences may have a profound impact on who we turn out to be, up to maybe 40% of the reason for behavior, which is where a bulk of psychologists would place it today, and with up to about 40% being a result of biological encoding.David Caldwell
Caldwell for 2008 US President
David Caldwell | | 08.31.07 - 10:35 pm |
I shouldn't have used the Frued reference. I don't even understand my id and my dickmind. Consciousness and subconscious better fit the explanation. Neuroscientists don't yet (and I think never will) fully understand consciousness. However, there is do doubt that there is an internal dialog in our mind. Dialog requires "two" and within these two sides our our mind we can form our own opinions and desires in regard to the market place.
You have a certain amount of legitimacy claiming that the environment (marketers) provide our options, thus provide the available spectrum. This implies an infinite amount of marketable items though. That simply isn't the case. No two paintings are the same but all paintings are paintings. What causes me to like a painting (that has no established value) and my neighbor to like another, will never be understood from a market perspective.
DC - "is the 'group thought' enough to keep them on their path as a group"
I don't think groups can have "a path" without artificial constructs such as Dogma or Fascist tenets. The only reason an individual can have "a path" is because they are "internally totalitarian."
Robert Sutton | | 08.31.07 - 10:37 pm |
If I had to make an uneducated superguesstimate.
1% genetic (unless there's an inherited mental illness)
+/- 99% comes from outside us
The important thing to note is that individuals have significant control on what "different experiences [we] may have" Certainly we have no choice in regards to gravity or much effect on the economy individually speaking. That's why marketers market iMind as the coolest of coolosity. That increases the "outside" power factor.
Robert Sutton | | 08.31.07 - 10:52 pm |
Artificial constructs are what I’m getting at, not naturally occurring (based on instinct). Quite a few people support a Parliamentarian system (most likely those raised with one), quite a few prefer a Constitutional Republic (the same). Pepsi is big up north in the US, while Coke-a-cola is big in the south (I know, there are Mountain Dewer’s and such, but generally). Is there something fundamentally biologically different in all these groups, or are they similar enough biologically that environment plays a significant role? At one time, people did not drink many sodas, though they were available, and now it is common to drink one without special time or occasion. Was there a genetic change, or a social change in behavior? This is distantly related to the reprogramming and the kill switch (means preventing behavior from traveling in a direction, not causing someone to go on a killing spree), only in a much longer term mannerI’ll have to get back to this in the morning.
David Caldwell
Caldwell for 2008 US President
David Caldwell | | 08.31.07 - 11:08 pm |
Decisions are made in the mind. Mind is not genetic. Marketers (and religion) strive to turn off the mind. Because if they are successful the flock give up their power of choice.
Don't be fooled by the determinist argument though. To submit will is an act of will.
Robert Sutton | | 08.31.07 - 11:20 pm |
What is this psychiatrist bull, DC?That is totally innapropriate and counter-productive.
Did you get an anonymous contribution?
.
Bone Head | 08.31.07 - 11:52 pm |
© blog.robertsutton.net
