For a more elegant demonstration I think we have to turn to politics, where, at some point in 2008, a majority of U.S. voters simultaneously preferred Clinton to Obama, Obama to McCain and McCain to Clinton. In the entire space of sets of candidates, it seems plausible that there’s a large number I (insert “even me!” here) would have cyclic preferences over, if I didn’t explicitly try to construct a function—which implies that if I did construct a function it would be “wrong.”
You’re talking here about Condorcet cycles and they aren’t evidence people have irrational preferences.
I don’t think this is quite right. The problem seems to be that the OP confusingly conflates the following:
Condorcet cycles, which are cyclic preferences on the part of the entire electorate—a phenomenon which can sometimes emerge from the aggregated, transitive preferences of the individuals making up the electorate. As you note, that isn’t evidence that anyone is irrational.
Cyclic preferences on the part of individuals, which do actually seem to be kind of irrational.
The part you quoted seems to be talking about two different things at once. There’s a description of a Condorcet cycle (“a majority of U. S. voters simultaneously preferred …”) followed by a suggestion that most individuals have internal preferences that are cyclic in many cases (“it seems plausible that there’s a large number … I would have cyclic preferences over …”).
So, I think the post was confusing on this point—and possibly either sloppy or confused on the distinction between those two things—yet I think the OP intends to be talking about something other than Condorcet cycles, which are exclusively a group phenomenon. Insofar as the OP describes Condorcet cycles in the first part of the quoted passage, I think that’s a mistake but not the intended message of the post.
Sigh. Now we have to go into the details :-) Yes. The OP intends to be talking about something other than Condorcet cycles which is why I quoted the part where he was talking about them and told him that ‘here’ i.e. in the passage I quoted, he was talking about Condorcet cycles and that they are not evidence for his thesis that people have irrational preferences.
The OP isn’t conflating two things. I presume the poster didn’t realize there was another explanation for cyclical group preferences other than individuals having cyclical group preferences. It doesn’t mean the post is wrong overall, just that the piece of evidence I quoted isn’t support.
Insofar as the OP describes Condorcet cycles in the first part of the quoted passage, I think that’s a mistake but not the intended message of the post.
The quoted passage consists of describing a Condorcet cycle and concluding something about individual preferences from it. I was correcting this. I haven’t said anything about the intended message of the post.
You’re talking here about Condorcet cycles and they aren’t evidence people have irrational preferences.
I don’t think this is quite right. The problem seems to be that the OP confusingly conflates the following:
Condorcet cycles, which are cyclic preferences on the part of the entire electorate—a phenomenon which can sometimes emerge from the aggregated, transitive preferences of the individuals making up the electorate. As you note, that isn’t evidence that anyone is irrational.
Cyclic preferences on the part of individuals, which do actually seem to be kind of irrational.
Oh, whoops, forgot you could construct those out of liinear rankings! Arrow’s theorem or something, right?
Drat!
Right. Look at the part I quoted.
The part you quoted seems to be talking about two different things at once. There’s a description of a Condorcet cycle (“a majority of U. S. voters simultaneously preferred …”) followed by a suggestion that most individuals have internal preferences that are cyclic in many cases (“it seems plausible that there’s a large number … I would have cyclic preferences over …”).
So, I think the post was confusing on this point—and possibly either sloppy or confused on the distinction between those two things—yet I think the OP intends to be talking about something other than Condorcet cycles, which are exclusively a group phenomenon. Insofar as the OP describes Condorcet cycles in the first part of the quoted passage, I think that’s a mistake but not the intended message of the post.
Sigh. Now we have to go into the details :-) Yes. The OP intends to be talking about something other than Condorcet cycles which is why I quoted the part where he was talking about them and told him that ‘here’ i.e. in the passage I quoted, he was talking about Condorcet cycles and that they are not evidence for his thesis that people have irrational preferences.
The OP isn’t conflating two things. I presume the poster didn’t realize there was another explanation for cyclical group preferences other than individuals having cyclical group preferences. It doesn’t mean the post is wrong overall, just that the piece of evidence I quoted isn’t support.
The quoted passage consists of describing a Condorcet cycle and concluding something about individual preferences from it. I was correcting this. I haven’t said anything about the intended message of the post.