If my analogy (and subsequent commentary) has failed to convince you of this, I’m not sure what more there is to say.
Well, you could, for example, address my bullet points. Honestly, I didn’t see any reasons against making a post yet from you. I’d only count the analogy as a reason if it’s meant to imply that everyone in LW is insane, which you hopefully do not believe. Also, I think you’re overestimating the time required for a proper post with proper arguments, compared to the time you put into these comments.
Citation needed.
Really? Take X=”a cake” and Y=”a turd”. Would you really not pay to upgrade? Or did you make some unwarranted assumptions about X and Y? Yes, when X and Y are very similar, people will sometimes not trade, because trading is a pain in the ass.
I’d only count the analogy as a reason if it’s meant to imply that everyone in LW is insane, which you hopefully do not believe.
Why insane? Even in the analogy, no one needs to be insane, only wildly mistaken (which I do indeed believe that many, maybe most, people on LW [of those who have an opinion on the subject at all] are, where utility functions and related topics are concerned).
That said, I will take your suggestion to write a post about this under advisement.
Because sane people can be reasoned with. If a sane person is wildly mistaken, and you correct them, in a way that’s not insulting and in a way that’s useful to them (as opposed to pedantry), they can be quite grateful for that, at least sometimes.
Really? Take X=“a cake” and Y=“a turd”. Would you really not pay to upgrade? Or did you make some unwarranted assumptions about X and Y? Yes, when X and Y are very similar, people will sometimes not trade, because trading is a pain in the ass.
Fair point. I was, indeed, making some unwarranted assumptions; your example is, of course, correct and illustrative.
However, this leaves us with the problem that, when those assumptions (which involve, e.g., X and Y both being preferred to some third alternative which might be described as “neutral”, or X and Y both being describable as “positive value” on some non-preference-ordering-based view of value, or something along such lines) are relaxed, we find that this…
most people would upgrade, for many instances of X and Y
… while now clearly true, is no longer a useful claim to make. Yes, perhaps most people would upgrade, for many instances of X and Y, but the claim in the OP can only be read as a universal claim—or else it’s vacuous. (Note also that transitive preferences are quite implausible in the absence of the aforesaid assumptions.)
those assumptions (which involve, e.g., X and Y both being preferred to some third alternative which might be described as “neutral”, or X and Y both being describable as “positive value” on some non-preference-ordering-based view of value, or something along such lines)
X being “good” and Y being “bad” has nothing to do with it (although those are the most obvious examples). E.g. if X=$200 and Y=$100, then anyone would also pay to upgrade, when clearly both X and Y are “good” things. Or if X=”flu” and Y=”cancer”, anyone would upgrade, when both are “bad”.
The only case where people really wouldn’t upgrade is when X and Y are in some sense very close, e.g. if we have Y < X < Y + “1 penny” + “5 minutes of my time”.
But I agree, it is indeed reasonable that if someone has intransitive preferences, those preferences are actually very close in this sense and money pumping doesn’t work.
Well, you could, for example, address my bullet points. Honestly, I didn’t see any reasons against making a post yet from you. I’d only count the analogy as a reason if it’s meant to imply that everyone in LW is insane, which you hopefully do not believe. Also, I think you’re overestimating the time required for a proper post with proper arguments, compared to the time you put into these comments.
Really? Take X=”a cake” and Y=”a turd”. Would you really not pay to upgrade? Or did you make some unwarranted assumptions about X and Y? Yes, when X and Y are very similar, people will sometimes not trade, because trading is a pain in the ass.
Why insane? Even in the analogy, no one needs to be insane, only wildly mistaken (which I do indeed believe that many, maybe most, people on LW [of those who have an opinion on the subject at all] are, where utility functions and related topics are concerned).
That said, I will take your suggestion to write a post about this under advisement.
Because sane people can be reasoned with. If a sane person is wildly mistaken, and you correct them, in a way that’s not insulting and in a way that’s useful to them (as opposed to pedantry), they can be quite grateful for that, at least sometimes.
Fair point. I was, indeed, making some unwarranted assumptions; your example is, of course, correct and illustrative.
However, this leaves us with the problem that, when those assumptions (which involve, e.g., X and Y both being preferred to some third alternative which might be described as “neutral”, or X and Y both being describable as “positive value” on some non-preference-ordering-based view of value, or something along such lines) are relaxed, we find that this…
… while now clearly true, is no longer a useful claim to make. Yes, perhaps most people would upgrade, for many instances of X and Y, but the claim in the OP can only be read as a universal claim—or else it’s vacuous. (Note also that transitive preferences are quite implausible in the absence of the aforesaid assumptions.)
X being “good” and Y being “bad” has nothing to do with it (although those are the most obvious examples). E.g. if X=$200 and Y=$100, then anyone would also pay to upgrade, when clearly both X and Y are “good” things. Or if X=”flu” and Y=”cancer”, anyone would upgrade, when both are “bad”.
The only case where people really wouldn’t upgrade is when X and Y are in some sense very close, e.g. if we have Y < X < Y + “1 penny” + “5 minutes of my time”.
But I agree, it is indeed reasonable that if someone has intransitive preferences, those preferences are actually very close in this sense and money pumping doesn’t work.