“A dollar means more to a poor person than it does to a rich person”
“A poor person is more likely to base his self-worth on how many dollars he owns than a rich person is likely to base his self-worth on how many dollars he owns.”
Huh? I don’t see these statements as equivalent at all. If I try to map the second sentence onto the first, I get “Dollars mean more to a poor person than they do to a rich person”. Use of the singular word dollar, to my dialect, rules out the “fraction of self-worth” interpretation.
Huh? I don’t see these statements as equivalent at all. [...] Use of the singular word dollar, to my dialect, rules out the “fraction of self-worth” interpretation.
Before I go any further I am making the prediction that if someone put a gun to your head and said, “Identify your political affiliation with a name or I will kill you now”, you would say “progressive”. (I’m putting a roughly 75% probability on that but perhaps a 60-80% threshold of confidence. Bear these numbers with salt; I believe humans are extremely poor at assigning probabilities.)
n+1 > n. Let “n” equal “the number of dollars the person owns”. If “A poor person is more likely to base his self-worth on how many dollars he owns than a rich person is likely to base his self-worth on how many dollars he owns” is true, then it stands that n+1 is a higher increase in self-worth for the ‘arbitrary’ poor person (compared to n) than is n+1 an increase compared to n for the ‘arbitrary’ rich person.
2\a. How does point #2 affect your assessment of the rephrasing being representative of the original phrase?
1\a. I am interested in knowing the accuracy of my prediction. :)
You are saying that your interpretation implies the original question. But that leaves the possibility of your question being a stronger statement than the original question. If a libertarian denies your interpretation that does not necessarily mean they deny the original question.
In other words, it is possible that if “A poor person is more likely to base his self-worth on how many dollars he owns than a rich person is likely to base his self-worth on how many dollars he owns” is false that “it stands that n+1 is a higher increase in self-worth for the ‘arbitrary’ poor person (compared to n) than is n+1 an increase compared to n for the ‘arbitrary’ rich person.” is also false.
In other words, just because poor people are not more likely to base their self-worth on dollars-owned than rich people, it does not mean that they necessarily do not value a dollar more than a rich person.
For example, a poor person may value the dollar more because it increases the amount of food they can buy to be enough to feed all their children. Perhaps they attach most of their self-worth to the ability to feed their children.
If your interpretation includes indirectly valuing dollars then the answer changes anyway.
You are saying that your interpretation implies the original question.
I’m saying it’s an interpretation of the original question, yes.
But that leaves the possibility of your question being a stronger statement than the original question.
… my question, as I have proposed it, IS the original question. Or, rather, it’s informational value is a subset of the informational value range available to the original question. Any assertions as to the potential strength of the original question, then, must include the rephrasing.
It’s definitionally impossible for “what that statement means to me” to be “a stronger statement than that statement”. It can be stronger than you intended—but communication requires two participants.
If a libertarian denies your interpretation that does not necessarily mean they deny the original question.
I in fact offered up two mutually exclusive intrepretations of the question. The fact remains that they are re-expressions of the same original question, however.
In other words, it is possible that [...] is also false.
I agree unequivocably.
In other words, just because a poor people are not more likely to base their self-worth on dollars-owned than rich people, it does not mean that they necessarily do not value a dollar more than a rich person.
Again, I agree unequivocably.
For example [...]
Sure, no problem, absolutely.
Now please explain to me why any of this is relevant to the conversation at hand. :)
You are saying that your interpretation implies the original question.
I’m saying it’s an interpretation of the original question, yes.
No. “A implies B” means either A&B, ~A&B, or ~A&~B. “A is an interpretation of B” means either A&B or ~A&~B, but excludes ~A&B. Let the statements be
(X) “A dollar means more to a poor person than it does to a rich person” (Y) “A poor person is more likely to base his self-worth on how many dollars he owns than a rich person is likely to base his self-worth on how many dollars he owns.”
You argued that Y implies X, but you didn’t do anything to argue against X&~Y. I happen to believe X&~Y, which makes these statements definitely not mere rephrasings of each other.
“A is an interpretation of B” means either A&B or ~A&~B, but excludes ~A&B
Let the statements be (X) [...] (Y)
Here’s your error. There’s a (Z).
(Z) “A poor person will suffer more for the lack of one dollar than a rich person will suffer for the lack of one dollar.”
Here’s what I originally said, broken into symbolic logic for you:
X ⊃ Z
X ⊃ Y
Y = ¬Z & Z = ¬Y
At no time did I say, however, that Y ⊃ Z. That assertion would be a direct contradiction of my last line in the comment:
Both of these rephrasings are potential “effectively synonymous” statements to the original question, but I hope that their answers are quite obviously inverted from each other.
I’m afraid I’m really going to have to ask you to explain what you mean by this. I find that there are too many potential reasons for making this statement, and of those I find to be remotely likely, I understand how they could be arrived at not at all.
This encourages readers to become mind-killed with respect to him.
I see.
You know, given what I’ve seen happening to the specific nature of the comment I make which get more than −5 score (For comparison I’m currently at about 50% of my peak ‘karma’ and am currently at ~-40 for my 30-day-interval) -- I can’t really gainsay you on the fact that your concern is legitimate.
That being said; the mere fact that I have a poltiical disagreement with someone is, in general, not sufficient grounds for me to cease evaluating his claims on their own merit. In fact; I find it more conducive to have our biases exposed from the outset, and that is why I identified myself as a libertarian from my first post in the thread; to help allow the reader to identify and if necessary correct for any political biases I may have.
That being said; the mere fact that I have a poltiical disagreement with someone is, in general, not sufficient grounds for me to cease evaluating his claims on their own merit.
How would you know that? People usually don’t think of themselves as biased, and are bad at evaluating how biased they are even if they acknowledge some bias.
People usually don’t think of themselves as biased
I have been known to go to absurd lengths to counteract the possibility of becoming biased in a given situation. Am I perfect? Of course not. But practicing excellence with compartmentalization, and with counterfactualization, as well as with maintaining comfort in the face of constant doubt, are all good tools for allowing yourself to believe you are correct while expecting yourself to be biased. (This is intentionally inducing cognitive dissonance and then adapting to the presence of said dissonance.)
and are bad at evaluating how biased they are even if they acknowledge some bias.
Very much so. And I would not even begin to pretend that I am “perfect” in this area. But experience and the observations of others have shown me that I am the least likely person I know—or have encountered—to allow political, emotional, or biological (as in sexual, dietary, etc..) investment to interfere with my ability to take the outside view. Why this is so, I am not remotely certain.
I’ve also built up, over time, a laundry list of habitual behaviors designed to mitigate biases regardless of whether I am aware of them—such as my habit of attempting to parse arguments down as far as possible, of demanding definitions for ‘fuzzy’ topics, of being able to persuasively reformulate the arguments of others in language consistent with their own positions (to demonstrate comprehension of their position as they understand it.)
n+1 > n. Let “n” equal “the number of dollars the person owns”. If “A poor person is more likely to base his self-worth on how many dollars he owns than a rich person is likely to base his self-worth on how many dollars he owns” is true, then it stands that n+1 is a higher increase in self-worth for the ‘arbitrary’ poor person (compared to n) than is n+1 an increase compared to n for the ‘arbitrary’ rich person.
The poor person and the rich person have different values of n so their marginal rate is different. That doesn’t comment on how much of their self-worth if a function of their total amount of money. This is sort of akin to how freshmen calculus students confuse a function being small with it having a small derivative.
This is sort of akin to how freshmen calculus students confuse a function being small with it having a small derivative.
See my other comment to you with example numbers. We can discuss the probability of those numbers being accurate, but they demonstrate the principle at hand, and that is sufficient to my position here. (Again; I don’t care one way or the other if the intrepretation is right—it need only be demonstrated a valid interpretation of the question).
Huh? I don’t see these statements as equivalent at all. If I try to map the second sentence onto the first, I get “Dollars mean more to a poor person than they do to a rich person”. Use of the singular word dollar, to my dialect, rules out the “fraction of self-worth” interpretation.
For that matter, where is a marginal dollar going to make a bigger hit to self worth?
Before I go any further I am making the prediction that if someone put a gun to your head and said, “Identify your political affiliation with a name or I will kill you now”, you would say “progressive”. (I’m putting a roughly 75% probability on that but perhaps a 60-80% threshold of confidence. Bear these numbers with salt; I believe humans are extremely poor at assigning probabilities.)
n+1 > n. Let “n” equal “the number of dollars the person owns”. If “A poor person is more likely to base his self-worth on how many dollars he owns than a rich person is likely to base his self-worth on how many dollars he owns” is true, then it stands that n+1 is a higher increase in self-worth for the ‘arbitrary’ poor person (compared to n) than is n+1 an increase compared to n for the ‘arbitrary’ rich person.
2\a. How does point #2 affect your assessment of the rephrasing being representative of the original phrase?
1\a. I am interested in knowing the accuracy of my prediction. :)
You are saying that your interpretation implies the original question. But that leaves the possibility of your question being a stronger statement than the original question. If a libertarian denies your interpretation that does not necessarily mean they deny the original question.
In other words, it is possible that if “A poor person is more likely to base his self-worth on how many dollars he owns than a rich person is likely to base his self-worth on how many dollars he owns” is false that “it stands that n+1 is a higher increase in self-worth for the ‘arbitrary’ poor person (compared to n) than is n+1 an increase compared to n for the ‘arbitrary’ rich person.” is also false.
In other words, just because poor people are not more likely to base their self-worth on dollars-owned than rich people, it does not mean that they necessarily do not value a dollar more than a rich person.
For example, a poor person may value the dollar more because it increases the amount of food they can buy to be enough to feed all their children. Perhaps they attach most of their self-worth to the ability to feed their children.
If your interpretation includes indirectly valuing dollars then the answer changes anyway.
I’m saying it’s an interpretation of the original question, yes.
… my question, as I have proposed it, IS the original question. Or, rather, it’s informational value is a subset of the informational value range available to the original question. Any assertions as to the potential strength of the original question, then, must include the rephrasing.
It’s definitionally impossible for “what that statement means to me” to be “a stronger statement than that statement”. It can be stronger than you intended—but communication requires two participants.
I in fact offered up two mutually exclusive intrepretations of the question. The fact remains that they are re-expressions of the same original question, however.
I agree unequivocably.
Again, I agree unequivocably.
Sure, no problem, absolutely.
Now please explain to me why any of this is relevant to the conversation at hand. :)
No. “A implies B” means either A&B, ~A&B, or ~A&~B. “A is an interpretation of B” means either A&B or ~A&~B, but excludes ~A&B. Let the statements be
(X) “A dollar means more to a poor person than it does to a rich person”
(Y) “A poor person is more likely to base his self-worth on how many dollars he owns than a rich person is likely to base his self-worth on how many dollars he owns.”
You argued that Y implies X, but you didn’t do anything to argue against X&~Y. I happen to believe X&~Y, which makes these statements definitely not mere rephrasings of each other.
Here’s your error. There’s a (Z).
(Z) “A poor person will suffer more for the lack of one dollar than a rich person will suffer for the lack of one dollar.”
Here’s what I originally said, broken into symbolic logic for you:
X ⊃ Z
X ⊃ Y
Y = ¬Z & Z = ¬Y
At no time did I say, however, that Y ⊃ Z. That assertion would be a direct contradiction of my last line in the comment:
I hope you are not trying to poison the well.
I’m afraid I’m really going to have to ask you to explain what you mean by this. I find that there are too many potential reasons for making this statement, and of those I find to be remotely likely, I understand how they could be arrived at not at all.
You are causing us to think of him as a “progressive”. This encourages readers to become mind-killed with respect to him.
I see.
You know, given what I’ve seen happening to the specific nature of the comment I make which get more than −5 score (For comparison I’m currently at about 50% of my peak ‘karma’ and am currently at ~-40 for my 30-day-interval) -- I can’t really gainsay you on the fact that your concern is legitimate.
That being said; the mere fact that I have a poltiical disagreement with someone is, in general, not sufficient grounds for me to cease evaluating his claims on their own merit. In fact; I find it more conducive to have our biases exposed from the outset, and that is why I identified myself as a libertarian from my first post in the thread; to help allow the reader to identify and if necessary correct for any political biases I may have.
How would you know that? People usually don’t think of themselves as biased, and are bad at evaluating how biased they are even if they acknowledge some bias.
I have been known to go to absurd lengths to counteract the possibility of becoming biased in a given situation. Am I perfect? Of course not. But practicing excellence with compartmentalization, and with counterfactualization, as well as with maintaining comfort in the face of constant doubt, are all good tools for allowing yourself to believe you are correct while expecting yourself to be biased. (This is intentionally inducing cognitive dissonance and then adapting to the presence of said dissonance.)
Very much so. And I would not even begin to pretend that I am “perfect” in this area. But experience and the observations of others have shown me that I am the least likely person I know—or have encountered—to allow political, emotional, or biological (as in sexual, dietary, etc..) investment to interfere with my ability to take the outside view. Why this is so, I am not remotely certain.
I’ve also built up, over time, a laundry list of habitual behaviors designed to mitigate biases regardless of whether I am aware of them—such as my habit of attempting to parse arguments down as far as possible, of demanding definitions for ‘fuzzy’ topics, of being able to persuasively reformulate the arguments of others in language consistent with their own positions (to demonstrate comprehension of their position as they understand it.)
The poor person and the rich person have different values of n so their marginal rate is different. That doesn’t comment on how much of their self-worth if a function of their total amount of money. This is sort of akin to how freshmen calculus students confuse a function being small with it having a small derivative.
See my other comment to you with example numbers. We can discuss the probability of those numbers being accurate, but they demonstrate the principle at hand, and that is sufficient to my position here. (Again; I don’t care one way or the other if the intrepretation is right—it need only be demonstrated a valid interpretation of the question).